Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Have 600,000 Iraqis died violently since 2003?
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 61 of 77 (421763)
09-14-2007 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by RAZD
09-14-2007 9:57 AM


I am very silly
I know - I know. I somehow, I keep getting surprised. I get more and more depressed that genuine debate actually seems impossible. Maybe I just like that feeling of righteous anger - but that probably isn't healthy.
As for the thread, I realised that this thread was a better place to discuss this - the other one is a direct repeat.
So basically - apart from all these people making random assertions, I don't see any compelling reason why the study isn't robust. If anyone sees anything interesting they should put it in this thread.
Incidentally, I was quite tickled how this thread was left hanging - with an 'I'll get back to you'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2007 9:57 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 62 of 77 (421795)
09-14-2007 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
10-13-2006 5:02 PM


This is interesting. A new survey estimates over a million deaths in Iraq as a result of the war. Let the rebuttals ring out, and quash this grubby, cynical manipulation of truth for sordid left-leaning ends!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 10-13-2006 5:02 PM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Tusko, posted 11-28-2007 9:47 AM Tusko has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 63 of 77 (436957)
11-28-2007 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Tusko
09-14-2007 2:09 PM


Bump-gasm
So... I've been patiently awaiting any additions to this topic, and there haven't been any. Not just from evc-ers, but from people generally. If you do a blog search, it turns up one or two random asserters, but nothing very much.
The oddest thing is this. Remember ORB from my last post? They said they were going to revise their findings in the light of rural areas to see how that would change the data, and not a sausage from them for weeks, when they suggested it would be up within days. I wonder why this is?
Edited by Tusko, : for clarity mentioned ORB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Tusko, posted 09-14-2007 2:09 PM Tusko has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Tal, posted 12-08-2007 6:05 AM Tusko has replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 64 of 77 (439026)
12-07-2007 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Modulous
10-18-2006 1:52 AM


Re: Mathematical improbability
Hello,
Can I ask where the information in this table is derived from please?
Danke!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 10-18-2006 1:52 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Modulous, posted 12-07-2007 11:43 AM Tusko has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 65 of 77 (439106)
12-07-2007 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Tusko
12-07-2007 5:06 AM


Re: Mathematical improbability
Thanks for asking, I think I wandered around the internet looking for figures - I'm assuming most of them came from wiki but it was a year ago now. Wiki lists a high end figure of 4million for Vietnam which is the kind of figure needed to give the death rate, so I might have made an error in choosing my figures - then again the death rate in the Lancet study is hardly conservative...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Tusko, posted 12-07-2007 5:06 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Tusko, posted 12-09-2007 7:58 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 66 of 77 (439305)
12-08-2007 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Tusko
11-28-2007 9:47 AM


Re: Bump-gasm
Hello Tusko. I read the LA times article about the ORB assessment. What would you like to discuss? I can tell you about deaths of local nationals and trends in the northeast quarter of Baghdad, to include Sadr City, if you would like.

If those WMD that don't exist were easier to identify and handled properly, then this would not have occurred.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Tusko, posted 11-28-2007 9:47 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Tusko, posted 12-09-2007 8:36 PM Tal has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 67 of 77 (439690)
12-09-2007 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Modulous
12-07-2007 11:43 AM


Re: Mathematical improbability
Thanks for that - I'm just being lazy. I was particularly interested in the Darfur figures - which are phenomenal. Not fun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Modulous, posted 12-07-2007 11:43 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 68 of 77 (439695)
12-09-2007 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Tal
12-08-2007 6:05 AM


Re: Bump-gasm
What I want to know is approximately how many people have died as a result of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. However, this is proving a very difficult number to come by; or more accurately, it is exceedingly easy to come across many fantastically different figures.
Of necessity, my interest has turned from the elusive number itself to the various studies: to the merits and deficiencies of the official Iraqi estimate, to the two Lancet investigations, and to the ORB questionnaire and Iraq Bodycount.
With regards to the ORB poll, I am annoyed by the fact that they haven't provided the further information on the rural areas as they prominently state on their website will be forthcoming in early October 2007. Though it frustrates me, we are only in a position to speculate as to this delay.
Thank you for the offer of information pertaining to the deaths of local nationals and the trends in the northeast quarter of Baghdad - however, I am only interested insomuch as it might grant me an understanding of the post invasion mortality across the nation as a whole.
This issue has clearly become very politicised, an unreadable palimpsest of competing voices, and an actual answer to this question seems further away than ever. This leaves me gnashing my teeth with frustration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Tal, posted 12-08-2007 6:05 AM Tal has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 69 of 77 (446571)
01-06-2008 4:29 PM


