Re:Parachuting for Charity: A 5-year audit (1999)
by refurb on Thursday January 16, 2020 @12:01PM
(#22066400)
Parachute jumping for charity is not cost-effective in raising money, as the cost of treatment of the 11% who are injured is far in excess of any money raised by the rest.
There analysis is correct. They looked across all charity parachutists, the medical costs for those injured versus total amount raised.
How can it put a burden on the NHS?
Of 105 patients admitted to hospital, 66 (63%) required operative intervention.
Can you imagine the 1 or 2 hospitals dealing with this? The system overall can deal with it, but not the local providers.
Re:Parachuting for Charity: A 5-year audit (1999)
by chiefalchemist on Thursday January 16, 2020 @12:47PM
(#22066930)
Where does it mention the total universe of donors/jumpers? It says the average donation was 30 quid. That said, 30 to jump is not the same as 30 per donated.
Too many loose ends here, or a sloppy job at communication.
Re:Parachuting for Charity: A 5-year audit (1999)
by refurb on Thursday January 16, 2020 @01:22PM
(#22067300)
It’s in the open access article. They calculated the “net” donation after costs.
Re:Parachuting for Charity: A 5-year audit (1999)
by Apfel on Thursday January 16, 2020 @12:43PM
(#22066875)
Their analysis actually only focused on two centres in the east of Scotland.
There were ~1500 jumpers in 5 years across the two centres, of which 174 (11%) were injured at a cost of £3751 per injury.
How can 174 people place significant burden on NHS? I understand their concern but certainly there are bigger fish to fry.
Also, more importantly, the analysis is completely flawed. Their ROI is based on the injuried, not all who donated and dived.