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
PlatypusMaximus       10/25/2006 8:36:19 AM
 
4yr. X  100deaths/day =  146,000
 
Want leap year? You got it, buddy!...146,100
 
As of May this year, it was reported that 50 deaths/day was a sign of new, increased violence.
 
146,000 might well be acurate, assuming Arab governments do not exaggerate. 146,000 might well equal  650,000, but I'm not betting my hard-earned GED on it.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

eu4ea       10/29/2006 4:58:43 PM
Sadly, I have to say that I'm more amused than amazed by the on-going Lancet controversy.  Some folks just love to go on - *anything* other than admitting a mistake or (heaven help us!) abandoning failed policies. 

It went from Saddam is the devil and WMD *will* be found to "well, he was err _planning_ on making WMDs"
Next it went from "the world-wide coalition" to the amazing shringking coalition.
Next was "a few diehard insurgents" to "insurgents weakening!" to "insurgents really weakening this time" to hum, we still have 140,000 troops, but that's not because there's a growing insurgency
Then there was "capturing bagdad is the turning point!" to "capturing saddam is the turning point!" to "leveling fallujah is the turning point!" to "elections are the turning point!" to "killing zarquawi is the turning point!".  And there is no turning point - it has all steadily progressed: into a larger and nastier civil war.
Next it was "minimal iraqui casulaties" to "maybe 30,000 (bush, december)" to "50-60,000" to "well, maybe lots but we cant count 'em"
Next it was "the UN is nuts to claim 100 dead/day in bagdad alone" to "there are only 100 dead/day in bagdhad - things are goign well"
Etc. etc.

Each one of those was argued and denied with the same vitriol that is now directed at the Lancet's study.

The Lancet controversy is just the last one on this long and sorry line.  I predict estimates of 500k to 1M dead will be commonplace within 6-9 months. But by then we'd move on to argue about something else.  Like whether it was our plan all along to divide Iraq in 3. Or whether it's really Iraq's government's fault that this whole thing is a bloody failure, not ours.

Heart,

eu4ea
 
Quote    Reply

shek       10/29/2006 8:01:11 PM

Sadly, I have to say that I'm more amused than amazed by the on-going Lancet controversy.  Some folks just love to go on - *anything* other than admitting a mistake or (heaven help us!) abandoning failed policies. 

It went from Saddam is the devil and WMD *will* be found to "well, he was err _planning_ on making WMDs"
Next it went from "the world-wide coalition" to the amazing shringking coalition.
Next was "a few diehard insurgents" to "insurgents weakening!" to "insurgents really weakening this time" to hum, we still have 140,000 troops, but that's not because there's a growing insurgency
Then there was "capturing bagdad is the turning point!" to "capturing saddam is the turning point!" to "leveling fallujah is the turning point!" to "elections are the turning point!" to "killing zarquawi is the turning point!".  And there is no turning point - it has all steadily progressed: into a larger and nastier civil war.
Next it was "minimal iraqui casulaties" to "maybe 30,000 (bush, december)" to "50-60,000" to "well, maybe lots but we cant count 'em"
Next it was "the UN is nuts to claim 100 dead/day in bagdad alone" to "there are only 100 dead/day in bagdhad - things are goign well"
Etc. etc.

Each one of those was argued and denied with the same vitriol that is now directed at the Lancet's study.

The Lancet controversy is just the last one on this long and sorry line.  I predict estimates of 500k to 1M dead will be commonplace within 6-9 months. But by then we'd move on to argue about something else.  Like whether it was our plan all along to divide Iraq in 3. Or whether it's really Iraq's government's fault that this whole thing is a bloody failure, not ours.

Heart,

eu4ea


A string of red herrings.  Roberts et al fails on its own accord.  Also, you've still never addressed my benchmarking questions, the first of which deals with their underestimation of pre-war deaths leading to overestimating the "excess" death rate, and the second of which deals with their misleading attempts to benchmark to other modern conflicts despite the lack of evidence that they serve as valid benchmarks..
 
Quote    Reply

eu4ea       10/29/2006 10:33:55 PM
Hardly "a string of red herrings". 

More like a string of well-documented instances where the argumentations of the Bush faithfull (not 'Republicans' - those are two very different species) rang on and on, before being overtaken by reality. 

And it is my assertion that this specific case (questioning the finer points of Lancet's clustering and benchmarking methodology) will soon come to precisely the same fate.

Regarding your points about clustering and benchmarking, I have already addressed them above.  I'll be happy to cut and paste as required, and in the meantime please explain why you find other surveys more credible.  I'd be particularly interested to learn why I should put faith in iraqbodycount.org with their laughable 'sit in london and read the newspaper' methodology, or the comical "30,000 or so" figure put forth by Bush in December. 

