This statistic is completely irrelevant because we have massive outliers like WW1 and WW2 and then a host of small, proxy conflicts afterwards. You don't make statistics based on mixing apples and oranges together and then making classifications out of it.
Plus, that Post article is ridiculous, you would obviously not put conflicts 200 years old like the US-Mexican war next to a conflict with modern weapons which are by nature much more deadly. If we go by this definition then most conflicts these days are in the upper 1% of fatalities compared to the whole of Human history, and that virtually says nothing interesting.
First the problem was that it's hyperbole and now that it's too obvious to be interesting? In any event, that statement was true and the fact remains that it is not only probably the most intense of the ongoing fifty or so armed conflicts -- which very much makes it stand out -- it is also among the most deadly in a long time, so I think pointing that out is pertinent, despite your stylistic reservations. Also, you can reach out to Paul Poast if you want further explanation about the conflict: https://www.paulpoast.com/bio-cv
