You seem awfully defensive for some reason. No problem. Not everyone understands that quoting military deaths over time without regard for the base is not an accurate comparison. That’s like quoting gasoline prices over time without factoring in inflation. Or quoting stock price rises and falls without factoring in the base and computing a percentage up or down which is the relevant point.
The fact you choose to get so emotional and hostile over such a silly thing is bizarre but not unheard of on this forum. Have a wonderful day.
Your condescension not withstanding, anyone who is as "college educated" and smart at math and statistics and all that should understand that you compare numbers when they are comparable. A different question requires different data, and there are valid numbers for comparison other than "rates."
So let me explain it to you. Since you are so well educated, you should pick right up on this. The MSM has been reporting deaths during the war. Not rates. Not averages. Nothing Poisson or binomial that you even have to calculate. Deaths.
The author of this piece points out that those absolute numbers are similar to numbers in the past, including during peacetime. It would be silly for the author to be reporting rates for this comparison when the MSM is reporting absolutes. That is the scope of this discussion. I'm not sure what your point would be. Maybe that death rates are down? Or up? Whatever, it is a different question than the one the author posed. The size of the military may be a factor, and likely is. But it does not take away from the significance of the data as reported.
It is valid, useful data, properly evaluated for the question at hand.
And I'll put my stat creds up against yours anytime.