Is X safer with Y or Z? Is this post correct?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
I stumbled on a post in Reddit that says that children are 5% safer with priests than with relatives. The post was apparently a reply to another post that said that church is not safe, presumably for kids.
To reach the conclusion, the person who posted the information made some statistical calculations. Here is the transcript:
Around 1000 children were reportedly abused since the 1940s. That's like 70 years, about 15 children per year. Let's say that the real figure is ten times that, 150 children per year. I don't know if the crimes happened more in any given years. The population of Pennsylvania is around 12 million. About 20% are under 18. In Pennsylvania, Wikipedia tells us that 29% of people are Roman Catholics. That means that 1 out of 4600 Catholic minors was abused yearly. That is 0.02% of Catholic youths were being abused yearly.
According to the Department of Justice about 60k child sex abuse reports were made in 2012 in the US. There are about 75 million minors. Therefore in the general population, around one child is sexually abused per every 1250 or 0.08% per year. The priest abuse rate in Pennsylvania is about 0.02%, so child sex abuse by priests is 25% that of the rate of the abuse by the general population. In addition, 30% of abuse is done by relatives of the child.
In conclusion, a child is at least 75% safer with a Pennsylvania priest than with the US general population and a child is 5% safer with a Pennsylvania priest than than with relatives.
So my question is, does the math verifies the conclusion that a child is 5% safer with a Pennsylvania priest than with relatives? If not, what was wrong in the calculation and what would be the mathematical conclusion?
statistics proof-verification
asked Aug 17 at 22:28
freethinker36
1095
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
I stumbled on a post in Reddit that says that children are 5% safer with priests than with relatives. The post was apparently a reply to another post that said that church is not safe, presumably for kids.
To reach the conclusion, the person who posted the information made some statistical calculations. Here is the transcript:
Around 1000 children were reportedly abused since the 1940s. That's like 70 years, about 15 children per year. Let's say that the real figure is ten times that, 150 children per year. I don't know if the crimes happened more in any given years. The population of Pennsylvania is around 12 million. About 20% are under 18. In Pennsylvania, Wikipedia tells us that 29% of people are Roman Catholics. That means that 1 out of 4600 Catholic minors was abused yearly. That is 0.02% of Catholic youths were being abused yearly.
According to the Department of Justice about 60k child sex abuse reports were made in 2012 in the US. There are about 75 million minors. Therefore in the general population, around one child is sexually abused per every 1250 or 0.08% per year. The priest abuse rate in Pennsylvania is about 0.02%, so child sex abuse by priests is 25% that of the rate of the abuse by the general population. In addition, 30% of abuse is done by relatives of the child.
In conclusion, a child is at least 75% safer with a Pennsylvania priest than with the US general population and a child is 5% safer with a Pennsylvania priest than than with relatives.
So my question is, does the math verifies the conclusion that a child is 5% safer with a Pennsylvania priest than with relatives? If not, what was wrong in the calculation and what would be the mathematical conclusion?
statistics proof-verification
asked Aug 17 at 22:28
freethinker36
1095
2
There are so many things wrong with that I'm not sure where to start. So many false assumptions.
– Rushabh Mehta
Aug 17 at 22:34
As if any such computation could diminish the impact of any abuse of any child?
– BruceET
Aug 17 at 23:24
Disappointed. What happened to the unbiased scientific mind just looking at the math issue at hand?
– freethinker36
Aug 19 at 4:09
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
I stumbled on a post in Reddit that says that children are 5% safer with priests than with relatives. The post was apparently a reply to another post that said that church is not safe, presumably for kids.
To reach the conclusion, the person who posted the information made some statistical calculations. Here is the transcript:
Around 1000 children were reportedly abused since the 1940s. That's like 70 years, about 15 children per year. Let's say that the real figure is ten times that, 150 children per year. I don't know if the crimes happened more in any given years. The population of Pennsylvania is around 12 million. About 20% are under 18. In Pennsylvania, Wikipedia tells us that 29% of people are Roman Catholics. That means that 1 out of 4600 Catholic minors was abused yearly. That is 0.02% of Catholic youths were being abused yearly.
