An outrageously crude estimate of life saving potential:
7,600,000,000 (world population)
3,800,000,000 (females, approximately half, because the suicide figure I have is for females)
760,000,000 (females raped, based on figures from just one country because I don’t have all ~200 figures)
36,53,846 (suicide deaths related to rape, phrased in past tense because the research isn’t about the future)
6,211,538,200 (cost of saving 36,53,846 people through deworming)
Point: If 6.2 billion dollars is enough to find a cure for rapists, and rapists pay for their own prescriptions so that nobody has to use charity money for their treatment, then funding research for a cure for rapists would have as much life-saving potential as deworming. Of course, I have no idea how much research funding is needed to cure rapists and it would take a lot of time to investigate that. This is why my global scope section says more research is needed. So basically all you have to do to see why I’m curious about this is to think about it on the right level of scale.
The rest of your comment contains so many egregious straw men of what I actually wrote that I have decided not to address it. There might be some valid concerns in there, but I don’t have the time to tease them apart from the straw men.
There are an estimated 276,000 annual cases of female suicide in the entire world (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3367275/). If, say, half of them are associated with sexual violence (guess), and you throw males in as well, then the eventual lifesaving potential is maybe 150,000 people per year.
Most of these suicides are in SE Asia and the Western Pacific where I believe healthcare and medication provision are not as comprehensive as they are here in the west.
The per year incidence is a totally different type of number from the numbers I used. The numbers I used cover a much longer time span. Comparing 276,000 annual cases to the number 36,53,846 is comparing apples to oranges.
It is not clear that your intent was to disagree with me. If you are throwing in an additional reference, I can’t incorporate that because the other research I referred to wasn’t using annual figures.
I suppose it’s interesting as something to check against. For an outrageously crude way to do that, you can multiply 276,000 by 80, the number of years in the average female lifespan (for one country) and compare a hacked together lifetime rate to my hacked together 36,53,846.
An outrageously crude estimate of life saving potential:
7,600,000,000 (world population)
3,800,000,000 (females, approximately half, because the suicide figure I have is for females)
760,000,000 (females raped, based on figures from just one country because I don’t have all ~200 figures)
36,53,846 (suicide deaths related to rape, phrased in past tense because the research isn’t about the future)
6,211,538,200 (cost of saving 36,53,846 people through deworming)
Point: If 6.2 billion dollars is enough to find a cure for rapists, and rapists pay for their own prescriptions so that nobody has to use charity money for their treatment, then funding research for a cure for rapists would have as much life-saving potential as deworming. Of course, I have no idea how much research funding is needed to cure rapists and it would take a lot of time to investigate that. This is why my global scope section says more research is needed. So basically all you have to do to see why I’m curious about this is to think about it on the right level of scale.
The rest of your comment contains so many egregious straw men of what I actually wrote that I have decided not to address it. There might be some valid concerns in there, but I don’t have the time to tease them apart from the straw men.
There are an estimated 276,000 annual cases of female suicide in the entire world (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3367275/). If, say, half of them are associated with sexual violence (guess), and you throw males in as well, then the eventual lifesaving potential is maybe 150,000 people per year.
Most of these suicides are in SE Asia and the Western Pacific where I believe healthcare and medication provision are not as comprehensive as they are here in the west.
The per year incidence is a totally different type of number from the numbers I used. The numbers I used cover a much longer time span. Comparing 276,000 annual cases to the number 36,53,846 is comparing apples to oranges.
It is not clear that your intent was to disagree with me. If you are throwing in an additional reference, I can’t incorporate that because the other research I referred to wasn’t using annual figures.
I suppose it’s interesting as something to check against. For an outrageously crude way to do that, you can multiply 276,000 by 80, the number of years in the average female lifespan (for one country) and compare a hacked together lifetime rate to my hacked together 36,53,846.