If you want to go one better, you can go to the UN comission for Iraq, and their 100 dead/day in Bagdad estimate based on morgue records.  I'd be happy to ignore the fact that we had the very same discussion (their methodology is suspect, they are biased, international press reports adds up to less deaths, etc.) when that report came out five months ago.

Heart,

eu4ea
 
Quote    Reply

shek       10/29/2006 11:01:08 PM

Hardly "a string of red herrings". 

More like a string of well-documented instances where the argumentations of the Bush faithfull (not 'Republicans' - those are two very different species) rang on and on, before being overtaken by reality. 

And it is my assertion that this specific case (questioning the finer points of Lancet's clustering and benchmarking methodology) will soon come to precisely the same fate.

Regarding your points about clustering and benchmarking, I have already addressed them above.  I'll be happy to cut and paste as required, and in the meantime please explain why you find other surveys more credible.  I'd be particularly interested to learn why I should put faith in iraqbodycount.org with their laughable 'sit in london and read the newspaper' methodology, or the comical "30,000 or so" figure put forth by Bush in December. 

If you want to go one better, you can go to the UN comission for Iraq, and their 100 dead/day in Bagdad estimate based on morgue records.  I'd be happy to ignore the fact that we had the very same discussion (their methodology is suspect, they are biased, international press reports adds up to less deaths, etc.) when that report came out five months ago.

Heart,

eu4ea


If you say you've addressed the benchmarking issue, then I'd love to see you cut and paste what you think addresses it, as all I've seen are assertions that a paragraph from Roberts et al should be taken as gospel, akin to your claim that it was a "gold standard" survey.  Sorry, but the gold plating isn't sticking to it so well.  In fact, it's been pretty well peeled off.
Also, just like you want to have a double standard regarding the CIA numbers (count the before numbers, but not the after numbers), it seems like you want a double standard on the UNDP numbers.  You're quoting them above, and yet you dismissed their survey results cited by Mr. Moore (remember your double standard on ad hominem attacks - where you attacked Mr. Moore as a political hack, but Roberts is a pure as the driven snow) and linked to by me. 
 
Your line of reasoning in this thread is sure built upon a house of double standards.
BTW, I've never argued a lick about IBC, so why do you insist on dredging up that tired strawman? 
 
Anyways, I'm standing by for your attempt to argue why two 25 year conflicts, one of them with an inflated death count by your "gold standard" researchers citing a secondary source, and a conflict where 500K have died in a year after the peace from diseases not found in any significant numbers in Iraq serve as appropriate benchmarks.
 
Quote    Reply

Arbalest       10/30/2006 2:00:46 AM
It seems that there are still questions about the Lancet's study.
A short Google effort to check on 2006 Iraqi population density reveals the following:

Population of Iraq: 22-25 million

Population distribution: about 75% live in the Tigris-Euphrates corridor (approximately Mosul to Basra), and there is a large peak around Baghdad.

About 20% of the population are Kurds, and their areas in the north have been essentially free of killings since April 2003. The south and the west seem to have had some killings, but the vast majority of killings seem to be in the Baghdad area and center of the country.

 

Just using news reports and population locations, it looks like the populations in the Kurdish areas (20%), the southern Shia areas (another 20%) and the western districts (another 25%) should not have been included in the Lancet’s calculations, as the day-to-day reality in those areas is considerably different.

Reducing the Lancet’s initial figure of 655,000 by 65% yields 229,250.

I suspect that with a little more news analysis, it will be easily possible to exclude another 5-10% of the Iraqi population from the calculations, as they, too, do not live in areas with the same conditions as those of the Lancet’s survey. This puts the death toll between 164,000 and 197,000

 

It looks like the Lancet’s statistics can be correctly applied only to the 5 to 8 million people who live in Baghdad and certain other nearby areas.

650,000 deaths represents 8-10% of the population in the area. This might represent 15% (almost 1 of 6) of the adult male population, as women and late middle-aged and elderly men are unlikely to be targets.

Surely such a change in day-to-day life should be noticed.

Surely corroborating evidence, such as an increase in claims for public assistance by widows and orphans, is available. If entire families were involved, a decrease in school attendance, consumption of groceries, electricity, and an increase in vacant apartments, should be evident.

Where is the corroborating data?

 

If the Lancet’s calculations are really only valid for Baghdad and environs, and not Iraq as a whole, then 170,000-190,000 deaths seems to make much more sense, and would represent 5% (1 of 20) of the young adult male population (the ones most likely to be involved in fighting).

 

My experience with political hacks has been that they frequently try to spin only one or two things (change "Baghdad-and-environs-only" to "all of Iraq") to get the result that they want. There are then fewer "things" to keep track of, a detailed look might bury the investigators, and when discovered, plausible deniability becomes easier.
 
