The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
so to say something like you know we have a crude death rate of five deaths per thousand person years one way to think about that is if you had a thousand people and you followed them for one year you'd expect five to die if you had 500 people and you followed them for two years you expect five to die
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
all the people that ended the year what's the death rate why are these done in a slightly more complicated way because we we don't follow these people for their whole lives we're only following them for a period of observation in this case roughly three years so to say something like you know we have a crude death rate of five deaths per thousand person years one way to think about that is if you had a thousand people and you followed them for one year you'd expect five to die if you had 500 people and you followed them for two years you expect five to die if you have a thousand people and you follow them for one year you expect five to die those would all be considered equivalent mortalities