Sorry to be picky. Your sentence; "Although the group most impacted is male, that observation does not discount the 22% of females who take their lives this way."
Obviously, 22% of females do not take their lives this way, it is 22% of those who take their lives this way that are female. It would be better and more accurate for your wording to be: "Although the group most impacted is male, that observation does not discount the 22% of those who take their lives this way that are female." When siting statistics is is essential to make clear what is the population of concern, in this case the population of those committing suicide by hanging, and not the population of females.
Again sorry to be picky, this is a pet peeve of mine.
This reminds me of the recent NYT article claiming (falsely) that more women die from heart attacks than men, which you might be interested in. It makes this same mistake of misrepresenting the population in question mistaking the study population (those who present to the ER with a heart attack) to represent the entire population.
It reads: "And women under 55 are more likely to die from heart attacks than men under 55." When in fact it was only the death rate of those presenting to emergency care that had a barely clinically significant death rate for STEMI heart attacks. The death rate for men in the general population remains over 3 times that of women in the general population, but the attention is again focused on the much smaller and barely significant risks of those presenting to the ER, and only for STEMI heart attacks and not NSTEMI heart attacks... The endless cycle continues; a) all disparities are female, b) we must find and massage all data to reenforce this narrative, c) when the evidence does not fit, we relax our standards to make it fit.
Thank you for that point. I did use the phrase this way and suppose that was assumed. But your edit is noted—a bit crisper and easier to see the comparison. Thanks!
Do check out the NYTs article, it is a prime example of a journalism primed to only see female disparities, at the sacrifice of a reasonable analysis of the data (which should be the job of every health reporter).
The black folks I work with very much feel they are being hunted by whytes. I stupidly asked for the evidence that supports this narrative, but thankfully just shut up after that having realized the insanity of even asking that question.
When reality is uncooperative confirmation bias must suffice.
Thank you, Sean.
Sorry to be picky. Your sentence; "Although the group most impacted is male, that observation does not discount the 22% of females who take their lives this way."
Obviously, 22% of females do not take their lives this way, it is 22% of those who take their lives this way that are female. It would be better and more accurate for your wording to be: "Although the group most impacted is male, that observation does not discount the 22% of those who take their lives this way that are female." When siting statistics is is essential to make clear what is the population of concern, in this case the population of those committing suicide by hanging, and not the population of females.
Again sorry to be picky, this is a pet peeve of mine.
This reminds me of the recent NYT article claiming (falsely) that more women die from heart attacks than men, which you might be interested in. It makes this same mistake of misrepresenting the population in question mistaking the study population (those who present to the ER with a heart attack) to represent the entire population.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/06/well/heart-disease-young-women.html?searchResultPosition=1
It reads: "And women under 55 are more likely to die from heart attacks than men under 55." When in fact it was only the death rate of those presenting to emergency care that had a barely clinically significant death rate for STEMI heart attacks. The death rate for men in the general population remains over 3 times that of women in the general population, but the attention is again focused on the much smaller and barely significant risks of those presenting to the ER, and only for STEMI heart attacks and not NSTEMI heart attacks... The endless cycle continues; a) all disparities are female, b) we must find and massage all data to reenforce this narrative, c) when the evidence does not fit, we relax our standards to make it fit.
Thank you for that point. I did use the phrase this way and suppose that was assumed. But your edit is noted—a bit crisper and easier to see the comparison. Thanks!
Thanks for taking my pickiness so nicely.
Do check out the NYTs article, it is a prime example of a journalism primed to only see female disparities, at the sacrifice of a reasonable analysis of the data (which should be the job of every health reporter).
The black folks I work with very much feel they are being hunted by whytes. I stupidly asked for the evidence that supports this narrative, but thankfully just shut up after that having realized the insanity of even asking that question.