Love how the article uses word play to manipulate the average (or below) reader. For example:
The highest death rates were among men working in lower-paid occupations. Security guards, for example, had one of the highest death rates from the virus, with 45.7 deaths per 100,000 men working in that industry
The article calls this "one of the highest rates. If you do the math, it comes out to .000457% of people per 100,000. But 45.7 "sounds" so much worse by tricking the reader into thinking that number is a percentage when it's not. This is the type of propaganda that has created this fear mongering mess we are in right now. Furthermore, can someone explain how you get a .7 of a death? 45.7 deaths? You're either dead or you're not. There is no .7 of a death.
Keep in mind that the '45.7 per 100,000' is simply another way to express the average number of guards that have died. You can have fractional values in that case. They aren't counting the total number of guards ... in that case, a fractional guard would be nonsense.
If there were 45.7 guards dropping dead of the Chinaflu and there were 1,000,000 guards nationwide, then a total of 457 guards of the 1,000,000 employed guards would have died since they calculated 45.7 per 100,000.
You are right that this is them merely playing with numbers for effect. It's akin to them changing from ppm when whining about CO2 in the atmosphere to "tons" since "tons" sounds worse.
Percentage-wise 45.7 per 100,000 = 0.0457% of all guards. Again, that doesn't sound as bad as saying the number "forty-five point seven".
I don't mean to sound condescending at all :-) ... but fractions are valid when you are doing basic statistical analysis. You are 100% right about them using numerical tricks as a means of showing those results for propaganda purposes of course ... that's the main thing.
Funny how the virus that is o deadly hasn't wiped out all the Cashiers , bus drivers , cab drivers and healthcare workers
Homeless and the Amish.
Died "with". Not died "from".
There's a big difference in how THEY use their words.
Good catch!
Love how the article uses word play to manipulate the average (or below) reader. For example:
The article calls this "one of the highest rates. If you do the math, it comes out to .000457% of people per 100,000. But 45.7 "sounds" so much worse by tricking the reader into thinking that number is a percentage when it's not. This is the type of propaganda that has created this fear mongering mess we are in right now. Furthermore, can someone explain how you get a .7 of a death? 45.7 deaths? You're either dead or you're not. There is no .7 of a death.
.7 was a vaccinated death. It would have been a full death if they weren't vaxed. That person was better off because they got the shot.
Keep in mind that the '45.7 per 100,000' is simply another way to express the average number of guards that have died. You can have fractional values in that case. They aren't counting the total number of guards ... in that case, a fractional guard would be nonsense.
If there were 45.7 guards dropping dead of the Chinaflu and there were 1,000,000 guards nationwide, then a total of 457 guards of the 1,000,000 employed guards would have died since they calculated 45.7 per 100,000.
You are right that this is them merely playing with numbers for effect. It's akin to them changing from ppm when whining about CO2 in the atmosphere to "tons" since "tons" sounds worse.
Percentage-wise 45.7 per 100,000 = 0.0457% of all guards. Again, that doesn't sound as bad as saying the number "forty-five point seven".
I don't mean to sound condescending at all :-) ... but fractions are valid when you are doing basic statistical analysis. You are 100% right about them using numerical tricks as a means of showing those results for propaganda purposes of course ... that's the main thing.
Absolutely valid points and I appreciate you taking the time to clarify.
Bless you, smart pede.
Reputable source that one 😂 33 male sales assistants 😂
I read it was 666 trannies.
Maybe they had a deadlier strain in England and Wales.