Subject:
|
Re: From Richard: "It's all bad news - Chaos is my fault"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 May 2004 20:51:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1772 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun wrote:
| |
80% mortality? Not likely. In fact, the opposite is true;
|
Well, all right--80% is a gross exaggeration. Still, infant death rates
are sharply higher in third world nations than in the “developed”
countries. Lemmee take another looksee...
According to this site:
http://www.photius.com/wfb1999/rankings/infantmortality0.html
in 1999 more than 30 nations had infant mortality rates over 9% (most of them
in sub-Saharan Africa), compared with .063% in the US and .058% in the UK.
On the other hand, Saudi Arabia, itself a wealthy nation, had a rate of
38.8%. That’s pretty high, too.
Wait a minute--Papua New Guinea clocked a 76% child mortality rate in 2001,
so maybe I’m not too far off-track.
|
!!! Divide it by ten, sir.
Really, you’re way off.
|
Boy oh boy. Don’t ask me to compute a tip the next time I dine on a Friday
afternoon. It’ll be hard to see my monitor until after my head-ectomy.
The 76% figure came from
here, in section 4.3. Poor citation on my part.
**snip of the rest that really should have been obvious to me**
| |
| |
I hate it when you get in on a debate--it means that I always have to start
checking my figures and citations...
|
I suppose I oughta stick around, then.
|
Go play with your boats. 8^)
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
163 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
