Via [0], "Well, there are about 2 million researchers in the US. There are about 25 deaths per million people per day in the US, that’s 50 scientists dying each day, or 73,000 scientists over a four year period. Finding 11 that have some vague connection does not seem unusual to me."

(there's more detail at the link, obvs.)

[0] https://www.stevennovella.com/neurologicablog/whats-with-the...

▲

abcd_f 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Show some rigor.

> 25 deaths per million people per day

That's not the same age range as actively practicing researchers.

▲

zimpenfish 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> Show some rigor.

Yes, perhaps by reading the link.

"I should point out I am using numbers for the general population, which may not match the rate for scientists. [...] I also looked at CDC data – about 800,000 people in the US between 25 and 65 die each year [...] About 6% of the population work in the science field, which would be 192,000, or half that if you use a narrow definition of 3%, so close to the 73,000 figure I calculated the other way."

He also looks at how that compares with the individual institutions.

But yes, "show some rigor" indeed!

▲

notahacker 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But then if we're doing age ranges, the 10 people "tied to sensitive research" who have disappeared or died are 59, 61, 60, 68, 53, 60, 78, 47, 67, 39 (with the two youngest identified as homicide and suicide). How does a cohort with an average age in their 60s compare with the age range of actively practising researchers?

	▲	zimpenfish 43 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I should imagine you could look at the CDC data for those cohorts and perform the same kind of analysis as he has.