Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Where for art tho Lancet threads?
EW3    10/14/2006 6:52:31 PM
Is SP getting hacked. We've had 1 thread lock up so it can't be posted to. And the two replacement threads hacked. Seems like right after sheck makes cogent points about the fallacy of the report, the thread he does it on disappears.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21   NEXT
TAC II       10/17/2006 6:43:07 AM

Sure, no reason to get grumpy.

 

"Nope.  Sorry. Flawed speculation based on unsupported conjecture. Not to be passed off as "according to the Lancet"."

 

Problem here is that it is not conjecture as it is consistent with Lancet, but a little error. So it is 22 instead of 11. 7% instead of 3.5. Rough numbers to give you a sense of it. Also demonstrates statistics: Change crude death rate with 0.2 and you're there. (And curiously I have found out they used 5.4 and not 5.5 for CDR!)

 

ANyway, really touching on substance here. ;)

 

 

"My suggestion would be to stop messing around with the absurd math proposed by the statistical geniuses at IBC, and... read the dang survey. Page 7, on the bottom. Where it says "53,938 excess deaths caused by non-violent causes"."

 

I'll accept that number. However, IBC still only concerned with violent deaths. Still missing 600,000. The 7 % figure hasn't been compromised! Hmmm.

 

 

"What bugs me about this is not the fact that you're off by a factor of 2 - it's that you've brought off on the mathematical inanity of the diletantes at IBC.  Those guys may have a real shaky grasp on the notion of a war related non-violent death, or a non-war related violent deaths - but there's no good reason why we should follow them down that rabbit trail. It's, well, dumb."

 

Not"

 

My error of calc is unrelated with what IBC said, but was related to your attempt to push the violent deaths over in the non-violent group. To do that would be, well, disingeneous. But if you insist on direct Lancet quotes, here is one from the actual article as it appears in Lancet:

 

"Post-invasion excess mortality rates showed much the

same escalating trend, rising from 2·6 per 1000 people

per year (0·6–4·7) above the baseline rate in 2003 to

14·2 per 1000 people per year (8·6–21·5) in 2006

 
Quote    Reply

shek       10/18/2006 8:50:04 AM
Here's the final nail in the coffin for me on this most recent Roberts et al study.  No attempt to even benchmark results against the last detailed census, dismissing portions of his own report because it was written by a student (ever heard of personal responsibility?  hello?  your name is on the study!), and he isn't even willing to try and defend his study against other professionals in the field. 
 
The "discredited" title for the study fits very well.
 
***
Wall Street Journal
October 18, 2006
Pg. 20

655,000 War Dead?

By Steven E. Moore

After doing survey research in Iraq for nearly two years, I was surprised to read that a study by a group from Johns Hopkins University claims that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war. Don't get me wrong, there have been far too many deaths in Iraq by anyone's measure; some of them have been friends of mine. But the Johns Hopkins tally is wildly at odds with any numbers I have seen in that country. Survey results frequently have a margin of error of plus or minus 3% or 5% -- not 1200%.

The group -- associated with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health -- employed cluster sampling for in-person interviews, which is the methodology that I and most researchers use in developing countries. Here, in the U.S., opinion surveys often use telephone polls, selecting individuals at random. But for a country lacking in telephone penetration, door-to-door interviews are required: Neighborhoods are selected at random, and then individuals are selected at random in "clusters" within each neighborhood for door-to-door interviews. Without cluster sampling, the expense and time associated with travel would make in-person interviewing virtually impossible.

However, the key to the validity of cluster sampling is to use enough cluster points. In their 2006 report, "Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional sample survey," the Johns Hopkins team says it used 47 cluster points for their sample of 1,849 interviews. This is astonishing: I wouldn't survey a junior high school, no less an entire country, using only 47 cluster points.

Neither would anyone else. For its 2004 survey of Iraq, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) used 2,200 cluster points of 10 interviews each for a total sample of 21,688. True, interviews are expensive and not everyone has the U.N.'s bank account. However, even for a similarly sized sample, that is an extraordinarily small number of cluster points. A 2005 survey conducted by ABC News, Time magazine, the BBC, NHK and Der Spiegel used 135 cluster points with a sample size of 1,711 -- almost three times that of the Johns Hopkins team for 93% of the sample size.

What happens when you don't use enough cluster points in a survey? You get crazy results when compared to a known quantity, or a survey with more cluster points. There was a perfect example of this two years ago. The UNDP's survey, in April and May 2004, estimated between 18,000 and 29,000 Iraqi civilian deaths due to the war. This survey was conducted four months prior to another, earlier study by the Johns Hopkins team, which used 33 cluster points and estimated between 69,000 and 155,000 civilian deaths -- four to five times as high as the UNDP survey, which used 66 times the cluster points.

