Yes, the survey projected 600,000 excess deaths based on 547 actually reported deaths. That's what "sampling" means, doofus. Every four years, pollsters in the U.S. project the results of voting by 100,000,000 people based on samples of 1000 or so, and get within a few percentage points.
The interviewers asked for death certificates, and mostly saw them. But the estimated number of fatalities is much larger than the total mortality figures compiled by Moqtada al-Sadr's Ministry of Health. Either the sampling is off, or the interviewers were lying, or the families were showing phony death certificates, or the local officials who produce death certificates aren't reporting them to the Ministry of Health, or the Ministry is failing to add them up right, either deliberately or not. Perhaps someone could go to the local authorities and ask them for their totals. But it wasn't incumbent on the Hopkins folks to do so.
If the incident-based counts have been rising, that tells us something about the trend, even if the level of the incident-based counts is below the level of the survey-based estimate. So to say that when John Murtha cites those numbers he's casting doubt on the Lancet report is intellectually dishonest even beyond the warblogger norm.
Estimating a confidence interval ("error band") around a point estimate is a way of being honest about how much you know and don't know. The argument "this study has a big error band, therefore it's not reliable" (more or less what Medpundit says) betrays a quite astonishing level of either deception or ignorance.
Kleiman also comments:
The paper claims that one team of four surveyors could survey a cluster of forty households in a day. That seems odd, and calls for some explanation.
I guess I don't see the problem. That's 10 interviews per surveyor, and a half-hour seems plenty of time for one interview.
The more I read the Lancet paper, and the more I examine my own concerns with that article, the more reasonable their conclusions appear. I still think that their number is likely to be on the high side, but I don't think it's going to be high by as much as I would have liked to believe. In fact, I think that the actual number is quite likely to fall within their stated 95% confidence interval. It's painful to think that we have so much blood on our hands as a nation, but the concerns that I still have with the paper's methodology are almost certainly not severe enough to account for even half of their estimate.
I can find no record of any member of the White House press corp pressing Bush for a justification for his dismissal of the Lancet study. No one has asked him why he didn't think it was credible. I recognize that this is not news. We all know about the contempt Bush has for those who hold ideas that contradict his own. What I find less easy to digest is the media's apparent lack of interest in the implications of the study.
I'm sorry folks, but simply reporting what the president says isn't enough. Especially when what he says is so unsupportable. Haven't the last five years taught us anything about taking presidents at their word? Isn't this study a critical finding with respect to American foreign policy?
I am absolutely outraged at the outpour of people disputing these numbers!!! I mean extremely disgusted. I dont care who committed these crimes, but the numbers are correct. Mr Bush, the more I get to hear your speeches, the more my hatred towards you increases. To belittle the Iraqi blood is just beyond me. To shrug your shoulders and say that these are lies is beyond me. For anyone who disagrees or laughs these numbers off, then I will tell you this, COME HERE AND SEE FOR YOURSELF WHATS REALLY HAPPENING!!! Im sure everyone has internet access and satellite channels, right??? Well do me a favour, and think about this oh and get a calculator out.
Atleast a hundred bodies are found decapitated thrown in trashbins daily in Baghdad only. And I say atleast 100. Take into consideration the West, East, South and North of the Country. Add another 100. Oh and by the way these are the ones we hear off. So 100 plus 100 we get 200 daily. ATLEAST. multiply that by 365, then by 3 since thats three years from March and add 200 * 217 (number of days from March to October). You still with me???Ok then add all those that died from the bombings of the war, the suicide bombings that take place daily, the so called "friendly fire" oh and the collateral damage. Ofcourse you have to take into consideration the deaths that occurred on the markets that killed hundreds, the deaths that took place on the bridge last year, the anonymous deaths that take place. Hmm, where does that put the number at???
Isnt it sad, that now we value Iraqi blood by number of deaths. I dont care if its 660,000 0r 1000. They are still Iraqis who GOT KILLED. And its even sadder to see people or hear people saying that these are a bunch of lies. The whole world cried when Tsunami took place, or 911 or the other disasters, I am one of them. But I also cry for my own country that I see torn. Instead of the two rivers, we have rivers upon rivers of blood. Am I making this up??? No, I wish I was. I wish that all the gloom and all the sadness in Iraq is a lie. Who wouldnt??? I wish that all these stories of butchered bodies is a lie. I wish that all those kidnappings is a lie. I wish that all the sectarian violence is a lie. I wish that all the stories of orphaned children is a lie. I wish everything that I hear from my Iraqi friends, all their sadness and fears are Lies. I really do. But they aint. If you dont believe me, or dont believe the others, then thats your choice. You are free to formulate your own opinion.
