2024-09-05 13:51:45
The suggested CN focuses on the Lancet number which is irrelevant since the OP never specified what form of deaths the Lancet article referred to in the first place. NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(5-1-12) Author
2024-09-05 14:56:12
Needs note, OP clearly undermines the current death toll and uses an estimate as a "current" number by comparing it to the real one. [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(4-0-18) Author
2024-09-05 16:19:35
NNN. The tweet is not misleading. It's very clear the OP is contesting the Lancet numbers. Whether you believe the OP or the Lancet isn't relevant - it's clear from reading the tweet that there are competing figures. NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(5-0-11) Author
2024-09-05 16:41:23
There is no such estimate. The 368k figure is just 4x92k, 92k from an attached letter x 4 indirect deaths (The Lancet letter had 37k x 5 = 186k) [Link][Link] Neither letter is based on systematic review of evidence, such as an AP analysis that the conflict is less deadly for civilians: [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(30-0-15) Author