3 ms·
Closer to 50%, not quite sure where you got 65% from. (8.17 + 5.08) / 25.69 = 51.58% it is still a lot of people, but it would be good if you could try and be
by gelatocar 5y ago
Closer to 50%, not quite sure where you got 65% from. (8.17 + 5.08) / 25.69 = 51.58%
it is still a lot of people, but it would be good if you could try and be accurate with this stuff. There's been a lot of incorrect stuff being said about Australian lockdowns on HN lately.
- mewse 5y ago16 million / 25 million is 64%. > not quite sure where you got 65% from I'm not the original poster, but I mean, it's kind of obvious that it came from dividing literally the only two other numbers present in the comment you're replying to. If the issue is that you disagree with those population numbers, then maybe say that explicitly and point to where you're getting your numbers from so that the point of contention can be identified instead of everyone just yelling that their unsourced numbers are better than the other person's unsourced numbers?
- gelatocar 5y agoI didn't really think it was necessary to provide a source as it is literally as simple as googling "nsw population", "melbourne population", and "australia population". The results of those are a little out of date but still in the ballpark of 50%. If you are after official numbers then the ABS is the place to go: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/national-state-and-territory-population/latest-release https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/national...