Which doesn't make any sense...
We could be looking at a typical day for a soldier and his wife. The soldiers goes out and shoots at people, get shot at, but comes out unscathed. The wife at home however, burns her finger while making a pot roast.
If we used your method, we would have to conclude that the wife had the more dangerous day. That would be absurd. It would make more sense to just subjectively consider the difficulty of avoiding danger on the job. Is it harder to avoid getting shot? Or is it harder to cook a pot roast without getting burned? Probably getting shot, right?
No, statistics measure and assess danger would work over time given populations, and sampling would want to model what is going on in those populations, they aren't deciphered anecdotally like this.
If we took all incidences of cooking, and all incidences of soldiers in fire fights, then we looked at both the rate and severity of injuries incurred we could assess how dangerous relatively those two actions are.
Upvote
0