|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:00 pm Post subject: 600,000 dead: Lancet study on Iraq credible |
 |
|
Lancet study on Iraq credible, advised top UK government scientist
| Quote: |
he British government was advised against publicly criticising a report estimating that 655,000 Iraqis had died due to the war, the BBC has learnt...
But the Ministry of Defence�s chief scientific adviser said the survey�s methods were �close to best practice� and the study design was �robust�.
Another expert agreed the method was �tried and tested�.
The Iraq government asks the country�s hospitals to report the number of victims of terrorism or military action.
Critics say the system was not started until well after the invasion and requires over-pressed hospital staff not only to report daily, but also to distinguish between victims of terrorism and of crime.
...peer-reviewed survey...
...conducted by the John Hopkins School of Public Health and compared mortality rates before and after the invasion by surveying 47 randomly chosen areas across 16 provinces in Iraq.
The researchers spoke to nearly 1,850 families, comprising more than 12,800 people.
In nearly 92% of cases family members produced death certificates to support their answers. The survey estimated that 601,000 deaths were the result of violence, mostly gunfire.
...a memo by the MoD�s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Roy Anderson, on 13 October, states: �The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to �best practice� in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq.� |
Critique and Rebuttal
| Quote: |
...Update 19 October: there has been a lot of support for the report's methods among the statistical community. For example, stats.org at George Mason University has an online article by Rebecca Goldin who says: "While the Lancet numbers are shocking, the study's methodology is not. The scientific community is in agreement over the statistical methods used to collect the data and the validity of the conclusions drawn by the researchers conducting the study."
However there has been some criticism of the methodology.
...One aspect they questioned was the selection of sample households chosen for interviews. There could be "main street bias", they said, in that households on main streets were more likely to suffer casualties from car bombings. They want an inquiry into the methodology. "It's almost a crime to let it go unchallenged," said Neil Johnson of Oxford.
...The IBC, which counts the number of reported civilian deaths by violence, puts them between 43,850 and 48,693, though it adds that "our maximum refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media."
...It then multiplied these figures up in relation to the Iraqi population of 27,139,584, and came up with an estimated 654,956 "excess" deaths, 2.5 % of the population.
Some statistical caveats are entered. The lowest estimate of deaths is put at 392,979 and the highest at 942,636. The lowest figure is still much bigger than the other counts.
Of the "excess" deaths, 601,027 were attributed to the violence (mainly from gunfire and mainly among men aged 15-59), the rest coming largely from increased illness and disease.
The report concludes: "Our estimate of excess deaths is far higher than those reported in Iraq through passive surveillance methods. This discrepancy is not unexpected. Data from passive surveillance are rarely complete, even in stable circumstances, and are even less complete during conflict."
IBC response
The Iraqi Body Count response is as follows. Its says the Lancet report implies that:
#
On average a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every day in the first half of 2006, with "less than a tenth being noticed by any public surveillance mechanism."
...
'Missing' dead
One issue that arises is why, to speak crudely, the numbers of bodies being discovered do not match the Lancet figures.
...Lancet author answered your questions:
If it is assumed that there were 601,000 violent "excess" deaths between March 2003 and July 2006 (about 40 months), that should produce an average of about 500 violent deaths per day.
...So, if the current rate in Baghdad is about 86 and the countrywide figure should be about 500 according to the Lancet report, where are the "missing" dead?
Author's reply
I put these points to author Les Roberts who replied: "There have to be ~300 deaths per day from natural cause even if Iraq was the healthiest 26 million people in the world. Where are those bodies? When the MOH [ministry of health] in Iraq is perhaps recording 10% of them, why should they be doing better with politically charged violent deaths. Yes, I think almost nothing is getting reported outside of Baghdad where things are worse." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
postfundie
Joined: 28 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| you'd love for it to be true wouldn't you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
My new personal goal is to ignore the trolls.
The truth, my deluded friend, is important. I'll be glad to see that be more important than ideology and party affiliation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
My new personal goal is to ignore the trolls.
The truth, my deluded friend, is important. I'll be glad to see that be more important than ideology and party affiliation. |
In that case, the truth is that the Lancet study was debunked long ago. The Economist provided an excellent article on this.
Their methods were questionable at best and outright made up at worst. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
My new personal goal is to ignore the trolls.
The truth, my deluded friend, is important. I'll be glad to see that be more important than ideology and party affiliation. |
In that case, the truth is that the Lancet study was debunked long ago. The Economist provided an excellent article on this.
Their methods were questionable at best and outright made up at worst. |
You did look at the DATE on the article, did you not? That someone/some group you *choose* to believe says something does not make it so, nor does it end the argument.
I know this: John's Hopkins is one of the most respected institutions in the world. I know this, also: you are not. I am also fairly certain you did not read the article links. If you had, you would have ralized one simple fact stated in the defense of the original paper makes th situation crystal clear as to the poor reporting/recording of deaths in Iraq since occupation:
With no Iraq war whatsoever there are over 300,000 unaccounted for deaths. Do please explain the discrepancy in the reported numbers and the absolute minimum that should have been reported **even if Iraq were stable and the healthiest people on the planet.** |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
My new personal goal is to ignore the trolls.
