But he posts the metodology and it seems ok. There is always some error. And we can never be sure in these cases but 190k seem more resonable than the 70k nato is claiming.
The methodology is completely pulled out of his ass.
There's a lot wrong with it but the main thing is using linear regression for "do you know someone who has died of X?" This is cannot be a linear relationship. As the number of casualties goes up, the % of people who know a casualty logarithmically approaches 100%.
This means the % of people who know a casualty will rise dramatically at first, and taper off. It also means it's not a good indicator for actual deaths.
Disregard my previous post. You are completly rigth. I apologise for psting it. I just found an estimate that seemed plausible and had an explanation without cheking it properly. I have now read the rest of that guys posts and i realize i look like a cretin promoting him.
Thats a hood point. I did not think of that. Sorry. I guess there arent enough datapoints for a logarithmic regresion.
The question is if at 60% there is enough deviation from the linear function?
As more people die. Intervewed people would know more than 1 victim leading to undercounting. Is this efect enough to counteract the logarithmic trend?
Author self identifies as a "moderate conservative". Bad source.
But he posts the metodology and it seems ok. There is always some error. And we can never be sure in these cases but 190k seem more resonable than the 70k nato is claiming.
The methodology is completely pulled out of his ass.
There's a lot wrong with it but the main thing is using linear regression for "do you know someone who has died of X?" This is cannot be a linear relationship. As the number of casualties goes up, the % of people who know a casualty logarithmically approaches 100%.
This means the % of people who know a casualty will rise dramatically at first, and taper off. It also means it's not a good indicator for actual deaths.
Disregard my previous post. You are completly rigth. I apologise for psting it. I just found an estimate that seemed plausible and had an explanation without cheking it properly. I have now read the rest of that guys posts and i realize i look like a cretin promoting him.
No need to apologize. Just remember to meet independent media with the same level of skepticism as main stream media.
Thats a hood point. I did not think of that. Sorry. I guess there arent enough datapoints for a logarithmic regresion.
The question is if at 60% there is enough deviation from the linear function? As more people die. Intervewed people would know more than 1 victim leading to undercounting. Is this efect enough to counteract the logarithmic trend?
Why is that relevant to counting bodies?