650.000 Iraqi dead since invasion

Lets assume (ass-u-me) that the number of Iraqi deaths since the 'coalitions' occupation is a mere 50,000 and not +300,000. Doesn't that alone put those responsible for this fubar in the same catagory (of murderer) they put Saddam? I mean, Saddam and sons were certainly tyrantical mass murderers - so what does it make those that have created an atmosphere for civil conflict that has justified (for the combatant factions) the murdering of those that think, worship, or are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time?

10-15% of the Iraq population have fled to other countries (Jordan, Iran, Syria, Kuwait, SaudiArabia), mostly the middle-class, because Iraq is less safe now then it was under Saddam. As a matter of fact, (even) many Shia feel a twang of nostalgia for the 'good old days' under Saddam when they could walk the streets unmolested, go to work with out fear, send their children off to school knowing they would return home safe, got to a market without bomb barriers obstrusting the view, etc.

So, what exactly have we accomplished aside from deposing Saddam and installing an imperfect disfunctional democracy (if one can truely call it that)? A killing field, that is what the coalition has accomplshed, and nothing more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Data. We call them data, not lies. And one set is better than the other because the one set was acquired by best practice research on the ground and the other was not. The point is moot only if you indulge in total moral relativism.

---

One man's data is another man's lies, I guess. Personally, I'd be interested in hearing how managed to even collect 40 interviews per day. Even using the stated estimate of 15 minutes per interview it would take 10hrs a day. I find 15 minutes to be stretching the limits of credibility when you consider it would entail knocking on a door, introducing yourself, obtaining an informed consent for, going over the questionnaire, determining cause of death, asking for and receiving a valid death certificate, transcribing it, and walking to the door of the next house to start the process all over again. But then again, I apparently am pathetic. :juggle2:

Here's more criticism for you to dismiss:
http://www.rhul.ac.uk/Economics/Rese...ity/index.html
Be advised, these researchers may be "pathetic".

Some seem to be ignoring the fact that an appropriate and otherwise reliable survey method can be used in an inconsistent or inappropriate manner. 47 clusters seems a very small number to draw conclusions about the entire country. Compare that with the 2004 UN survey that used 2200(?) clusters. That probably goes a long way towards explaining why their given range of deaths is actually greater than the low-end of the range, which brings me to another point- the number 650,000 is pure fantasy, the report gives a (large)range, 650,000 is obtained by just splitting the difference and is not at all statistically sound.

Again, I question the statistical accuracy of the report, the bias of the clusters, and the bias of the researchers. So go on with the comparisons to evolution deniers or flat earthers or whatever other guilt-by-association attacks you want to trot out. :rolleyes:

The only effect of fewer clusters is to widen the confidence interval, which is as you mentioned, quite large. However 393,000 is not significantly different from 650,000 with regards to the implications i.e. more people are dying than would have under Saddam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The only effect of fewer clusters is to widen the confidence interval, which is as you mentioned, quite large. However 393,000 is not significantly different from 650,000 with regards to the implications i.e. more people are dying than would have under Saddam.

---

It's a bit more complicated than that though, isn't it?

If the clusters come from particually violent areas then they could really scew things. Currently the violence is not endemic.

Close enough in the densely populated areas AFAIK. Certainly there's parts of Iraq where there is very little violence, but then there's also very little people as many of those corners are basically desert...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Personally, I'd be interested in hearing how managed to ven collect 40 interviews per day.

---

It all depends on the number of interviewers you have. In response to questioning, the Lancet authors say the two survey teams together worked the 40 interviews in each day. In the Lancet article, each team is said to consist of two male and two female interviewers. That makes 8 interviewers to cover 40 households in a day.

If we assume a male and female interviewer paired up, we have 4 interview teams (as opposed to the 2 survey teams) for 40 interviews. That would be 5 interviews per interview team in the morning and 5 in the afternoon. It's rather fast, but not ridiculous given that the households were apparently all contiguous. The questionnaire probably was not much bigger than a single sheet (list of all people in household, now and previously; name; age; sex; deaths, date and cause of death).

If I were doing it, I would not pair up the men and the women as it doubles the time requirement. If each interviewer worked alone that would be 5 interviews per interviewer per day. That is eminently feasible, although still quite fast. I gather the interview teams were Iraqi, so I suspect they did it pragmatically as I would have.

I also suspect people are taking the 40 interviews/day reference rather literally. For many locations, travel time would be significant and the survey teams presumably had to stay in hotels overnight etc. In such circumstances, I can see the interviews being stretched over several days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The only effect of fewer clusters is to widen the confidence interval, which is as you mentioned, quite large. However 393,000 is not significantly different from 650,000 with regards to the implications i.e. more people are dying than would have under Saddam.

---

I think a difference 257,000 is significant, but you make up your own mind. And that's if you accept their statistics as otherwise valid. That doesn't address "main-street bias"(see previous post) and other serious criticism about the accuracy of the report.

The pre-war deaths portion of the study (5.5 deaths per 1000 under Saddam???) doesn't even pass the smell test. Submitted for you dismissal, is another criticism of the report, also from a war critic- not a supporter.

Quote:

---

Based on the household surveys, the report estimates that, just before the war, Iraq's mortality rate was 5.5 per 1,000. (That is, for every 1,000 people, 5.5 die each year.) The results also show that, in the three and a half years since the war began, this rate has shot up to 13.3 per 1,000. So, the "excess deaths" amount to 7.8 (13.3 minus 5.5) per 1,000. They extrapolate from this figure to reach their estimate of 655,000 deaths.

However, according to data from the United Nations, based on surveys taken at the time, Iraq's preinvasion mortality rate was 10 per 1,000. The difference between 13.3 and 10.0 is only 3.3, less than half of 7.8.

---

The Lancet and the authors of the report clearly have their own agenda. The admitted purpose of the report and the timing of it's release was to influence American elections. Unfortunately, it seems they may have let their personal agendas influence their work. When you're using such a small sample, working in the fog of war and end up with a result that is wildly different from other estimates, common sense would indicate that you look again at your numbers and methodology- not shove it out the door so that it's released in time for the election. :shrug:

hmm interesting. I read another article which just now mentions that the number isn't civilian casualties at all, like the 50,000 pentagon figure is. I guess I missed that. 60% were military aged men.

And your article makes some good points.

I'm rather relieved.

Why are you trotting this crap out AGAIN.

It was debated and shown to be useless propaganda. I would think you could find new stuff Adrian... :laugh4: