7 ms·

It's nice to see some scientific work going into the causality count in the Iraq war. Most of the surveys/official estimations are way off, the Opinion Research

by pippy 13y ago

It's nice to see some scientific work going into the causality count in the Iraq war. Most of the surveys/official estimations are way off, the Opinion Research Business survey reported over a million deaths while most US sources stated around 100k mark. This report is somewhere in the middle, which is most realistic.

jnbiche 13y ago
There have been very serious studies done on Iraqi war mortality for quite some time, starting with Roberts and Burnham, who did two very credible epidemiological surveys of mortality in 2004 and 2006 (published in the Lancet) using a similar approach as the study referenced above. The later study estimated somewhere around 600,000+ (95% confidence interval of 392,979 to 942,636) had already died by 2006 (and this before the renewed sectarian violence and US offensive in 2007). It's notable that even this new study's lead author thinks their half-million figure is an underestimate: ""We think it is roughly around half a million people dead. And that is likely a low estimate," says Hagopian. "People need to know the cost in human lives of the decision to go to war."
- gruseom 13y ago
  I remember that This American Life did a piece on the Lancet studies when they came out. They focused on how the widespread reaction (in the West) to their numbers was one of stubborn disbelief, despite the fact that these were the most credible researchers in the field and that they used standard techniques.
  - berntb 13y ago
    I remember this hilarious reality check from the Iraq Body Count project. I never saw it answered... Do you have a link? http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-checks/ http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-checks/ This was also quite funny: http://lancetiraq.blogspot.com/2010_03_01_archive.html http://lancetiraq.blogspot.com/2010_03_01_archive.html >>stubborn disbelief I thought it was fun how many people on the left knew how it was, with so wildly varying data. But of course, it never happens that researchers cheat on research papers. Or interviewers in another country "fix" the answers. Or a hundred other things. If I have a thesis in life, it is that paid shills and idealists lie. The idealists "know" how it is, so the problem is how to get people to think "correctly".
    - gruseom 13y ago
      Perhaps you know much more about this than I do. My memory is that the Lancet authors were serious, qualified researchers who had done much similar work in the past and whose objectivity had not previously been disputed. If there's a critique to be made of their work, a snarky "that can't be right" blog post certainly doesn't cut it. The authors of the new PLoS study say that they've taken into account criticisms of earlier work; I am sure they have the Lancet articles (among others) in mind, but I do not know the details. The Iraq Body Count project has bothered me for years because they only count individually confirmable deaths. There is nothing wrong with that as documentary work, but there is something terribly wrong with citing the number of deaths so counted as anything like a credible total for the war, when it is obviously a severe lower bound. War is random and chaotic. Very many people die whose paperwork does not get filled out. It is painfully obvious that statistical techniques are required to arrive at a good estimate under such circumstances. Thus to cite the Iraq Body Count as the total number of deaths in the war is dishonest, yet that is exactly how it has routinely been cited, and I don't understand why they (or at least the people who quote them in media pieces) have not been called out on this more often.
      - berntb 13y ago
        Uh, I can't see how that is relevant to the specific points I raised. (It isn't relevant to talk about someone else using the IBC data in a way IBC don't recommend. And there were lots of criticism before, see the first Lancet report. It is not good with a political motive either -- timing reports to influence an election.) 1. So you have no answer to the Iraq Body Count reality check and just ignore it? (E.g. where is the conspiracy needed to hide all the missing maimed -- and make their prostheses?!) 2. Nothing to say about the scathing criticism of lacking integrity in the second link? 3. Considering your lack of answers on 1 and 2, you might want to retract the claim that others put their heads in the sand. :-) 4. And a new point: You are aware of that Beth Osborne is a Lancet Report critic? She has documented integrity since she got problems from "too high" mortality values in the first Gulf war... And many other heavyweights in exactly the right field? 5. A second new point: Wikileaked papers also contradict the numbers -- and there is no sign of a big conspiracy in WikiLeaks to hide point 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak#Total_death_count http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak#Total_d... Since you have just ignored my references and arguments, I guess there is nothing else to say? (The point 1 I have asked about since it was reported, never a relevant answer.)

