The World Health Organization put out its first annual World Report on Violence and Health last week. Reuters used the data annex to construct this “graphic”. Take a good look at it. How many things wrong with it can you find?
First off, the statistics in the upper half of the graphic are not per 100,000 deaths, but per 100,000 people, per year.
Second, comparing the European region to the region of the Americas might lead you to conclude that Europe and America have similar rates of violent death. But if you read the report you’ll find that the statistics for the European region include all of the former Soviet Union, while the Americas includes all of Latin America.
What are the statistics for the US vs. Western Europe, then? The WHO does not break down the figures according to region, but according to income, into high and low/middle subgroups. The high income subgroup for the Americas includes only The Bahamas, Canada and the US–basically, the US. The high income subgroup for Europe is pretty much just Western Europe.
Suicide in the rich Europe stood at 10.5 per 100,000 people per year, vs. 10.6 in rich Americas. On the graphic, it appears that a lot more Europeans than Americans are offing themselves. Apparently, this is because in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe it’s the done thing. In South America, however, a strongly Catholic ethic against preempting the Lord seems to prevail. This explains the discrepancy.
Regarding homicides, rich Europe killed at a rate of 1.0 per 100,000 people per year, vs. 6.5 in the US. The rest of Europe murdered at a rate of 14.8/100,000/yr, while the rest of the Americas shed blood at the rate of 27.5/100,000/yr.
Combined figures how that in the US 17.2/100,000/yr die through “intentional injury”, vs. 11.5 in Western Europe. (Deaths caused by war were negligible in both regions).
So here is some news you can use: You are 50% more likely to die a violent death in the US than in Western Europe. However, if you do kill someone in Western Europe, the victim is 10 times more likely to be you than somebody else. Now that’s civilized.
[Mon, Oct 07 2002 – 10:17] Felix (www) (email) what’s this obsession with “per year”? It doesn’t change anything, and I’m not convinced that it actually means anything. What would be the difference between having 15 murders per 100,000 deaths per year, and having 15 murders per 100,000 deaths per month, or per day?
[Mon, Oct 07 2002 – 11:08] Stefan Geens (email) Oh, dear, it hasn’t really sunk in has it? It’s not per 100,000 deaths. It’s per 100,000 people. In other words, we’re measuring what percentage of a population dies off every year. 10 people per 100,000 people dying in a month and 10 people per 100,000 people dying in a year is a big difference. Reuters can’t spot the difference between 100,000 dead people and 100,000 live people, but I assure you there is one.