.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to ShadowSD.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="ShadowSD:429252"]And then adding smaller numbers in the hundreds to that 100,000 estimate? How does that make any sense? Why would someone add a hundred deaths here and there to a number that already had a margin of error of at least 2000? It's so inconsistent, there would be absolutely no point in doing it. And as far as the original Lancet number, what you're saying now is that Lancet averaged out 8,000 and 196,000 and came up with 98,000, which means their math is even worse than I previously indicated?[/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.004 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][