# World map showing net reduction in publisher numbers

by cedars 188 Replies latest jw friends

• ##### 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)

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.