![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There was a story on the radio this morning about a NATO official claiming that Kabul was safer for children than London, New York or Glasgow. This was followed by the usual predictable stream of denunciations and cries of what an appalling thing this was to say. But nobody directly addressed the truth of the statement. And I'd really like to know that: I expect it not to be true, but wouldn't be all that surprised if it weren't (low-intensity warfare versus heavy road traffic: fight!) The closest anyone came was Save the Children (not, IIRC, quoted in the radio report, but quoted in my link above) who gave some horrific stats for child deaths in the whole of Afghanistan. But the NATO dude had been specifically talking about Kabul, which he claims is much safer for children than the rest of the country.
A Glasgow City Council spokesman even said "This comparison will simply lead people in Glasgow, London and New York to pull out the statistics showing how very wrong he is". Fine! Do that! You're Glasgow City Council, you must know the number of children per thousand who die in Glasgow per year. Then someone else can pull out the relevant figures for Kabul, and we can work out who was right. I've been looking, but I can't find either set of stats: has anyone reading this got better Google-fu?
Here's how I would like to have seen it reported:![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
oedipamaas49 and cyocum. However, his broader point - that deaths due to violence make up only a small part of Afghanistan's appalling child mortality problem - is true and important.
A Glasgow City Council spokesman even said "This comparison will simply lead people in Glasgow, London and New York to pull out the statistics showing how very wrong he is". Fine! Do that! You're Glasgow City Council, you must know the number of children per thousand who die in Glasgow per year. Then someone else can pull out the relevant figures for Kabul, and we can work out who was right. I've been looking, but I can't find either set of stats: has anyone reading this got better Google-fu?
Here's how I would like to have seen it reported:
Children may be safer growing up in Kabul than they are in London, Glasgow or New York, a Nato official has said.Edit: It appears that Sedwill's claims are wrong: see comments for details. Thanks to
Mark Sedwill said the Afghan capital, as a "city of villages", was better for youngsters than many Western cities, despite dangers posed by the conflict.
The death rate among children under 13 in 2009 was W1 deaths per thousand per year in London, X1 in Glasgow, Y1 in New York and Z1 in Kabul (compared to Z1' before the war). Considering only violent or accidental deaths, the figures were W2, X2, Y2 and Z2 respectively. See our interactive infographic for a more detailed breakdown by age and cause of death for the four cities.
[if (X1 > Z1) or (X2 > Z2)]
When confronted with these figures, a spokesman for Glasgow City Council's Dead Child Prevention Unit said "This is obviously really really bad, and here's what we're doing about it". His opposite number in New York said "We're doing all that stuff, and we're also doing some other things too." The Glasgow spokesman responded "Hey, good ideas! Let us know how they work out".
[else]
When confronted with these figures, Sedwill said "Oh dear, what an embarrassing howler. I have taken the following steps to ensure that any future claims I make during media appearances are fact-checked beforehand."
[end if]
David McCandless was unavailable for comment.
oedipamaas49 and cyocum. However, his broader point - that deaths due to violence make up only a small part of Afghanistan's appalling child mortality problem - is true and important.Tags:
