## [lit-ideas] Re: statisticions, anyone?

• From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:39:44 +0100

`I make the Baghdad calculation 1.9 per cent.`

`100 x 365 = 36,500`

`36,500 x 3 = 109,500`

`109500 / 5,700,000 = 0.0192`

`0.0192 x 100 = 1.92`

`Certainly closer to the study's 2.5 per cent.`

```And as the population of Baghdad reduces, then the daily rate represents a
growing percentage.```

`Simon`

----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Stone" <pas@xxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 7:19 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: statisticions, anyone?

John Mc: Statistics, hell. It looks like George can't even do arithmetic.

The trouble is, the arithmetic doesn't support the 'statistics' from the study that Julie cited. It concluded that 654,000 - or 2.5% of the population had been killed.

For Julie, Just a beginning of my analysis, which will probably be met with "oh come on Paul, don't spin for Bush" admonitions from all the alarmists:

Well let's just take the 100 people a day in the streets of Baghdad "statistic". Over 3 years, if 100 citizens of Baghdad were killed --There are approximately 5.7 million citizens living there -- therefore, this only represents about 0.19% of the population of Baghdad. So... for approximately 25% of the population of Iraq, living in what is arguably one of the most violent zones of the country, the death rate is .19%. I would like to know, where are all these other of the '47 randomly selected' sections where they conducted the interviews.

`p`

```##########
Paul Stone
pas@xxxxxxxx
```------------------------------------------------------------------