The 2004 survey by the Johns Hopkins group was itself methodologically suspect -- and the one they just published even more so.

Curious about the kind of people who would have the chutzpah to claim to a national audience that this kind of research was methodologically sound, I contacted Johns Hopkins University and was referred to Les Roberts, one of the primary authors of the study. Dr. Roberts defended his 47 cluster points, saying that this was standard. I'm not sure whose standards these are.

Appendix A of the Johns Hopkins survey, for example, cites several other studies of mortality in war zones, and uses the citations to validate the group's use of cluster sampling. One study is by the International Rescue Committee in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which used 750 cluster points. Harvard's School of Public Health, in a 1992 survey of Iraq, used 271 cluster points. Another study in Kosovo cites the use of 50 cluster points, but this was for a population of just 1.6 million, compared to Iraq's 27 million.

When I pointed out these numbers to Dr. Roberts, he said that the appendices were written by a student and should be ignored. Which led me to wonder what other sections of the survey should be ignored.

With so few cluster points, it is highly unlikely the Johns Hopkins survey is representative of the population in Iraq. However, there is a definitive method of establishing if it is. Recording the gender, age, e

 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    Fatal Flaw   10/18/2006 1:40:28 PM
Shek
 
Thanks for posting. Ive seen that this morning all over the place.
 
THAT was the missing piece on cluster studies that I couldnt articulate earlier but made me uneasy enough to question the study. (Must be getting old - in my earlier days, I wouldnt have missed the obviousness of the low number of clusters extended to the 22 million population, whereas higher clusters for even lower pops were conducted in other countries)
 
Cluster samplings by nature are inherently sensitive to low numbers and outliers, accounting for higher Variance in the results, which is why you could have positive growth in Iraqis of 100,000 to almost 1,000,000 dead. The higher the number of clusters, the lower the Variance, and therefore the more confidence one has in the results.
 
And that they didnt even look at demographic to ensure a representative sample as well? Condemns the research as fatally flawed unless that could be explained as well.
 
swhitebull - it will be interesting to see how EU spins this
 
Quote    Reply

Pseudonym       10/18/2006 7:40:18 PM
I just got home and found the little tidbit on the number of clusters.

I was involved in a survey at my high school my senior year for extra credit, we used 200 clusters.

ONLY 47 CLUSTERS FOR AN ENTIRE COUNTRY WTF IS THIS A JOKE?

 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    The Return of Carl Sagan   10/18/2006 10:16:27 PM
101206.jpg
 
swhitebull
 
Quote    Reply

eu4ea       10/19/2006 12:11:42 AM
I'll just give you one from Carl Sagan:

"extraordinary results require extraordinary proof"  Nope, I'm not just refering to the Lancet's study.  I'm questioning your motivation:

The fact is that you guys are holding up to a tremendous level of scrutiny the study that has produced the most ordinary results (this war closely resembles other wars), while happily giving a pass to the extraordinary results (this war is like no other war before) produced by sources as unreliable as political hacks in hotel rooms (such as Mr. Moore) and diletantes reading newspapers (such as Iraqbodycount.org).

Further:  This is not the first time this happens. Just before the summer, the UN Assistance commision for Iraq came out with their results, which concluded that an average of 100 people were getting killed every day based on the records they collected from the Bagdhad morgue.  This same fiery discussion happened back then, with the passionate denials (study not credible, iraqbodycount, assorted 'gotchas', etc.).  The 100 dead/day  figure is now common wisdom.

Further yet: The reason why you're doing this is an emotional attachment to the idea that the war is goign well. That's uninteligent. Wishing that the war was goign well (which I most certainly do) is one thing, blinding yourself to reality on the ground is quite another. Far from being patriotic, denying reality leads to defeat - and thus it is a tremendous disservice to the nation.

