The article mentioned that the overall percentage decrease had accounted for the decline in the overall number of workers, but the construction figures made no mention of whether the touted “20% decrease” in fatalities at all accounted for any decrease in the overall number of workers in that industry.
Claification- they mentioned the decrease, but didn’t attach any number data to the decrease in the number of workers employed in construction. Without that comparison, the 20% is an irrelevant number.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
The article mentioned that the overall percentage decrease had accounted for the decline in the overall number of workers, but the construction figures made no mention of whether the touted “20% decrease” in fatalities at all accounted for any decrease in the overall number of workers in that industry.
Claification- they mentioned the decrease, but didn’t attach any number data to the decrease in the number of workers employed in construction. Without that comparison, the 20% is an irrelevant number.
You said it — While the raw numbers are meaningful, they aren’t terribly useful for year-on-year comparisons.
The only useful numbers for that purpose are in the second paragraph, where they show the deaths per 100 000 Full-time equivalent employees.
Too bad they didn’t stick with that statistic through the article.