An average of 10 fatalities for each air strike seems plausible. If we assume the average number of US plane and missile strikes for the year as a whole was 150 per month, that's 18000 fatalities for 2005-06. Taking into account strikes by British and other allied forces and by attack helicopters (which seem to be used a lot, but are also rarely reported) it seems likely that Coalition air strikes killed more than 20 000 people in 2005-06.
That's below the Lancet range of estimates, but in the same ballpark. To explain the gap, I'd suggest that it's likely that the cause of death has been reported wrongly (or at least, inconsistently with official US accounts) in some cases. I've seen quite a few cases where Iraqis have blamed US air strikes for deaths, while the US authorities have denied that there were any strikes in the area and have blamed the deaths on insurgent mortar attacks. That seems to suggest that deaths attributed to air strikes may actually have been caused by artillery on one side or the other.
The Iraq Body Count has issued a press release criticising the study. They reckon the numbers are too high because:
On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;
Yes, and the study provides evidence that such mechanisms break down in a civil war.
Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;
Or, as noted above, statistics aren't being collected properly. And people would seem to have good reasons for avoiding hospital treatment.
Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq;
Yes. Why is this so hard to believe?
Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued;
Well, not by the central government. See earlier point.
The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.
Well, the number is bigger in the last year, but it's not significantly bigger than the year that included Falluja. As for "Shock and Awe", the target there was the Iraqi military, which would not be counted in the Lancet study. In "Shock and Awe" it would have been possible to avoid civilian casualties to a large extent, while with current operations the insurgents are hiding amongst the civilian population and many more Iraqis will die.
Second, the figure of 40,000 claimed as the number of deaths recorded by the MoH in 2002 is false. No specific citation is offered by the Lancet authors for this figure other than a vague attribution to "informed sources in Iraq". But official Iraqi figures for 2002, forwarded to IBC courtesy of the Los Angeles Times, show that the Ministry registered 84,025 deaths from all causes in that year. This excluded deaths in the Kurdish-administered regions, which contain 12% or more of the population.
I hope the Lancet authors can provide more details on the 40,000 figure, so we can find out what is going on here. In any case, even the the 84,025 figure is a hefty undercount.
Thus, the actual MoH figure for 2002, even while excluding Kurdistan, stands at 70% of the estimate of 120,000 that, per the Lancet authors, "should have been recorded" nation-wide in 2002. It may (or may not, given its post-2004 casualty monitoring system) be true that the "ministry's numbers are not likely to be more complete or accurate today". But if their completeness is even remotely similar to 2002 (the Ministry's equivalent 2005 figures record 115,785 deaths, an average of 320 per day), then we are still left with a vast and completely unexplained chasm between the actual official figures, what may reasonably be assumed about their past completeness based on documentary evidence, and the violent death estimate offered in this new Lancet report.
So even the MoH figures show a huge 40% increase in the death rate. This is going to be a minimum, since with the disruption of the war, deaths are less likely to make it into the official figures.
I wonder if the Iraqi Body Count organization may be considered to be denialists.
Nail in the coffin from Iraq Body Count, of all places.
Hard to see how anyone can reasonably defend this study, when you consider the actual numbers.
But I guess if you want to believe hard enough...
Cold fusion, anyone?
IBC: But official Iraqi figures for 2002, forwarded to IBC courtesy of the Los Angeles Times, show that the Ministry registered 84,025 deaths from all causes in that year.
Question for Josh, if he is passing, or anyone else who might know: when did that figure become available?
If reasonably complete figures only appear after a long delay then they aren't much use for the purpose the Lancet authors have in mind. Their focus is on identifying humanitarian crises as they arise, not providing data for historians.
Some of the IBC's comments suggest that they don't have much sympathy with that aim, or if they do they lost sight of it when they drafted their press release. For example, see the bit about gathering the sort of detailed information "that does justice to the victims, honours their memory, and provides the closure that only a full list, or census, can do satisfactorily." That's fine if what you want is a nice big memorial wall with lots of names carved on it, but guys like Roberts have set themselves the task of quantifying deaths in a timely fashion.
As for "Shock and Awe", the target there was the Iraqi military, which would not be counted in the Lancet study.
