The article scrutinizes the viral headline. They conclude that it is mostly true, despite major statistical blunders.
As you'd expect from any viral headline there are things that invite misinterpretation. From the article:
> when [...] expressing both figures as rates per 100,000 people, the picture shifts. “Gun deaths in the US are now slightly larger than European heat death rates,” she wrote.
> What the data is actually showing, she argued, is something simpler: status quo bias. [...] Europe would never absorb tens of thousands of annual gun deaths without demanding legislative action. America would never absorb tens of thousands of annual heat deaths without demanding someone install a thermostat. [...] Things don’t have to be this bad. It’s a choice.
The article scrutinizes the viral headline. They conclude that it is mostly true, despite major statistical blunders.
As you'd expect from any viral headline there are things that invite misinterpretation. From the article:
> when [...] expressing both figures as rates per 100,000 people, the picture shifts. “Gun deaths in the US are now slightly larger than European heat death rates,” she wrote.
> What the data is actually showing, she argued, is something simpler: status quo bias. [...] Europe would never absorb tens of thousands of annual gun deaths without demanding legislative action. America would never absorb tens of thousands of annual heat deaths without demanding someone install a thermostat. [...] Things don’t have to be this bad. It’s a choice.
That last point for me is crucial. That's why the comparison IMO holds - a mostly preventable cause of death, ignored for political reasons.