I hope this is accidental bias, or a statistical anomaly. It could be for example that this is overrepresented from the pooled community. I think it would also be important to somehow scale/categorize the level of abuse (physical vs non-physical, penetrative vs non-penetrative, etc).
If it really is 5% (1 in 20 girls) then this would outrank something like COVID in terms of importance.
> The comparison sample (n = 82) was recruited via advertisements in community newspapers and posters in welfare, daycare, and community facilities in the same neighborhoods in which the abused participants lived. Comparison families contacted study personnel and were screened for eligibility, which included having no prior contact with protective service agencies and being demographically similar to a same-aged abused participant. At the time of study entry, comparison families were not informed that the study involved sexually abused females; rather, they were told that the study was of “female growth and development.”
I wonder whether this still ended up being a self-selecting group. I can imagine a scenario where a young girl has an awful experience growing up, wants to see change in the upbringing of females and becomes somewhat engaged in related activities.
> He actually said: You better build some more prisons before you start testing babies for this.
I don't think a lack of facilities to deal with a problem is a good reason for not addressing it. At the very least we need to understand the scale of the problem, even if the problem remains unaddressed for the time being.