Ummm, how do you figure? Is there something in the study about Lancet authors making sure that deaths were not military? How exactly would they accomplish that?
Tim provides a link. TallDave provides it again. Redundant as always.
Is there something in the study about Lancet authors making sure that deaths were not military?
In effect, yes. Read the study. Better still, read the two studies.
Their focus is on identifying humanitarian crises as they arise
I think you mean "right before U.S. elections."
I look forward to the 2008 report, which will find that only is every single Iraqi dead, but several million were resurrected and killed again.
It was too good not to link again; this is like the Pope embracing evolution. Talk about your faith-based science.
I read both studies and didn't see anything like that. Let's see a cite Kevin.
Hard to see how anyone can reasonably defend this study, when you consider the actual numbers.
Well, given the fact that the large majority of wingnut criticisms have showed a near total lack of knowledge about statistics and probability, and a near total inability to make comments other than "The authors are leftie stooges", its not surprising that those criticisms cannot be taken seriously. Oddly, the IBC, whom wingnuts have been denouncing, has at least tried to counter-argue.
You note that wingnuts haven't been bothered to come up with counter-arguments. No wonder, for them FAITH based numbers are the only answer.
But I guess if you want to believe hard enough...
You bet, like people who apparently want to believe
-- That there are or were WMDs in Iraq
-- TQhat Iraq has been a smashing success
T
Jon,
So your rebuttal is: Damn those wingnuts!
Well. color me convinced.
s there something in the study about Lancet authors making sure that deaths were not military? How exactly would they accomplish that?
My memory is that they (the Lancet authors) require the deceased to live in the household for three months prior to death, for this reason, among others. Soldiers, in general, are in barracks not homes.
I have heard a claim from one source that some soldiers did live at home prewar. If true, this might mean that a fraction of soldiers did get included in the Lancet count. I have no verification of this claim.
So your rebuttal is: Damn those wingnuts!
My rebuttal to WHAT ? What sort of criticism have you produced that is based on mathematics, statistics or the like ? As far as the IBC goes, I think Tim countered their criticism reasonably.
I look forward to the 2008 report, which will find that only is every single Iraqi dead, but several million were resurrected and killed again.
Of course, the fact is that wingnuts never ever bother to present any alternate numbers, whether backed up by methodology or not. Why ? Because of course, its an article of faith among them that all Iraqi deaths are insurgents.
Talldave, you're contributing zero to this discussion. I'm not saying that as a Lancet defender--there have been some Lancet critics here who've tried to come up with serious criticisms. I'm one of them (how well I succeeded I don't know). You're not doing anything--just snarking.
In the first Lancet paper some of the 21 non-Fallujah violent deaths might have been insurgents. I think there were 2 males of the right age. The same would be true on a much larger scale in this second study, where the majority of the violent deaths were, I think, adult males. (The paper isn't handy though.) The survey team made a point not to ask that question, not having any desire to end up shot or tortured to death I suppose.
Don, I already noted many substantive problems even aside from the IBC notes. When you're dealing with people who ignore all the facts, snark is all that's left.
Sigh. Generally in science, when you make a claim, it has to withstand scrutiny. Any one of the many problems with this study is enough to invalidate it.
What's more likely, all the nearly impossible things the very antiwar, non-wingnut IBC listed, or that one of the many possible problems with the study caused it to be wrong?
Well, enough arguing with religious zealots for me this time around. See you in 2008! Remember to keep telling yourselves you're the reasonable ones.
Don, I already noted many substantive problems even aside from the IBC notes. When you're dealing with people who ignore all the facts, snark is all that's left.
Well, I read your note, and here are your criticisms
--- High margin of error.
Duh -- Cluster sampling always has a higher margin of error than random sampling. Its inherent in the method.
You also metion some more nonsenese about how the MoE invalidates the result, which is nonsense. Anyone who is not statistically innumerate knows a) that that is not correct b) a high MoE does not men that all subranges in that range are equally valid. In fact, the result is far likely to be closer to the mean than to the fringes
--- You commented on how self-reporting was likely to be invalid. But its the exact same method used in Rwanda etc. In any case, death certificats were verified this time.
More ?
Sigh. Generally in science, when you make a claim, it has to withstand scrutiny. Any one of the many problems with this study is enough to invalidate it.
Sigh. When you challenge a scientific study, its up to you to show why its wrong, instead of demonstrating your lack of knowledgeof stats.
