OT - 100 000 excess civilian deaths after Iraq invasion

For all of you guys who like to balance the situation in Iraq before
and after the invasion, you may find this article from a respected
medical publication interesting:

http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol...ne_publication

Access is free upon registration, but I copied a summary:

Quote

Methods
A cluster sample survey was undertaken throughout Iraq during
September, 2004. 33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed
about household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002.
In those households reporting deaths, the date, cause, and
circumstances of violent deaths were recorded. We assessed the
relative risk of death associated with the 2003 invasion and
occupation by comparing mortality in the 17·8 months after the
invasion with the 14·6-month period preceding it.

Findings
The risk of death was estimated to be 2·5-fold (95% CI 1·6-4·2) higher
after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period.
Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the
city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is
1·5-fold (1·1-2·3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000
more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion
outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is
included. The major causes of death before the invasion were
myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic
disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of
death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters,
and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals
reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The
risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58
times higher (95% CI 8·1-419) than in the period before the war.

Interpretation
Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess
deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from
coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that
collection of public-health information is possible even during
periods of extreme violence. Our results need further verification and
should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air
strikes.

End quote

The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was
58 times higher than in the period before the war. Most individuals
reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children.

Think about it.

Cheers,

Froggy

froggy wrote:
> For all of you guys who like to balance the situation in Iraq before
> and after the invasion, you may find this article from a respected
> medical publication interesting:

No.

We're not interested.

We don't want OT stuff in this newsgroup, and we don't patronize
anyone who does so.

Get this bullshit out of here.

-- "We're going to rush the hijackers." -Jeremy Glick, aboard United
Airlines flight 93, September 11, 2001

froggy wrote:
> For all of you guys who like to balance the situation in Iraq before
> and after the invasion, you may find this article from a respected
> medical publication interesting:
>
> http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol...ne_publication
>
> Access is free upon registration, but I copied a summary:
>
> Quote
>
> Methods
> A cluster sample survey was undertaken throughout Iraq during
> September, 2004. 33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed
> about household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002.
> In those households reporting deaths, the date, cause, and
> circumstances of violent deaths were recorded. We assessed the
> relative risk of death associated with the 2003 invasion and
> occupation by comparing mortality in the 17·8 months after the
> invasion with the 14·6-month period preceding it.
>
> Findings
> The risk of death was estimated to be 2·5-fold (95% CI 1·6-4·2) higher
> after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period.
> Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the
> city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is
> 1·5-fold (1·1-2·3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000
> more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion
> outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is
> included. The major causes of death before the invasion were
> myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic
> disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of
> death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters,
> and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals
> reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The
> risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58
> times higher (95% CI 8·1-419) than in the period before the war.
>
> Interpretation
> Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess
> deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
> Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from
> coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that
> collection of public-health information is possible even during
> periods of extreme violence. Our results need further verification and
> should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air
> strikes.
>
> End quote
>
> The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was
> 58 times higher than in the period before the war. Most individuals
> reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children.
>
> Think about it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Froggy
read the whole thing, including the methodology of the survey, and you
can easily determine that the number could be about 10% of their
estimate. Piss poor science at beat, and most assuredly done with an agenda.



--

It's bad luck to be superstitious

dazed and confuzed <dedmann@netnitco.net> wrote

> read the whole thing, including the methodology of the survey, and you
> can easily determine that the number could be about 10% of their
> estimate.

If they have it right with a 10% error margin only, then that is
already quite an achievement.

Simply having a figure with a know error margin is much better than
the other information available (notably as the US would not provide
any official estimate of Iraqi casualties).

> Piss poor science at beat,

That nevertheless made it into a peer-reviewed scientific publication.
Which to me suggests that it is reasonably good science, until
demonstrated otherwise.

> and most assuredly done with an agenda.

Maybe, or maybe not. What element do you have to support this view?

Besides, even if the study had been made with an agenda in mind, this
would not mean that the results are flawed. Unless someone comes up
with a better survey, with significantly different results, and find
the (supposed) bias here.

Cheers,

Froggy

"froggy" <hub666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7eef9eb8.0411020448.24927e07@posting.google.c om...
> dazed and confuzed <dedmann@netnitco.net> wrote
>
> > read the whole thing, including the methodology of the survey, and you
> > can easily determine that the number could be about 10% of their
> > estimate.
>
> If they have it right with a 10% error margin only, then that is
> already quite an achievement.