by pippy 13y ago

jnbiche 13y ago

There have been very serious studies done on Iraqi war mortality for quite some time, starting with Roberts and Burnham, who did two very credible epidemiological surveys of mortality in 2004 and 2006 (published in the Lancet) using a similar approach as the study referenced above. The later study estimated somewhere around 600,000+ (95% confidence interval of 392,979 to 942,636) had already died by 2006 (and this before the renewed sectarian violence and US offensive in 2007). It's notable that even this new study's lead author thinks their half-million figure is an underestimate: ""We think it is roughly around half a million people dead. And that is likely a low estimate," says Hagopian. "People need to know the cost in human lives of the decision to go to war."

gruseom 13y ago
I remember that This American Life did a piece on the Lancet studies when they came out. They focused on how the widespread reaction (in the West) to their numbers was one of stubborn disbelief, despite the fact that these were the most credible researchers in the field and that they used standard techniques.
- berntb 13y ago
  I remember this hilarious reality check from the Iraq Body Count project. I never saw it answered... Do you have a link? http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-checks/ http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-checks/ This was also quite funny: http://lancetiraq.blogspot.com/2010_03_01_archive.html http://lancetiraq.blogspot.com/2010_03_01_archive.html >>stubborn disbelief I thought it was fun how many people on the left knew how it was, with so wildly varying data. But of course, it never happens that researchers cheat on research papers. Or interviewers in another country "fix" the answers. Or a hundred other things. If I have a thesis in life, it is that paid shills and idealists lie. The idealists "know" how it is, so the problem is how to get people to think "correctly".
  - gruseom 13y ago
    Perhaps you know much more about this than I do. My memory is that the Lancet authors were serious, qualified researchers who had done much similar work in the past and whose objectivity had not previously been disputed. If there's a critique to be made of their work, a snarky "that can't be right" blog post certainly doesn't cut it. The authors of the new PLoS study say that they've taken into account criticisms of earlier work; I am sure they have the Lancet articles (among others) in mind, but I do not know the details. The Iraq Body Count project has bothered me for years because they only count individually confirmable deaths. There is nothing wrong with that as documentary work, but there is something terribly wrong with citing the number of deaths so counted as anything like a credible total for the war, when it is obviously a severe lower bound. War is random and chaotic. Very many people die whose paperwork does not get filled out. It is painfully obvious that statistical techniques are required to arrive at a good estimate under such circumstances. Thus to cite the Iraq Body Count as the total number of deaths in the war is dishonest, yet that is exactly how it has routinely been cited, and I don't understand why they (or at least the people who quote them in media pieces) have not been called out on this more often.
    - berntb 13y ago
      Uh, I can't see how that is relevant to the specific points I raised. (It isn't relevant to talk about someone else using the IBC data in a way IBC don't recommend. And there were lots of criticism before, see the first Lancet report. It is not good with a political motive either -- timing reports to influence an election.) 1. So you have no answer to the Iraq Body Count reality check and just ignore it? (E.g. where is the conspiracy needed to hide all the missing maimed -- and make their prostheses?!) 2. Nothing to say about the scathing criticism of lacking integrity in the second link? 3. Considering your lack of answers on 1 and 2, you might want to retract the claim that others put their heads in the sand. :-) 4. And a new point: You are aware of that Beth Osborne is a Lancet Report critic? She has documented integrity since she got problems from "too high" mortality values in the first Gulf war... And many other heavyweights in exactly the right field? 5. A second new point: Wikileaked papers also contradict the numbers -- and there is no sign of a big conspiracy in WikiLeaks to hide point 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak#Total_death_count http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak#Total_d... Since you have just ignored my references and arguments, I guess there is nothing else to say? (The point 1 I have asked about since it was reported, never a relevant answer.)