The truth, my deluded friend, is important. I'll be glad to see that be more important than ideology and party affiliation. |
In that case, the truth is that the Lancet study was debunked long ago. The Economist provided an excellent article on this.
Their methods were questionable at best and outright made up at worst. |
You did look at the DATE on the article, did you not? That someone/some group you *choose* to believe says something does not make it so, nor does it end the argument.
I know this: John's Hopkins is one of the most respected institutions in the world. I know this, also: you are not. I am also fairly certain you did not read the article links. If you had, you would have ralized one simple fact stated in the defense of the original paper makes th situation crystal clear as to the poor reporting/recording of deaths in Iraq since occupation:
With no Iraq war whatsoever there are over 300,000 unaccounted for deaths. Do please explain the discrepancy in the reported numbers and the absolute minimum that should have been reported **even if Iraq were stable and the healthiest people on the planet.** |
Those numbers are heavily based on ESTIMATES. They spoke to 2000 families and from that extrapolated. While this might have worked in a peaceful NORMAL democractic country, Iraq fits none of those standards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Those numbers are heavily based on ESTIMATES. They spoke to 2000 families and from that extrapolated. While this might have worked in a peaceful NORMAL democractic country, Iraq fits none of those standards. |
When you've actually got a rational response, I'm listening. You might try actually addressing my question above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Those numbers are heavily based on ESTIMATES. They spoke to 2000 families and from that extrapolated. While this might have worked in a peaceful NORMAL democractic country, Iraq fits none of those standards. |
When you've actually got a rational response, I'm listening. You might try actually addressing my question above. |
Your question above? Yes I did look at the date of the article. Now explain how less than 2000 families in a war-torn climate represents 600,000 people dead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Those numbers are heavily based on ESTIMATES. They spoke to 2000 families and from that extrapolated. While this might have worked in a peaceful NORMAL democractic country, Iraq fits none of those standards. |
When you've actually got a rational response, I'm listening. You might try actually addressing my question above. |
Your question above? Yes I did look at the date of the article. Now explain how less than 2000 families in a war-torn climate represents 600,000 people dead. |
Their sample is very, very large if you know something of statitstics. Apparently, you do not. My question was: please explain the underreporting of 300,000 NATURAL deaths. If those are going unreported/unrecorded at a high rate, deaths from the war are not going to be reported correctly, either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Those numbers are heavily based on ESTIMATES. They spoke to 2000 families and from that extrapolated. While this might have worked in a peaceful NORMAL democractic country, Iraq fits none of those standards. |
When you've actually got a rational response, I'm listening. You might try actually addressing my question above. |
Your question above? Yes I did look at the date of the article. Now explain how less than 2000 families in a war-torn climate represents 600,000 people dead. |
Their sample is very, very large if you know something of statitstics. Apparently, you do not. My question was: please explain the underreporting of 300,000 NATURAL deaths. If those are going unreported/unrecorded at a high rate, deaths from the war are not going to be reported correctly, either. |
Like I already said, the statistics coming from a war-torn, unstable, and ungoverned country like Iraq are unreliable. They can not be used, or thought of for that matter like statistics from a Western country like Canada or the U.S. It would be like comparing apples and oranges. To list just one problem. Many records were destroyed in the days since Saddam fell. During the years of fighting that followed probably many more have been destroyed.
To list another, the impartiality of these eyewitnesses is impaired (to say the least).
I do agree that "...deaths from the war are not going to be reported correctly, either."
But that goes back to what I said earlier about this study. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Those numbers are heavily based on ESTIMATES. They spoke to 2000 families and from that extrapolated. While this might have worked in a peaceful NORMAL democractic country, Iraq fits none of those standards. |
When you've actually got a rational response, I'm listening. You might try actually addressing my question above. |
Your question above? Yes I did look at the date of the article. Now explain how less than 2000 families in a war-torn climate represents 600,000 people dead. |
Their sample is very, very large if you know something of statitstics. Apparently, you do not. My question was: please explain the underreporting of 300,000 NATURAL deaths. If those are going unreported/unrecorded at a high rate, deaths from the war are not going to be reported correctly, either. |
Like I already said, the statistics coming from a war-torn, unstable, and ungoverned country like Iraq are unreliable. They can not be used, or thought of for that matter like statistics from a Western country like Canada or the U.S. It would be like comparing apples and oranges. To list just one problem. Many records were destroyed in the days since Saddam fell. During the years of fighting that followed probably many more have been destroyed.
To list another, the impartiality of these eyewitnesses is impaired (to say the least).
I do agree that "...deaths from the war are not going to be reported correctly, either."
But that goes back to what I said earlier about this study. |
You are suggesting nothing. A null set. Your argument is nothing more than, "It's hard to measure, so let's not. Let's trust those with a motive to lie and who have demonstrated incompetence, instead." This is absurd in the extreme.
Now, you want to give me an analysis of the study, feel free. Your biased opinion means nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
