[lit-ideas] Re: statisticions, anyone?
- From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:57:42 +0100
Though not a statistician (just a sub-standard economist), I looked over the
Lancet article and on the assumption that all their calculations are
accurate (I'm sure they checked it), the only problem I could see in their
methodology was in the procedural rules established to protect their
interviewers. However, I doubt this would have impacted upon the results.
What's interesting here is the difference between this (peer reviewed) study
and the Iraq Body Count database.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/index.php
IBC methodology is simply to collect minimum and maximum deaths based on a
variety of sources, predominantly media and using at least two sources for
each entry. According to IBC there have been a minimum of 43,850 deaths due
to violent causes from the invasion in 2003 up to the middle of September
this year. In contrast, the Lancet study estimates that there have been over
600,000 additional deaths after the invasion than what would have been
expected. The majority, but not all, are violent deaths, predominantly
gunshot.
The implication, assuming the Lancet study is accurate and IBC are diligent,
is that the media only reports on around 7 per cent of deaths in Iraq.
The other implication is that Bush is way ahead of us all in his knowledge
of statistics and he can see through the faulty methodology employed in the
Lancet study. I'm sure he'd tell us what's wrong but we're just too dumb to
understand it.
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith Evans" <judithevans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:13 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: statisticions, anyone?
I'm still intrigued however, where all the other 500 people are
being
killed each day
The article's in The Lancet, it names the places. (You'll have
to register,)
Judy
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] statisticions, anyone?
- » [lit-ideas] Re: statisticions, anyone?
- » [lit-ideas] Re: statisticions, anyone?
- » [lit-ideas] Re: statisticions, anyone?
- » [lit-ideas] Re: statisticions, anyone?
- » [lit-ideas] Re: statisticions, anyone?
- » [lit-ideas] Re: statisticions, anyone?
- » [lit-ideas] Re: statisticions, anyone?
- » [lit-ideas] Re: statisticions, anyone?
- » [lit-ideas] Re: statisticions, anyone?
- » [lit-ideas] Re: statisticions, anyone?
- » [lit-ideas] Re: statisticions, anyone?
- » [lit-ideas] Re: statisticions, anyone?
- » [lit-ideas] Re: statisticions, anyone?
- » [lit-ideas] Re: statisticions, anyone?