> Honestly, I am surprised it is only 350 deaths per year.
Isn't this exactly why we need to know how many deaths there are -- so we can judge the level of risk we face?
Isn't this exactly why we need to know how many deaths there are -- so we can judge the level of risk we face?
For example, dozens of people die every year due to heat stroke and dehydration in places like Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and White Sands. The National Park Service posts many large signs warning you to bring sufficient water that thousands of people ignore. Most people that ignore the warning don't die but you could eliminate the risk entirely by simply staying hydrated.
Knowing about a death in the last 24 hours doesn’t matter because it doesn’t materially impact the prevalence of the behavior that is the root cause of the deaths. At the same time, the government has an interest in not letting random employees with hot takes talk to the media with incomplete or erroneous information; this also is a liability. That is standard operating procedure almost everywhere, I just find it weird that we care here, particularly when it has zero relevance to safety.
No lives are being lost or saved by this policy. As an observation, I think few people would accept the kinds of policies that would be required to actually reduce deaths in National Parks.
Also: How many people killed by falling coconuts would cause you to cancel a Hawaiian vacation?
Do you realize how divorced from reality you people sound?
Actually, they are, because they help you make judgements on e.g. whether to climb Half Dome.
The fact that you couldn't even make the connection shows just how out of touch you are here.
It's genuinely bewildering why you would say "you people" there.