If that were true, it would be. Dazed, however, is saying that the number
"could be about 10% of their estimate" which means that the error margin
would be 90% (if he were right). If the "study" were truly that flawed, it
wouldn't be very useful at all. Personally, I haven't the time nor desire
to dissect the study, so I'll take a middle ground and say that the study
may or may not be valid.

froggy wrote:
> "Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message news:<kfNhd.4365$fC4.1894@newssvr11.news.prodigy.c om>...
>
>>"froggy" <hub666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:7eef9eb8.0411020448.24927e07@posting.google .com...
>>
>>>dazed and confuzed <dedmann@netnitco.net> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>read the whole thing, including the methodology of the survey, and you
>>>>can easily determine that the number could be about 10% of their
>>>>estimate.
>>>
>>>If they have it right with a 10% error margin only, then that is
>>>already quite an achievement.
>>
>>If that were true, it would be. Dazed, however, is saying that the number
>>"could be about 10% of their estimate" which means that the error margin
>>would be 90% (if he were right).
>
>
> Oops. Of, off. Why don't you guys just speak French!
>
>
>> If the "study" were truly that flawed, it
>>wouldn't be very useful at all.
>
>
> And presumably would not get published.
>
>
>> Personally, I haven't the time nor desire
>>to dissect the study, so I'll take a middle ground and say that the study
>>may or may not be valid.
>
>
> Neither do I have the time nor brains, so I'll say it must be correct
> until proven otherwise.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Froggy
did you read the link that I sent you R: the Lancet study?

--

It's bad luck to be superstitious

"Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message news:<kfNhd.4365$fC4.1894@newssvr11.news.prodigy.c om>...
> "froggy" <hub666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7eef9eb8.0411020448.24927e07@posting.google.c om...
> > dazed and confuzed <dedmann@netnitco.net> wrote
> >
> > > read the whole thing, including the methodology of the survey, and you
> > > can easily determine that the number could be about 10% of their
> > > estimate.
> >
> > If they have it right with a 10% error margin only, then that is
> > already quite an achievement.
>
> If that were true, it would be. Dazed, however, is saying that the number
> "could be about 10% of their estimate" which means that the error margin
> would be 90% (if he were right).

Oops. Of, off. Why don't you guys just speak French!

> If the "study" were truly that flawed, it
> wouldn't be very useful at all.

And presumably would not get published.

> Personally, I haven't the time nor desire
> to dissect the study, so I'll take a middle ground and say that the study
> may or may not be valid.

Neither do I have the time nor brains, so I'll say it must be correct
until proven otherwise.


Cheers,

Froggy

"froggy" wrote ...
> Oops. Of, off. Why don't you guys just speak French!

Faut péter dans l'eau pour faire des bulles...

> Neither do I have the time nor brains, so I'll say it must be correct
> until proven otherwise.

Parle avec tes amis dans ta tete...



Feel better now?

"dazed and confuzed" <dedmann@netnitco.net> wrote in message
news:qsSdnUHe06XEVRvcRVn-gA@netnitco.net...
> read the whole thing, including the methodology of the survey, and you
> can easily determine that the number could be about 10% of their
> estimate.
It's a cluster survey in the middle of a war-zone. What do you expect?
We'd all like more data - you've got to go with what you've got.
> Piss poor science at beat,
I'm willing to take a guess you're not a scientist then.
> and most assuredly done with an agenda.
It could well be. I expect their agenda is to point out (very loudly) the
number of people killed. Given the empirical evidence they obtained, the
most likely excess mortality in Iraq, is 98,000 excluding Falloojeh.
Additionally, the data suggests in the region of 200,000 excess deaths in
Falloojeh. It isn't open to interpretation, personal agendas, politics, or
anything else you might want to use to change the figure - that's the beauty
of scientific method.
You want a better figure? Get more data! In the mean time we've got to go
with what we have.

Naturally, since this is 'piss poor science', you'll be publishing an
article to explain this statement in the next Lancet, but perhaps you might
want to explain your statement here in advance.

Alun Harford

"Grumman-581" <grumman581-YYYY-MM@charter.net> wrote in message news:<10og8dafnbpg0d5@corp.supernews.com>...
> "froggy" wrote ...
> > Oops. Of, off. Why don't you guys just speak French!
>
> Faut péter dans l'eau pour faire des bulles...
>
> > Neither do I have the time nor brains, so I'll say it must be correct
> > until proven otherwise.
>
> Parle avec tes amis dans ta tete...
>
> Feel better now?

Fine, thanks.

One quick question: Do you actually speak French or did you simply
copy and paste from some French source

Cheers,

Froggy