Well, enough arguing with religious zealots for me this time around. See you in 2008! Remember to keep telling yourselves you're the reasonable ones.
Yup, we're the ones claiming still that there are WMDS in iraq and that Iraq is a smashing success, LoL
One of TallDave's "substantive problems" is that the study examined "a population culturally prone to exaggeration."
As Machiavelli sez, "Men are more apt to be mistaken in their generalizations than in their particular observations."
For the record, TallDave's contribution to the conversation at his link consisted of three comments:
1) Zogby's not evenhanded, and doesn't know what he's talking about.
2) Reports by hospitals and morgues are not going to be off by a factor of ten. Where would all the bodies go?
3) The results are just not reasonable.
So much for "[noting] many substantive problems."
The argument from incredulity is getting a real workout here. The distinguishing character of this debate[1] is the tone of lofty scorn adopted by those who can see the obvious wrongness of the study toward those who can't. When someone who has yet to deal with even one objective aspect of the study dismisses his interlocutors as "religous zealots", my Iron-O-Meter pegs.[2]
[1] OK, other debates have it, but this one really, really has it.
[2] My favorite thus far in the lack of self-awareness category is the commenter who described the study as "a systematic lie cooked up by deranged morons", and followed up by remarking that "I'm only going where the evidence leads me, as any good scientist should."
You absolutely cannot make this shit up.
Aw, shucks, jre, you're just Stifling Debate (TM) here.
Best,
D
Actually, we wingnut denialists are worse than that - we actually provide links to the author's opinions in their own words:
1) Counting the dead in Iraq: Interview with Les Roberts in Socialist Worker Online
2) Richard Horton speech at Time to Go anti-war demonstration in Manchester on 23 September 2006 at YouTube
Not that there's anything wrong with their opinions, of course.
Clarification: Richard Horton is the editor-in-chief of the Lancet, not an author of the study. It is fair to say that he is a major advocate of the study.
we actually provide links to the author's opinions in their own words
Shouldn't this have been: we actually provide links to the author's opinions in their own words when we try to poison the well.
The Economist has a reasonably fair summary of the study, as they did with the earlier study in 2004 which they discussed in more depth.
"At the very least, the study represents a statistically valid attempt to calculate the dreadful things that have happened, and continue to happen."
Aaaaaaaaaaaand Iraqbodycount responds using known facts to the Lancet's lunatic 'research' http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php
Read the whole thing. Makes that list of commentators above seem somewhat, um, wrongish, really.
spartikus wrote:
You mean, like Tim Lambert?
1) New Canadian Astroturf Group
2) BBC Newsnight on Global Warming Denialists
3) Greenhouse dirty dozen at work
Jack, that should be ... the Lancet's lunatic 'research' ... I'm only going where the facts lead me."
It doesn't have the same effect without that rimshot at the end.
Allow me, jre:
the Lancet's lunatic 'research'... I'm only going where the facts lead me....[m]akes that list of commentators above seem somewhat, um, wrongish, really.
Best,
D
I agree with one of the posters who said you just can't make this stuff up. It is too rich, too devoid of self awareness, too unseemly in its arrogance and fathomless racism, altogether like they say about porn, not having the slightest social value. I do not know what it will take, but it seems reason will not do it, and as for the teeniest hint of moral responisbility, forget it.
Here's a link to another epidemiologist supporting the Lancet paper
(I got it from "Lenin'sTomb", who also has a piece attacking IBC's critique.)
http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/116066724942.htm
I think I'll stop picking at the paper and just stick to calling for a serious investigation sponsored (but not controlled) by the government. Unfortunately that means in my case pestering the NYT for editorials on the subject (they'll probably ignore me) and pestering my worthless senators and even more worthless congressman.
The post by Lenin that Donald mentions is here:
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/10/counting-dead-ibc-attempt-to-und…
It is a good analysis of the inanity of IBC´s criticism of The Lancet report.
I'm ignoring the IBC's argument from incredulity, and focusing on their more substantial argument, namely their invocation of another survey that superficially has a vastly lower death toll than the Lancet's.
garhane,
I do not know what it will take, but it seems reason will not do it, and as for the teeniest hint of moral responisbility, forget it.
Savage scorn, ridicule, contempt, a good mental pounding of their underdeveloped childish egos then deafening ignorage.
But do not pound their ideology, as that is where they formed their identities and therefore they will defend that until the death, as they were unable to form their identities on their own and had to look elsewhere.
My 2¢
Best,
D