NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/world/middleeast/10casualties.html?ref=middleeast
can you believe it :(:(

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/world/middleeast/10casualties.html?ref=middleeast
can you believe it :(:(

Unfortunately... yes, yes I can.

In before these findings are disputed.

Not surprising really.

And in before the UN-Bashing Party arrives claiming the source is discredited from the start.

Meh, 50 000 or 150 000 both are way to many.

Sure, it's a war, lots of people usually die in a war.
So that's a good reason to go against your government, or any other government declaring war on another nation, which is where the problems begin.

I demand a recount! There are probably a few hanging Achmed's somewhere, that haven't been counted.

Now do these numbers include mass graves or actual fleshy people who got in the way of a psychopathic suicide bomber who wants his 72 virgins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--BQHyv16Y)?

Does anyone not believe Iraq is an incredible violent and dangerous place, and that the invasion/occupation has had a massive death toll?

Am I the only one seeing the horrible, massive font in that article?

Does anyone not believe Iraq is an incredible violent and dangerous place, and that the invasion/occupation has had a massive death toll?

I don't think the War in Iraq ever happened, it was all fabricated by Democrats!

“We mourn the deaths of all people in Iraq,” said Jeanie Mamo, a White House spokeswoman.

Wretched, lying ****!

It's actually a tiny death toll compared to most wars anyway.

It's actually a tiny death toll compared to most wars anyway.
Wars without any actual opposition to the invading military? And that were already declared over?

Now do these numbers include mass graves or actual fleshy people who got in the way of a psychopathic suicide bomber who wants his 72 virgins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--BQHyv16Y)?

It's an estimate. At least this one seems to be a bit more accurate than the Lancet's 600,000+. :rolleyes:

Wars without any actual opposition to the invading military?

Without any opposition? What are you talking about?

It's an estimate. At least this one seems to be a bit more accurate than the Lancet's 600,000+. :rolleyes:

emmmmm...Why? The report in the lancet methods were bog standard, afaik.

Without any opposition? What are you talking about?

I think he means lack of an opposing country's army.

emmmmm...Why? The report in the lancet methods were bog standard, afaik.

Nope. There were serious faults in the methodology.


These explain better that I could:
For its 2004 survey of Iraq, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) used 2,200 cluster points of 10 interviews each for a total sample of 21,688. True, interviews are expensive and not everyone has the U.N.'s bank account. However, even for a similarly sized sample, that is an extraordinarily small number of cluster points. A 2005 survey conducted by ABC News, Time magazine, the BBC, NHK and Der Spiegel used 135 cluster points with a sample size of 1,711--almost three times that of the Johns Hopkins team for 93% of the sample size.

What happens when you don't use enough cluster points in a survey? You get crazy results when compared to a known quantity, or a survey with more cluster points. There was a perfect example of this two years ago. The UNDP's survey, in April and May 2004, estimated between 18,000 and 29,000 Iraqi civilian deaths due to the war. This survey was conducted four months prior to another, earlier study by the Johns Hopkins team, which used 33 cluster points and estimated between 69,000 and 155,000 civilian deaths--four to five times as high as the UNDP survey, which used 66 times the cluster points.

The 2004 survey by the Johns Hopkins group was itself methodologically suspect--and the one they just published even more so.
Appendix A of the Johns Hopkins survey, for example, cites several other studies of mortality in war zones, and uses the citations to validate the group's use of cluster sampling. One study is by the International Rescue Committee in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which used 750 cluster points. Harvard's School of Public Health, in a 1992 survey of Iraq, used 271 cluster points. Another study in Kosovo cites the use of 50 cluster points, but this was for a population of just 1.6 million, compared to Iraq's 27 million.

When I pointed out these numbers to Dr. Roberts, he said that the appendices were written by a student and should be ignored. Which led me to wonder what other sections of the survey should be ignored.

With so few cluster points, it is highly unlikely the Johns Hopkins survey is representative of the population in Iraq. However, there is a definitive method of establishing if it is. Recording the gender, age, education and other demographic characteristics of the respondents allows a researcher to compare his survey results to a known demographic instrument, such as a census.

Dr. Roberts said that his team's surveyors did not ask demographic questions. I was so surprised to hear this that I emailed him later in the day to ask a second time if his team asked demographic questions and compared the results to the 1997 Iraqi census. Dr. Roberts replied that he had not even looked at the Iraqi census.

And so, while the gender and the age of the deceased were recorded in the 2006 Johns Hopkins study, nobody, according to Dr. Roberts, recorded demographic information for the living survey respondents. This would be the first survey I have looked at in my 15 years of looking that did not ask demographic questions of its respondents. But don't take my word for it--try using Google to find a survey that does not ask demographic questions.

Without demographic information to assure a representative sample, there is no way anyone can prove--or disprove--that the Johns Hopkins estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths is accurate.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108
http://www.slate.com/id/2151926/
http://www.slate.com/id/2154203

Without any opposition? What are you talking about?
You stated that most wars have higher casualties. This may be true, but this is not a war. America, or Bush and the American military at least, declared the war won in 2004. It's an occupation.

And 100,000+ deaths during an occupation is a massive death toll.

You stated that most wars have higher casualties. This may be true, but this is not a war. America, or Bush and the American military at least, declared the war won in 2004. It's an occupation.

And 100,000+ deaths during an occupation is a massive death toll.

Actually, it's more of an occupation, wrapped around a (hopefully) subsiding civil war.

But, I'm seriously, meh about this. I've argued that the correct number is likely to end up being somewhere in this range by the end.

Meh, 50 000 or 150 000 both are way to many.

My thoughts exaclty.

“We mourn the deaths of all people in Iraq,” said Jeanie Mamo, a White House spokeswoman.

Wretched, lying ****!

Now, now...it may appear that she is lying, but in reality, she's telling the truth. We don't consider them to be "people".

“We mourn the deaths of all people in Iraq,” said Jeanie Mamo, a White House spokeswoman.

Wretched, lying ****!

I wonder if she means "all the terrorist" too?

But, I'm seriously, meh about this.

Just depends on who's doing the killin' for it to reach "meh" status, meh?

Just depends on who's doing the killin' for it to reach "meh" status, meh?

Who's dying, too.

Who's dying, too.
Yup.

Just depends on who's doing the killin' for it to reach "meh" status, meh?

Not really, one death's a tragedy, 150,000 are a...well, you know.

I've seriously tried to visualize it before, when I was at a football game in Ohio Stadium, I tried to imagine all the people in there, (the spectators, employees, players, administrators, bands, support, etc.) dead, and it didn't click, not in the slightest. It's hard to create some human empathy for that number, and it just doesn't work, because it's too fucking big. As a result, my psyche reverts to the "bored" defense.

I don't think the War in Iraq ever happened, it was all fabricated by Democrats!

Yup. It's all a big scam to raise money by MSNBC and the Red Cross.

It's actually a tiny death toll compared to most wars anyway.

Would you say the same thing if these were American and British civilian deaths?

What's everyone so upset about? I'm thrilled that there are so many brands, including Dell, under one roof. I'm going to Best Buy as soon as possible!

Wait, it's just an ad. Oh. Yeah, that is pretty depressing.

Am I the only one seeing the horrible, massive font in that article?

I find it quite readable. You could always adjust it up or down in your browser. ?

The new estimate is not surprising to me. Iraq Body Count has always been regarded as the bottom end of the range (bodies go missing, basically), and the Lancet the top end. This one is probably closer than either.