3 ms·
The website you linked to specifies a subtly different thing from what you’re asserting: >”Forty-eight percent of the people who died from blast injuries among
by nickff 11mo ago
The website you linked to specifies a subtly different thing from what you’re asserting:
>”Forty-eight percent of the people who died from blast injuries among our colleagues' households were children and 40 percent were under 10 years old.”
That is quite different from saying that “ 40% of the bombing victims in Gaza are under 10 years old”.
- GlacierFox 11mo ago[flagged]
- immibis 11mo agoCan you clarify the difference between "bombing victims" and "people who died from blast injuries"? I'm not seeing it.
- hdlothia 11mo agoIt says the dataset is 'colleague's households' which might be different from all of gaza.
- bruckie 11mo agoI'd assume that "victims" includes injured, not just killed.
- speakfreely 11mo agoThe "among our colleagues' households" is the key part. It's not generalizable to the whole of Gaza.
- pksebben 11mo agoThis is really splitting hairs, but i think it's: 48% of bombing victims/people who died from blast injury are children of those children 40% were under 10 years of age so .48 * .4 = 0.192 meaning roughly 20% of bomb deaths were under 10. But like if you're having this conversation you've already lost. There's no way to frame it so it's not horrific.
- tovej 11mo agoThe text does not say "of those children", the text says that 48% of the whole are children, and 40% are under 10 years. I agree it's a little ambiguous, but I read that as meaning that 40% of the total bombing victims were under 10 years.
- tuna-piano 11mo ago[flagged]
- dmbche 11mo agoOh boy