Because...? Merely asserting that something is true doesn't make it so. Heart attacks at WHL appear to happen at roughly the frequency that you'd expect them to. Deaths amongst migrant workers in Qatar do not. You've also compared incidents that may result in death, but which don't necessarily do so, with actual deaths.
my comment was perhaps a little unfair, but so was yours imo. to look at (albeit not very detailed) statistical information comparing heart attacks at football matches and deaths on building sites, and to work out which is the statistically more likely to occur, and based on that analysis concluding which of the activities is the more dangerous, is completely logical and has a basis in reality. taking two completely random and clearly totally unrelated trends and saying that one is the cause of the other is completely illogical and has no basis in reality.
Seems logical to me The U.S had great success too in reducing road deaths by importing lemons from Mexico please log in to view this image
Heart attacks at football matches appear to happen at roughly the rate that they happen everywhere else. Deaths in the construction industry in Qatar don't appear to happen at the same rate that they happen in other countries. You also appear to have the workers in your example working 24/7, 365 days a year. Freudian slip?
i can't believe that this thread, having been infested up until now with people who see the word "slave" in the newspaper and assume that people are being chained up and flogged to death and are unable to accept that that is not the case no matter what they are told and no matter what evidence is presented to them, is now suddenly infested with people who think that concluding that one place is more dangerous than another based on an analysis of relevant statistics, is somehow akin to concluding that a statistical trend in one event is caused by a completely random and unrelated matter, just because the unrelated matter has a trend of a similar appearance. what are the odds of that happening ? what you are identifying are called "coincidences". what i have identified are not.
why would it be a freudian slip ? that doesn't appear to make any more sense than your coincidence graph. my stats assume that the number of deaths stat provided in the papers is of workers who die whilst in the country. it's unclear whether that is the case or not. even if it isn't though, then attending white hart lane would still be around 10 times more dangerous than labouring in qatar. on what basis have you concluded that deaths are more likely to occur in the qatari construction industry than in other industries ? is there any evidence which supports this contention ?
The workers there have been forced to work, had their wages withheld and cannot leave. Not being fed, not being given water and dying at a concerning rate. What part of that doesn't sound like slavery to you? The numbers are for on site deaths, according to the article. http://www.qatarunderconstruction.org/category/articles/building-culture-safety-qatar/ "The United States had a fatal occupational injury rate of 3.5 workers per 100,000 in 2011, while the United Kingdom boasts a rate of .6 deaths per 100,000 workers. Qatar’s rate is double that of the European Union, according to the National Health Strategy 2011-2016. Considering Qatar’s impressive financial resources, the question arises why its rate of workplace–related deaths is higher than other developed regions."
a) i have never said that it couldn;t be classed as "slavery". what i have said is that it isn't the type of slavery that people on here have assumed it to be. the number of deaths is a red herring, as i have said numerous times. b) (as per the edit that i made in my previous post just before you posted), that would still mean that it was 10 times more dangerous to go to white hart lane than to be doing labouring work in qatar. c) so what if it's double the EU ? According to your stats, the US's death rate is almost 6 times the UK's. Why aren't people kicking up a fuss about america's death rates ? as for the rate in qatar being double the EU, perhaps the fact that it's 50 degrees for much of the year might have something to do with it ? if people in the eu are so concerned about it, why don't they give visas and jobs to the workers so that they can come to europe instead ? they go to qatar because that's the best opportunity they have, no matter how **** it is.
What a waste of time, SC only provided one yrs figure, could have been exceptionally high, last year could have none. So your marvelous mathmatical piece atm doesn't really prove anything, those figures could be horribly distorted from the average figure.
My posts were supposed to illustrate the very point that PnP's graphs show: that is a correlation isn't any sort of proof of causality. I wasn't trying to argue that football matches were dangerous - simply that heart attacks took place everywhere so some of them would be at WHL. It is not possible to deduce whether conditions for Nepalese workers are causing deaths in Qatar unless you know the rate of deaths for a similar population of Nepalese elsewhere. I've searched the net for such data but can't find anything. Given the topic under discussion, deaths in construction of the last few World Cup stadia would be interesting but I can't find that either. What I am pretty sure about is that the conditions under which Qatari immigrant labour works will be greatly improved by the international focus on their plight. That in itself is a good result of the World Cup going there.
here's a wider range of statistics then : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8546070.stm this article sites around 1 in every 600,000 spectators having a heart attack. based on the average fan being in the ground for 2 hours that's around 1 heart attack for every 1,200,000 hours watching. compare that to 400 ? deaths per year amongst 1.2m qatari labourers, working say 50 hours a week, that's 3,000,000,000 man hours so a death around every 7,500,000 hours working. so assuming that all the heart attack victims died and that nobody died of any other causes at football matches, then it would be 6 times more dangerous to attend a football match in the UK than to work as a labourer in qatar. So I ask my question again. Will Qatar allow England to enter the world cup bearing in mind the danger faced by spectators when they attend a football match in england ? Bearing in mind that people regard qatari labourers as slaves, and yet it is 6 times more dangerous to watch football in an english league football ground than it is to be a labourer in qatar, when will this issue of the english football stadiums be dealt with ? when will it receive the appropriate press coverage ? what will be done about it ? when will people make a stand ?
you don't think that there is any causality between the number of deaths in an environment and the level of danger which exists in that environment ? seems a bit strange to me.
Of course there is. But to prove the assertion and get a handle on the importance of the various factors you need measurements on groups exposed to the dangers and groups who were not exposed
It's actually 1 per 200,000 per year at the moment in the UK. Most deaths are falls from height and crushing, and I would expect that to be true all over the world. You're more likely to be assaulted and killed by a fellow worker than have a heart attack on a UK construction site. One death per 200,000 workers is still one death too many. Every single one of them is preventable. Figures are on the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) website. Rob, please accept that any type of worker deaths are morally wrong and there's no defence. If the very same labourers worked on UK construction sites, not only would they be paid the same as UK workers, they would have the same level of protection as the managing project director.
I agree with your logic, but are you sure about the heart attacks statistic - I didn't think that deaths at work from 'natural causes' were recorded in these statistics from HSE. People should not be at risk of being injured from going to work but the employer can't affect the incidence of natural deaths.
Wow, just wow. We don't have stats on how many workers in Qatar survived their heart attacks, but you're willing to use this stat to back up your argument anyway. In England, 11% of heart attack patients in 2010 died within 30 days, so that means only around 1 in 5.67m football fans are dying of heart attacks per year. Base that on 2 hours at a ground, that's a death in every 11,340,000 hours watching. Plus I'd hazard a guess that these are mostly older people having these heart attacks at matches, whereas a manual workforce is likely to be much younger on average.
I see more than 1/4 of people living in London are living in poverty : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24517391 More reason for Qatar to ban England from the world cup ?
