chess online
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
kingofpawns 11-Oct-06, 01:39 |
 655,000 more people have died in IraqBy David Brown Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, October 11, 2006; Page A12 A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred. The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government. It is more than 20 times the estimate of 30,000 civilian deaths that President Bush gave in a speech in December. It is more than 10 times the estimate of roughly 50,000 civilian deaths made by the British-based Iraq Body Count research group. The surveyors said they found a steady increase in mortality since the invasion, with a steeper rise in the last year that appears to reflect a worsening of violence as reported by the U.S. military, the news media and civilian groups. In the year ending in June, the team calculated Iraq's mortality rate to be roughly four times what it was the year before the war. Of the total 655,000 estimated "excess deaths," 601,000 resulted from violence and the rest from disease and other causes, according to the study. This is about 500 unexpected violent deaths per day throughout the country. The survey was done by Iraqi physicians and overseen by epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health. The findings are being published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet. The same group in 2004 published an estimate of roughly 100,000 deaths in the first 18 months after the invasion. That figure was much higher than expected, and was controversial. The new study estimates that about 500,000 more Iraqis, both civilian and military, have died since then -- a finding likely to be equally controversial. Both this and the earlier study are the only ones to estimate mortality in Iraq using scientific methods. The technique, called "cluster sampling," is used to estimate mortality in famines and after natural disasters. While acknowledging that the estimate is large, the researchers believe it is sound for numerous reasons. The recent survey got the same estimate for immediate post-invasion deaths as the early survey, which gives the researchers confidence in the methods. The great majority of deaths were also substantiated by death certificates. "We're very confident with the results," said Gilbert Burnham, a Johns Hopkins physician and epidemiologist. A Defense Department spokesman did not comment directly on the estimate. "The Department of Defense always regrets the loss of any innocent life in Iraq or anywhere else," said Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros. "The coalition takes enormous precautions to prevent civilian deaths and injuries." He added that "it would be difficult for the U.S. to precisely determine the number of civilian deaths in Iraq as a result of insurgent activity. The Iraqi Ministry of Health would be in a better position, with all of its records, to provide more accurate information on deaths in Iraq." Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for many years, called the survey method "tried and true," and added that "this is the best estimate of mortality we have." This viewed was echoed by Sarah Leah Whitson, an official of Human Rights Watch in New York, who said, "We have no reason to question the findings or the accuracy" of the survey. "I expect that people will be surprised by these figures," she said. "I think it is very important that, rather than questioning them, people realize there is very, very little reliable data coming out of Iraq." The survey was conducted between May 20 and July 10 by eight Iraqi physicians organized through Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. They visited 1,849 randomly selected households that had an average of seven members each. One person in each household was asked about deaths in the 14 months before the invasion and in the period after. The interviewers asked for death certificates 87 percent of the time; when they did, more than 90 percent of households produced certificates. According to the survey results, Iraq's mortality rate in the year before the invasion was 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people; in the post-invasion period it was 13.3 deaths per 1,000 people per year. The difference between these rates was used to calculate "excess deaths." Of the 629 deaths reported, 87 percent occurred after the invasion. A little more than 75 percent of the dead were men, with a greater male preponderance after the invasion. For violent post-invasion deaths, the male-to-female ratio was 10-to-1, with most victims between 15 and 44 years old. Gunshot wounds caused 56 percent of violent deaths, with car bombs and other explosions causing 14 percent, according to the survey results. Of the violent deaths that occurred after the invasion, 31 percent were caused by coalition forces or airstrikes, the respondents said. Burnham said that the estimate of Iraq's pre-invasion death rate -- 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people -- found in both of the Hopkins surveys was roughly the same estimate used by the CIA and the U.S. Census Bureau. He said he believes that attests to the accuracy of his team's results. He thinks further evidence of the survey's robustness is that the steepness of the upward trend it found in excess deaths in the last two years is roughly the same tendency found by other groups -- even though the actual numbers differ greatly. An independent group of researchers and biostatisticians based in England produces the Iraq Body Count. It estimates that there have been 44,000 to 49,000 civilian deaths since the invasion. An Iraqi nongovernmental organization estimated 128,000 deaths between the invasion and July 2005. The survey cost about $50,000 and was paid for by Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Center for International Studies. Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report. |
||||||
|
katonah 11-Oct-06, 06:06 |
The |
||||||
|
zorroloco 11-Oct-06, 07:11 |
Deleted by bobbynox on 11-Oct-06, 08:51.
|
||||||
|
JeffHeiman Why do you hate America? |
||||||
|
katonah 11-Oct-06, 08:13 |
Deleted by bobbynox on 11-Oct-06, 08:50.
|
||||||
|
echo3 11-Oct-06, 08:37 |
This is wrong KOP BUT things must be accurately assessed, wild exageration helps no one:As a soldier, I'd say this figure of 655,000is inflated in the extreme. Casualty figures are always difficult to assess in combat zones, double counting is standard and it's likely that some of these people will not be civilians in the true sense of the word. We should also remember that the people doing most of the killing now and for some months past are the Iraqis themselves. During WWII, it was not unusual for fighter pilots to overstimate kills by a factor of 9. This was not dishonesty, simply a reflection of the difficulties involved in counting death in a combat situation. Without wanting to be in anyway flippant, I'm reminded of Blackadder, when Blackadder is claiming to have killed a certain Nobleman in battle commenting that "I killed him and it took some doing I can tell you". His brother retorts "I can well believe it, I killed him myself at one point" I'm not the only one who thinks this. Iraq Body Count put the max figure at 48,000. Still sickening but certainly closer to the truth. "The methods that they used are certainly prone to inflation due to overcounting," said Marc E. Garlasco, senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch, which investigated the number of civilian deaths that occurred during the invasion. "These numbers seem to be inflated". |
||||||
|
echo3 11-Oct-06, 08:42 |
Also see:- |
||||||
|
bobbynox 11-Oct-06, 08:50 |
Deleted by bobbynox on 23-Jan-07, 09:02.