Finally, the Lancet slain once and for all...
Hey, there are lots of fun blog posts from the last couple of days with titles like:
The Death Blow For Lancet Iraq War Casualty Study; Data Bomb: The Lancet and Lancet II Iraq Dead Are Bogus; and my personal favourite: British Medical Journalism: Corrupted by Hatred of the Iraq War.
They are responding to this article in something called The National Journal, which I'm not familiar with. I haven't seen anybody stepping forward to defend the Lancet studies from this (if the various anti Lancet bloggers are to believed) series of deadly body blows.
I'll be interested to see what happens next.
Edited by Tusko, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Tal, posted 01-11-2008 8:47 AM Tusko has replied
 Message 72 by Modulous, posted 01-11-2008 11:22 AM Tusko has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 70 of 77 (447868)
01-11-2008 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Tusko
01-06-2008 4:29 PM


New study estimates 151 000 violent Iraqi deaths since 2003 invasion
New study estimates 151,000 violent Iraqi deaths since 2003 invasion
9 JANUARY 2008 | GENEVA/BAGHDAD -- A large national household survey conducted by the Iraqi government and WHO estimates that 151 000 Iraqis died from violence between March 2003 and June 2006.
The findings, published today on the web site of the New England Journal of Medicine, are based on information collected during a wider survey of family health in Iraq, designed to provide a basis for the Iraqi government to develop and update health policies and plan services.
The estimate is based on interviews conducted in 9345 households in nearly 1000 neighbourhoods and villages across Iraq. The researchers emphasize that despite the large size of the study, the uncertainty inherent in calculating such estimates led them to conclude that the number of Iraqis who died from violence during that period lies between 104 000 and 223 000.
I hope this answers your question. I've always thought 600,000 was a bit much considering what I've seen in my AO in 2 tours.

We never seem to acknowledge that we have been wrong in the past, and so might be wrong in the future. Instead, each generation writes off earlier errors as the result of bad thinking by less able minds-and then confidently embarks on fresh errors of its own. --Michael Crichton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Tusko, posted 01-06-2008 4:29 PM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Tusko, posted 01-11-2008 9:08 AM Tal has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 71 of 77 (447872)
01-11-2008 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Tal
01-11-2008 8:47 AM


Re: New study estimates 151 000 violent Iraqi deaths since 2003 invasion
As I understand it, the two studies were setting out to achieve different ends: WHO - violent deaths; Lancet - excess deaths. I'm not sure about this though because from what I understood of the Lancet, a high proportion of deaths seemed to be violent. I will have to have a look at this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Tal, posted 01-11-2008 8:47 AM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Dr Jack, posted 01-11-2008 12:40 PM Tusko has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 72 of 77 (447903)
01-11-2008 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Tusko
01-06-2008 4:29 PM


Re: Finally, the Lancet slain once and for all...
Thanks for this, this is a much more comprehensive criticism than I have seen and it looks to be pretty fatal, as the pundits observe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Tusko, posted 01-06-2008 4:29 PM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Tusko, posted 01-11-2008 11:55 AM Modulous has replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 73 of 77 (447911)
01-11-2008 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Modulous
01-11-2008 11:22 AM


Re: Finally, the Lancet slain once and for all...
Oh, maybe actually it isn't. I'm getting really tired of this - I just don't understand enough about statistics so I just have to take people's word for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Modulous, posted 01-11-2008 11:22 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Modulous, posted 01-12-2008 9:39 AM Tusko has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 74 of 77 (447927)
01-11-2008 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Tusko
01-11-2008 9:08 AM


Re: New study estimates 151 000 violent Iraqi deaths since 2003 invasion
The Lancet study estimated around 50,000 additional non-violent deaths.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Tusko, posted 01-11-2008 9:08 AM Tusko has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 75 of 77 (448151)
01-12-2008 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Tusko
01-11-2008 11:55 AM


Re: Finally, the Lancet slain once and for all...
I think one of the comments makes a good point:
While most of Munro's points do in fact seem to be complete crap, the point about funding from Soros is reasonable (if for example, the study had found the opposite and had been funded by some right wing billionaire I suspect we'd all be quick to all that out)
That said, I'm probably erring on the side of the WHO at this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Tusko, posted 01-11-2008 11:55 AM Tusko has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Tal, posted 01-13-2008 2:33 AM Modulous has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024