Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
yes, you're very right, 99% reduction. But per person risk is harder to convey Here is the graph as riskpic.twitter.com/vVlylTtCsC
True. However, many people don't realize a 99% decrease is equal to a 100 x increase. For example if prices decrease by 90%, you get 10 x more for the same dollar, if prices decrease 99% you get 100 x more. The relationship is geometric not linear. I try to explain using both.
What sounds better? You are 99 percent safer or you are 100 times safer? I say the rate has fallen by 99 percent which makes you 100 times better off.
True, so maybe 100 people died of this risk in 1920 and only one died in 2018? These are numbers derived from the ratios of population, but perhaps it does capture the essence of the argument?
Hi Born. Under non Climate related, you seem to have the Y axis incorrect. Were there not 230,000 deaths from the 2004 Tsunami? Just an obs- keep up the great work.
Edit Bjorn 
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
