> but in absolute terms it does seem to be a healthy three orders of magnitude safer than being in a car in the US (at ~37K direct fatalities annually [3]).
Absolute terms of being in a car measured this way don't make sense.
People in the US are exposed to tens of billions of hours of driving annually and probably low millions of hours of being in bad storm conditions in forests. (I don't know, do 1 out of 300 of us even spend an hour in that?)
This is like saying that because few people die from playing Russian roulette, it's not too big of a concern to play now and then.
The response you've made has no probative value on the statement "Walking through a forest during a storm is an easy way to get hurt or die."
Absolute terms of being in a car measured this way don't make sense.
People in the US are exposed to tens of billions of hours of driving annually and probably low millions of hours of being in bad storm conditions in forests. (I don't know, do 1 out of 300 of us even spend an hour in that?)
This is like saying that because few people die from playing Russian roulette, it's not too big of a concern to play now and then.
The response you've made has no probative value on the statement "Walking through a forest during a storm is an easy way to get hurt or die."