World map showing net reduction in publisher numbers (page 11)

cedars

slimboyfat

None of which helps the inaccuracy of your description of a net increase in publishers as a net reduction.

How is 13,228 people leaving/dying once you deduct the growth indicator a "net increase in publishers" then?

Cedars

slimboyfat

That's my equation you quoted. Are you saying it now has merit, so long as you call the figure "missing in action" and deduct the estimated mortalities? That's a LONG way from how you were arguing a couple of pages ago. What's changed?

Mmm actually people have been making that calculation for years. The problem comes with calling the result a "net reduction in publisher numbers", and failing to factor mortality into the equation.

cedars

The problem comes with calling the result a "net reduction in publisher numbers",

I ask again... How is 13,228 people leaving/dying once you deduct the growth indicator a "net increase in publishers"?

and failing to factor mortality into the equation.

I maintain that the figures still have merit before the mortality rates have been deducted, you say otherwise. And I never said I wouldn't recalculate them, just that it isn't top of my priority list.

Cedars

slimboyfat

Those who leave and those who die are deducted from the gross increase to give the net increase.

cedars

Those who leave and those who die are deducted from the gross increase to give the net increase.

Wrong. Those who die are a percentage of those who leave, i.e. a percentage of the 13,228 as you demonstrated yourself in a previous equation. In this case, the mortality rate of Brazilians is 6.3 per 1000.

13,228 / 1000 = 13.228

13.228 * 6.3 = 83 deaths out of 13,228 (rounded off)

Here's your modified equation again, which you've already dismissed....

And those "missing in action" were 27,425 - 14,197 - those who died = unknown

27,425 - 14,197 - 83 = 13,145 publishers left or moved - the fact that they are no longer part of the figures makes them a NET DECREASE!!

Happy??? Worth it for the sake of a number as small as 83 out of 13,228??

Cedars

cedars

It's nearly 1am here, so I'm off to bed. Can't say I've enjoyed taking this maths lesson, Slim.

Cedars

slimboyfat

13.228 * 6.3 = 83 deaths out of 13,228 (rounded off)

Oh Lordy, what have you done there? You multiply the total publisher number by the mortality rate to get the number who died. I don't know what you've done or why.

slimboyfat

number of publishers*mortality rate=approximate number of deaths

706,699*0.0063=4,452

TheListener

Can't we just call it: An Approximation of Missing Members on an Annual Basis - or something equally zingy!

slimboyfat

Happy??? Worth it for the sake of a number as small as 83 out of 13,228??

You really thought 83 deaths in a year for JWs in the whole of Brazil (over seven hundred thousand people!) sounded correct? That alone should have alerted you that something was wrong in your calculation. With a mortality rate that low Brazillian JWs would probably need to be in the new system already.

World map showing net reduction in publisher numbers

Share this