Maybe this is a little simplistic but what was the projected number of deaths for 2020 (based on population size, ages etc.) versus the actual number of deaths. Can we just assume that any increase is due to COVID19 ?
Can somebody with better understanding of mortality/statistics comment on this ?
-13 ( +2 / -15 )
This maybe too simplistic so if someone with a better understanding of maths and mortality can also comment.
Can we just calculate the difference between the actual number of deaths and the projected number of deaths (based on population age etc.) and make this number to be the deaths related to COVID19 ?
3 ( +3 / -0 )
All teams knew what they needed to do to advance to the next stage and Japan were playing within the rules (may be not in the pure sporting spirit but that's another question). Japan took the risk of being knocked out if Senegal score in the last few minutes and was rewarded. The team met their objective of advancing to the next round. It would have been nice for the watching public if they have advanced based on winning the matches/scoring goals but that was not the team's objective
6 ( +10 / -4 )
yoshisan88Today 07:27 am JSTIt was Germany v Österreich, Spain, 1982 WC.
Thanks for your inform. However, I think something happened years before that. One South American nation losed to another S. American nation and in return got shipped tons of food ad rewards. I am about to go to work so no time to google about it, sorry.
I think you are refering to the 1978 WC where Argentina required to score 4 goals against Peru to advance and managed to score 6 !!! This did not result in the changing of the rule for final group matches to be played at the same time but the rule was changed after the 1982 Germany vs Austria match
0 ( +2 / -2 )
Why I do sympathise with the plight of the genuine refugee, they should not be a position to demand where they should be allowed to go and certainly not behaved in the ways that they did.
During the late 1970s and early 1980s many people left Vietnam on boats and landed in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia etc. and were immediately rounded up and taken to various refugee camps in the region. They were processed and resettled mainly in the USA, Canada, Western Europe and Australia. They did not have a choice of country unless they could demonstrate that they already have family living in the country already.
This process went on for about 10 years or so and in the end those that remained in the camp (for whatever reasons) were returned back to Vietnam when the opened up and the Vietnamese government guarateed their safety.
I am not sure why the same process can not be applied here. The refugee should be placed in the refugee camps in the first safe country that they arrived and there should be a similar resettlement process. The behaviour and the make up of these people (mainly men) tells me that the majority are opportunists just looking for a better life. The priority should be given to those that are in the camps in Turkey etc. and those that arrived in Europe should be sent back to the camps in Turkey and join the queue.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
My argument is more about consideration if we are insulting others before we express something and finding a way to criticize but not being disrespectful or limit what we express... not about banning cartoons. Everyone can express what they want, but it doesn't mean what they express is always right! but at least if we put limits to it then there's less trouble.
Based on your argument, then the things that we can express will be fairly restrictive as a criticism to some people maybe considered an insult to other.
For example, if a person was to say that "a certain religious book is out of date and has no place in modern society". To this person, it is his personal opinion but his comment may be considered as offensive by others. Should he just keep quiet and not exercise his freedom of expression because it may upset somebody.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
"Freedom of expression should have limits!"
What should be the limits and who is going to decide the limits ? It is all relative, what may be considered as offensive to some maybe acceptable to others. If there is limits on freedom of speech, then it is no longer freedom.
Unless it is forbidden by the law of the land, people should be free to express their opinions, no matter how unpopular. Other people can condemn/disagree - that's their freedom of speech as well.
7 ( +7 / -0 )
CH3CHOFEB. 18, 2015 - 12:36PM JST
Charlie Hebdo was not charged with defamation so I assumed that what they did was not illegal.
jerseyboyFEB. 18, 2015 - 12:39PM JST
You should respect the law and culture of the country that you are living in. You have the right to disagree but should not expect the country to change its basic culture to fit your needs.
7 ( +9 / -2 )
The law of the land should be above all religious beliefs.
Charlie Hebdo was not doing anything illegal, according to French law. If you feel the law is wrong then vote for politicians that can change the law at the next election. At least in France, people have the choice.
By the way, I don't think Charlie Hebdo should have published the drawings but that's just my opinion and I respect their rights to freedom of expression.
10 ( +10 / -0 )