|
||||||
|
bobbynox 11-Oct-06, 08:51 |
Deleted by bobbynox on 23-Jan-07, 09:02.
|
||||||
|
bobbynox 11-Oct-06, 08:52 |
Deleted by bobbynox on 23-Jan-07, 09:02.
|
||||||
|
echo3 11-Oct-06, 09:02 |
Also:- |
||||||
|
for the record |
||||||
|
echo true enough...but that does not make it wrong...only debateable. so, if i cede you a factor of 10 (very generous imho), then it is 'only' some 65,000 extra deaths. and that seems ok to you? because of a terrorist 'threat' that has killed less people in all history in the us than die in one year from car accidents! |
||||||
|
kingofpawns 11-Oct-06, 12:46 |
some clarifications... not "stay the course" without end. Second, the estimate should be quite accurate. It is based on 1,849 randomly selected households. With that sample size, the error will be + or - 2-3%. The only objections I see are I don't believe it or people make mistakes in estimating how many people they have killed. Given the uncertainty of reported deaths, this statistical estimate is the best estimate of actual surplus deaths due to the war. So, also keep in mind that because there is a margine of error, more than 655,000 may have died and the death rate is currently increasing by a 1000 to 2000 a week. |
||||||
|
kementari 11-Oct-06, 17:26 |
bobbynox Be cool, bobby. There's a difference between passion and hatred. We can be passionate about the things we do and do not believe. I don't know about everyone else here, but one of the reasons why I enjoy forum posting is because you can get away with the kind of brutal honesty that you so often *want* to use in real life, but so rarely can. That's very, very nice. |
||||||
|
leo_london 11-Oct-06, 17:33 |
|
||||||
|
bobbynox 11-Oct-06, 17:34 |
Deleted by bobbynox on 23-Jan-07, 09:02.
|
||||||
|
kementari 11-Oct-06, 17:38 |
oh... I'll go back and talk about God or something, never mind me. |
||||||
|
leo_london 11-Oct-06, 17:48 |
|
||||||
|
bobbynox 11-Oct-06, 17:57 |
Deleted by bobbynox on 23-Jan-07, 09:03.
|
||||||
|
eldude 11-Oct-06, 19:51 |
I think this club is my new news place |
||||||
|
eldude 11-Oct-06, 20:49 |
|
||||||
|
eldude |
||||||
|
The actual number KOP always wants that number to be as high as possible so he can blame more and demonize more. I doubt these figures are even close. As for BOBBYNOX, I find you to be a oerfect example of why running a ckub takes too much time, effort and energy. And just to make the record clear...the fact that you brought this issue up at all demostrates an extremely lack of judgement as we all are aware that the OLF FORUMS were shut down because of the threat of legal action. Nice one Robert of the Completely Idiotic Era. Can someone lock him up with the pedophiles or do they have interent access?? I gotta tell ya...its easy to see, perhaps now, why I closed my club, with the latest volley of stupidity and my lack of capacity (serious illness) to make it all work. Good luck Jeff. Youre off to a great start, boot the idiots now and the problem children that simply "dont get it". I would applaud it. and you will be less encumbered by the trouble and wasted time they cause...they wont be missed... |
||||||
|
jaymar 12-Oct-06, 01:27 |
Saw.. Apparently he spent the whole of July going into a local Baghdad hospital, spending the day there and counting how many dead came in! He reckons 48,000 is nearer the mark. Still terrible and I have to say I wasn't very impressed that Dubya doesn't seem to have a clue how many. Don't dead Iraqi's deserve counting? |
||||||
|
kingofpawns 12-Oct-06, 01:54 |
Dok... It is absolutely false that the study is under dispute other than by Bush hacks. It was published in the journal Lancet. It was peer reviewed and used the accepted methodology for estimating deaths in wars and other disasters. Before spewing forth ignorance, it is good to actually read and know something about what you say rather regurgitating republican talking point, which are alway made up. 655,000 is the best estimate of the excess number of Iraqi's that died as a result of the war. It is important to realize that this number includes deaths of insurgents too. Who killed who could not be determined. So, if it makes you right-wingers happy, you can always believe that 600,000 were insurgents. |
||||||
|
echo3 12-Oct-06, 02:09 |
Deleted by echo3 on 12-Oct-06, 02:34.
|
||||||
|
echo3 12-Oct-06, 02:37 |
Jeff & KOP KOP Why would a civilian death make a right-winger "happy". That's an accusation beneath contempt. jeff Don't you DARE misrepresent me and infer I feel that thousands of civilian deaths are ok? DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME? I said that EVERY civilian death is regrettable. |
||||||
|
jaymar 12-Oct-06, 03:26 |
kop.. Of course neither of them would be credible to you. |
||||||
|
kingofpawns 12-Oct-06, 13:43 |
jaymar and echo... deaths. I suggest actually reading the scientific article and pointing out problems with the methodology, rather than merely stating who does or doesn't believe it. Anyone who wants a copy can send me a private message with your email address and I will send you a PDF of the article. echo... First read DOK's comment about what would make me happy. Second, re-read what I wrote. I didn't say civilians, I said insurgents. |
||||||
| |||||||
Log in 
