The recovery document quotes accident rates per million hours and is manipulated to give a positive picture of mountaineering (as to be expected). Whilst I agree that mountaineering is much safer than its public perception, I think the metric used is flawed.
Is there a more representative figure to use, something like "accident impact"?
Consider this (the figures are all estimates, not underpinned).
A broken ankle requires a total of 24hrs of treatment; xray, cast, aftercare. This is a constant, whatever the sport.
Evacuation from a football field requires 2hrs, 2 para medics, 1 hr each.
Evacuation from a crag, 26 hrs, 8xMRT, 3 hrs each, plus the above.
So football 26hrs vs climbing 50 hrs.
The impact of the climbing injury is twice the impact of the footballing injury.
As stated above, my figures are estimated, not underpinned. Please argue the concept rather than the numbers.