According to the Department of Justice about 60k child sex abuse reports were made in 2012 in the US. There are about 75 million minors. Therefore in the general population, around one child is sexually abused per every 1250 or 0.08% per year. The priest abuse rate in Pennsylvania is about 0.02%, so child sex abuse by priests is 25% that of the rate of the abuse by the general population. In addition, 30% of abuse is done by relatives of the child.
In conclusion, a child is at least 75% safer with a Pennsylvania priest than with the US general population and a child is 5% safer with a Pennsylvania priest than than with relatives.
So my question is, does the math verifies the conclusion that a child is 5% safer with a Pennsylvania priest than with relatives? If not, what was wrong in the calculation and what would be the mathematical conclusion?
statistics proof-verification
asked Aug 17 at 22:28
freethinker36
1095
I stumbled on a post in Reddit that says that children are 5% safer with priests than with relatives. The post was apparently a reply to another post that said that church is not safe, presumably for kids.
To reach the conclusion, the person who posted the information made some statistical calculations. Here is the transcript:
Around 1000 children were reportedly abused since the 1940s. That's like 70 years, about 15 children per year. Let's say that the real figure is ten times that, 150 children per year. I don't know if the crimes happened more in any given years. The population of Pennsylvania is around 12 million. About 20% are under 18. In Pennsylvania, Wikipedia tells us that 29% of people are Roman Catholics. That means that 1 out of 4600 Catholic minors was abused yearly. That is 0.02% of Catholic youths were being abused yearly.
According to the Department of Justice about 60k child sex abuse reports were made in 2012 in the US. There are about 75 million minors. Therefore in the general population, around one child is sexually abused per every 1250 or 0.08% per year. The priest abuse rate in Pennsylvania is about 0.02%, so child sex abuse by priests is 25% that of the rate of the abuse by the general population. In addition, 30% of abuse is done by relatives of the child.
In conclusion, a child is at least 75% safer with a Pennsylvania priest than with the US general population and a child is 5% safer with a Pennsylvania priest than than with relatives.
So my question is, does the math verifies the conclusion that a child is 5% safer with a Pennsylvania priest than with relatives? If not, what was wrong in the calculation and what would be the mathematical conclusion?
statistics proof-verification
asked Aug 17 at 22:28
freethinker36
1095
asked Aug 17 at 22:28
freethinker36
1095
asked Aug 17 at 22:28
freethinker36
1095
asked Aug 17 at 22:28
freethinker36
1095
1095
2
There are so many things wrong with that I'm not sure where to start. So many false assumptions.
– Rushabh Mehta
Aug 17 at 22:34
As if any such computation could diminish the impact of any abuse of any child?
– BruceET
Aug 17 at 23:24
Disappointed. What happened to the unbiased scientific mind just looking at the math issue at hand?
– freethinker36
Aug 19 at 4:09
add a comment |Â
2
There are so many things wrong with that I'm not sure where to start. So many false assumptions.
– Rushabh Mehta
Aug 17 at 22:34
As if any such computation could diminish the impact of any abuse of any child?
– BruceET
Aug 17 at 23:24
Disappointed. What happened to the unbiased scientific mind just looking at the math issue at hand?
– freethinker36
Aug 19 at 4:09
2
2
There are so many things wrong with that I'm not sure where to start. So many false assumptions.
– Rushabh Mehta
Aug 17 at 22:34
There are so many things wrong with that I'm not sure where to start. So many false assumptions.
– Rushabh Mehta
Aug 17 at 22:34
As if any such computation could diminish the impact of any abuse of any child?
– BruceET
Aug 17 at 23:24
As if any such computation could diminish the impact of any abuse of any child?
– BruceET
Aug 17 at 23:24
Disappointed. What happened to the unbiased scientific mind just looking at the math issue at hand?
– freethinker36
Aug 19 at 4:09
Disappointed. What happened to the unbiased scientific mind just looking at the math issue at hand?
– freethinker36
Aug 19 at 4:09
add a comment |Â
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2886253%2fis-x-safer-with-y-or-z-is-this-post-correct%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
2
There are so many things wrong with that I'm not sure where to start. So many false assumptions.
– Rushabh Mehta
Aug 17 at 22:34
As if any such computation could diminish the impact of any abuse of any child?
– BruceET
Aug 17 at 23:24
Disappointed. What happened to the unbiased scientific mind just looking at the math issue at hand?
– freethinker36
Aug 19 at 4:09