 
Quote    Reply

shek       10/30/2006 7:18:37 AM

questioning the finer points of Lancet's clustering and benchmarking methodology

Finer points?  Um, I'd call it the heart of their study.  If it fails, then they fail.  Well, their benchmarking fails against other established and credible studies of Iraq (but they never mention these numbers, why do you think that's so eu4ea?).  It also fails when you try to motivate their "other conflict" benchmarking strategy.  Anyways, since it's just a cut and paste job for you, you should have a detailed point by point reply up in no time.  However, given that my points, the same points that have been out there for two weeks or so now went unanswered before, I suspect it won't just be a cut and paste job.
 
Quote    Reply

shek       10/30/2006 7:19:13 AM

questioning the finer points of Lancet's clustering and benchmarking methodology

Finer points?  Um, I'd call it the heart of their study.  If it fails, then they fail.  Well, their benchmarking fails against other established and credible studies of Iraq (but they never mention these numbers, why do you think that's so eu4ea?).  It also fails when you try to motivate their "other conflict" benchmarking strategy.  Anyways, since it's just a cut and paste job for you, you should have a detailed point by point reply up in no time.  However, given that my points, the same points that have been out there for two weeks or so now went unanswered before, I suspect it won't just be a cut and paste job.
 
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus       10/30/2006 7:48:46 AM
Un study, my arse. the UN simply regurgitated what the Iraqi deputy information minister told them. Which you became YOUR latest battlecry. Show us....on what day since that figure appeared have more than 100 iraqis died? 100 is the average, so maybe you could find 2 days in which more than 100  Iraqis died...Pick a date, any date...still waiting; been waiting since you spewed that Iraqi garbage.
 
All along, it has been Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
 
 
 
 
and their enablers.
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch    Arbalest Reply   10/30/2006 12:13:02 PM


It seems that there are still questions about the Lancet's study.

A short Google effort to check on 2006 Iraqi population density reveals the following:

Population of Iraq: 22-25 million


Population distribution: about 75% live in the Tigris-Euphrates corridor (approximately Mosul to Basra), and there is a large peak around Baghdad.


About 20% of the population are Kurds, and their areas in the north have been essentially free of killings since April 2003. The south and the west seem to have had some killings, but the vast majority of killings seem to be in the Baghdad area and center of the country.


 


Just using news reports and population locations, it looks like the populations in the Kurdish areas (20%), the southern Shia areas (another 20%) and the western districts (another 25%) should not have been included in the Lancet’s calculations, as the day-to-day reality in those areas is considerably different.


Reducing the Lancet’s initial figure of 655,000 by 65% yields 229,250.


I suspect that with a little more news analysis, it will be easily possible to exclude another 5-10% of the Iraqi population from the calculations, as they, too, do not live in areas with the same conditions as those of the Lancet’s survey. This puts the death toll between 164,000 and 197,000


 


It looks like the Lancet’s statistics can be correctly applied only to the 5 to 8 million people who live in Baghdad and certain other nearby areas.


650,000 deaths represents 8-10% of the population in the area. This might represent 15% (almost 1 of 6) of the adult male population, as women and late middle-aged and elderly men are unlikely to be targets.


Surely such a change in day-to-day life should be noticed.


Surely corroborating evidence, such as an increase in claims for public assistance by widows and orphans, is available. If entire families were involved, a decrease in school attendance, consumption of groceries, electricity, and an increase in vacant apartments, should be evident.


Where is the corroborating data?


 


If the Lancet’s calculations are really only valid for Baghdad and environs, and not Iraq as a whole, then 170,000-190,000 deaths seems to make much more sense, and would represent 5% (1 of 20) of the young adult male population (the ones most likely to be involved in fighting).


 


My experience with political hacks has been that they frequently try to spin only one or two things (change "Baghdad-and-environs-only" to "all of Iraq") to get the result that they want. There are then fewer "things" to keep track of, a detailed look might bury the investigators, and when discovered, plausible deniability becomes easier.

 



"Just using news reports and population locations, it looks like the populations in the Kurdish areas (20%), the southern Shia areas (another 20%) and the western districts (another 25%) should not have been included in the Lancet’s calculations, as the day-to-day reality in those areas is considerably different."
That isn't quite correct; the Shia districts in the South are almost as violent as Baghdad.  Basra sees two or three poltical assassinations per hour every day, and the Mahdi Army has taken over Amarah  in the East 
 
Also  the western districts are Al Anbar, Najaf, and Ninawa, hardly immune to violence.
 
Fighting in most wars in history is localized.  There wasn't a lot of killing going on in Maine during the American Civil War but Maine was affected by the war nonetheless (economically, socially, etc.)
 
That being said I think you are closer to the death toll (160-200,000) which is still pretty significant

 
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