NationStates Jolt Archive

"The British government was advised against publicly criticising a report estimating that 655,000 Iraqis had died due to the war, the BBC has learnt.
Iraqi Health Ministry figures put the toll at less than 10% of the total in the survey, published in the Lancet.

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".

"Speaking six days after Sir Roy praised the study's methods, British foreign office minister Lord Triesman said: "The way in which data are extrapolated from samples to a general outcome is a matter of deep concern...."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6495753.stm

Has their every been a more sly, slimy, grinning, smarmy collection of deceitful filth as Blair and co?

Below find original report.

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

In other words, the politicians flinched at what the scholars have told them and they are going to pretend they never heard it. *nod*

Wait, so are we saying the number of deaths is greater than or less than what the government is claiming?

Wait, so are we saying the number of deaths is greater than or less than what the government is claiming?

Basically, the statisticians are saying that a certain number of people died and the British, Iraqi and U.S. governments are saying that those numbers are inaccurate because they're yucky. *nod*

It's reasonable enough to say that 655,000 Iraqis have died since the start of the war.

Iraq — Population: 26,783,383 (July 2006 est.)
Iraq – People information from the CIA World Factbook on Yahoo! Education. ... 5.49 deaths / 1000 population (2005 est.)

Per year, that'd make 125,000+ deaths per year.

The real question is whether the deaths are a indirect or direct cause of the war. Certainly not every single death is going to be because of the war.

ugh, this current crop of senior politicians make my skin crawl.

It's reasonable enough to say that 655,000 Iraqis have died since the start of the war.


Per year, that'd make 125,000+ deaths per year.

The real question is whether the deaths are a indirect or direct cause of the war. Certainly not every single death is going to be because of the war.

if that was the reason for contesting the figure they'd have come right out and said it. as it is they're just squirming like the worms they are.

if that was the reason for contesting the figure they'd have come right out and said it. as it is they're just squirming like the worms they are.

source (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/e237ecdde921e7849fc14a9ac7cc7986.htm)

The strange part is that I get conflicting numbers. This one says the death rate is 5.5 before 2003, but if it remained 5.5 over the course of four years you get:

cirka 147,000 deaths per year
cirka 600,000 deaths in four years

So really, the amounts do add up. The extra 55,000 deaths could very easily be those caused by the invasion and they don't just include violent death either.

Yet the source mentions that 31% have died violent deaths, according to the families themselves. That would be about 200,000 deaths directly attributable to the coalition (read the article, and it should be clear why I say this).

But, then why isn't the number of deaths since the start of the 2003 up at 800,000?

I'm just confused by what seems to me to be conflicting descriptions of data.

Edit: Also, they say the death rate is up to nearly 20 per 1000 in the source I provided, but that would put the amount of deaths since 2003 up to 2,400,000 deaths, and even the report that was done by the statistician doesn't say that, so... I'm really confused. Maybe it's 20 per 1000 in four years?

Also, I would indeed agree with the original article that 30% of 600k is indeed a lot of violent deaths attributable to gunfire and such. But that still leaves the hole of "why didn't 150k more people die?"

Basically, the statisticians are saying that a certain number of people died and the British, Iraqi and U.S. governments are saying that those numbers are inaccurate because they're yucky. *nod*

I see. Typical.

The report that was featured in the Lancet.

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

Oh, now I understand. They're not saying 650k people died since the start of the war. They're saying 1,250k people died since the start of the war, and that's 650k more than expected.

Being really conservative and only accepting certificate of death, the number they have comes down to 1,125k people - still 525k more than expected :p

"The British government was advised against publicly criticising a report estimating that 655,000 Iraqis had died due to the war, the BBC has learnt.
Iraqi Health Ministry figures put the toll at less than 10% of the total in the survey, published in the Lancet.

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".

"Speaking six days after Sir Roy praised the study's methods, British foreign office minister Lord Triesman said: "The way in which data are extrapolated from samples to a general outcome is a matter of deep concern...."



Well lord Triesman was telling the truth

its deeply concerning when the gen public are exposed to the truth.
Thankfully as far as new labour are concerned, the gen public have an
ability to either not notice the truth or to ignore it if theres a chance
they might get 2% of the standard rate of income tax or the banner
of the scary tories is waved.
Cos as you know people just couldnt possibly vote for anyone that wasnt
either labour or tory.