Death Cause Comparisons
Commenters debate the importance of a low death toll from a specific cause (e.g., ~90 US deaths/year) by contrasting it with major killers like car crashes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, arguing over preventability and statistical relevance.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
Read the article. It’s referring to mortality from other causes (road accidents/rail accidents,etc)
The tiny, tiny percentage of interactions that are fatal account for the largest causes of death for certain groups.source: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793
Be realistic, you are more likely to die from cardiovascular issues or car crashes.
Fair, but globally it causes something like 60 thousand deaths per year (out of 55 million or so). That’s nothing to sniff at, but certainly in the realm of something you are very unlikely to die from. For comparison, cardiovascular disease kills about 17 million people per year.
The top risk factors for death confirm what you say, sadly.https://ourworldindata.org/causes-of-death#the-number-of-dea...
90 deaths per year in the US is a absolutely tiny amount. You are more at risk for almost any disease, not to mention getting hit by a car.
That's a matter of numbers. Lots of people die in unfortunate ways. I'd just rather not be one of them.
this is like saying 99.9% of the time cause of death is either due to sickness, old age, or accident.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see the relevance of your question.Does it somehow make it less relevant to fix a cause of death because more people die of other unrelated causes?Far more people die in accidents than any other causes of death in the U.S., seemingly only beat by cancer and heart disease. That doesn’t make every other cause of death any less troubling or worth fixing, and it certainly does not mean that one should hold back existing treatments for “lesser” deaths or injuries.Any a
Seems pretty dumb to only compare it to causes of death that add up to 7% of deaths.