Now, truning back to Mr. Moore - here are some quotes from his previous 'research' before he authored the 'debunking' you quoted:

============================
I was in Iraq for nine months myself, and your analysis of a Westerner's life resonates. I was confined to my hotel for much of the time, and felt my freedoms erode as I became increasingly hunted.
However, I was in Iraq doing public opinion research. While I was increasingly unable to travel, I was consistently getting info on what Iraqis are thinking, and still get frequent polls.
51% of Iraqis think that Iraq is on the right track. Compare this, for instance, to Michigan where Governor Granholm inspires a 34% "right track" response on polling in her state.
More than 60% of Iraqis think that the Iraqi government is doing a good job.
Iraq is a tough place to be a Westerner, but the Iraqis are optimistic, statistically speaking.
20,000 to 30,000 insurgents, many from outside Iraq, are trying to oppress the 20 million or so Iraqis who say on polls that they want democracy, rather than a theocracy or a baathist style dictatorship.
        After nine months doing a dozen or so polls and about seventy focus groups in 13 Iraq cities, I defer to those who
        have the most information on Iraq's future - the Iraqi people. And they are optimistic
=============================================

Iraqis delighted with the occupation! The source of all trouble are 20-30,000 foreign fighters! No-one wants an Islamic government!

I'd say those are some pretty extraordinary results, wouldnt you?

In fact, it sounds like the work of a paid political hack holed up in his hotel room.  Wait - Steven Moore actually *was* a paid political hack holed up in his Bagdhad hotel room - specifically a political hack paid by Paul Bremer, a famously incompetent political hire himself.

Next, let's go through Mr. Moore's claims:
 
"Survey results frequently have a margin of error of plus or minus 3% or 5% -- not 1200%."

Yes, Steven.  Peacetime surveys in a developed nation following the same methodolgy often have a <5% error rate.  However, did it ever occur that the "1200%" you claim is the difference between an acceptable methodology based on dangerous fieldwork and your own prefered approach?

That difference is nothing more than the difference between secondary-source aggregation studies (such as those carried out by you sitting in a Bagdhad hotel room, or by Iraqbodycount sitting in London reading the newspaper) and an on-the-ground population survey that involves constantly traveling into very dangerous areas and putting yourself at great personal risk. 


"The UNDP's survey, in April and May 2004, estimated between 18,000 and 29,000 Iraqi civilian deaths due to the war. This survey was conducted four months prior to another, earlier study by the Johns Hopkins team, which used 33 cluster points and estimated between 69,000 and 155,000 civilian deaths."

Yes, Steven.  The UN measured civilian deaths Quote    Reply

eu4ea       10/19/2006 2:22:49 PM
I'm still waiting, WhiteB.  Got any more Carl Sagan handy?
 
Quote    Reply

Pseudonym       10/19/2006 6:20:00 PM
"Now, moving on to the clustering issue -  that's certainly the main weakness in the Lancet's study that Mr. Moore has picked on. He's right that it is the weakest part of the survey. "

Weak point?

LOL.

It's true, a Liberal will not accept the truth when it hits them in the face.

"The fact is that you guys are holding up to a tremendous level of scrutiny the study that has produced the most ordinary results"

LOL.  Sure, it's Sagan whose doing the political hack job, not Lancet. >LOL.

Go do some basic research on cluster sampling, then come back with more than attacking the source, when you cannot counter THE COLD HARD FACTS.

 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       10/19/2006 7:06:48 PM

In Baghdad, thousands of bodies have been pulled from the Tigris, but the deaths aren't reported. How bad is the violence?

Still, even these figures don't tell the whole story. For that, a visit to Medical City is in order. The Ministry of Health has instituted a strict policy for journalists, requiring them to seek permission before visiting the facility. Those allowed in get only a truly sanitized tour; more often than not reporters are barred from entering. But at the gate, guards who have worked at the facility tell a chilling tale. "Last year, I saw maybe 1,000 bodies a month coming into the morgue," says one man who, fearing for his life, requested his name not be published. "Now we're getting nearly 1,000 a week."

All, he says, are victims of sectarian violence, both Sunni and Shia, but the officials at the morgue inside Medical City will not tell you that. "The officials don't want us talking to the media," says another guard, also requesting anonymity. "I've heard them telling people that most of the deaths are because of terrorists, but I've also seen the bodies myself and I can tell you that most of them were executed by death squads."

While he describes the bodies, a dump truck pulls out of the facility. The guards open the gate, holding back a rush of people from all over central Iraq hoping to get in to look for loved ones. As the truck passes, the smell of decomposing flesh fills the air. "That's just the clothes from bodies pulled from the Tigris over the past few days," says the first guard. "The trucks come and go regularly." The stench is overwhelming. People cover their noses and mouths with cloth. Women wail.
 
link
 
IBC isn't even close to the number of actual deaths.
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    Interview with the Lancet study Author on Methodology and results   10/20/2006 5:31:39 PM
www.pajamasmedia.com/2006/10/joisting_with_the_lancet_the_p.php
 
swhitebull  - you be the judge
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy