Sobering, yes ... but also somewhat to be expecetd given that the acft our fixed wing counterparts are flying have several more decades of practical cumulative development experience - about 100 years for FW vs about 60 years for RW (give or take a few). And, a similar but even more exaggerated experience gap in terms of cumulative units produced. The next 40 years will likely see considerable advances in most aspects of helicopter safety and reliability.
I would argue that rotary versus fixed wing safety is not primarily a function of experience, but simply a function of the fact that a fixed wing aircraft has primary lift generation surfaces and controls that are attached firmly to the fuselage by an impressive array of bolts, pins and rivets that don't move. The helicopter on the other hand has primary lift generation surfaces that revolve at 400rpm or so, generate massive g forces, and are constantly trying to depart the rotor mast, despite opposing force of the blade pins.
It takes little imagination to see that any design, engineering, or mechanical failure in that environment is followed by virtually instant and catastrophic loss of the aircraft. In contrast high speed rotable failures in fixed wing aircraft occur at the powerplants, so although that brings its own range of problems, containment technology and FOD resistance usually allow for a more favorable outcome when comparing the loss of a engine fan blade with a main rotor blade.