Tashah

Perhaps a dash of color will help. An estimate is a mathematical approximation or a personal opinion. An estimate is not a statement of fact.

Once again, your statement ignores the critical points. No matter what the death toll estimate is, this strictly represents an estimate of sum total deaths... and does not identify the catalyst of death nor quantify the culpability of the deceased.

Do you understand anything at all of statistical analysis? If you did, it should be obvious that you are postulating conclusions that the survey estimates cannot supply. In other words, you are offering secondary opinion based totally and exclusively on a speculative estimation. It goes without saying that this plebian methodology violates the core principles of scientific inquiry.

__________________

Tashah

I engage in statistical analysis almost every working day.

You're missing the overarching point of this thread. Much like you, the Lancet authors cannot stipulate that their estimates are "absolutely" true. Until they can do so, their results can only be considered as theoretical opinion. Unfortunately, many people refuse to differentiate between sample possibility and empirical certainty. Do you understand this?

Billo_Really

No.

What's the difference?

__________________

"With neocons, it just goes to show, when the
bar is low enough, you can never be too wrong!"

Tashah

The former is speculative, the latter is factual.

savoir-faire

True Tashah they are statistical likelihood estimates. The epidemiologists used cluster sampling method which is a good estimate and the shortcoming is that it is most likely an underestimate.

Keep in mind your crtisisms are similar to those of Ahmandinejad in the estimates made of holocaust victims.

Another point both studies concluded long before the period of greatest violence.

I think the statisticians at MIT and epidemiologists at Johns hopkins have used the most reliable method-it is difficult to see the nnumbers-just like it is painful to think of the holocaust numbers and those also are cluster sampling methods done retroactively and even less reliable.

suffice to say-hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died in this conflict and squabbling about it or not liking the numbers because they sound too high reminds me too much of the holocaust number deniers.

Billo_Really

It is a pretty sad state of our society when all we can do is argue about the numbers and not what they represent.

savoir-faire

Touche' ....

Tashah

Must I repeat over and over? It is an estimate... an approximation.

A bad analogy. The Holocaust has been studied in depth since 1945. Almost every major university features a Department of Holocaust Studies. Are major academic resources even remotely of this nature dedicated to the study of Iraqi war dead? I very highly doubt that.

You're totally missing what I've been saying. Scroll up. I agree that the death rate has been significantly elevated. Anyone with half-a-brain can surmise that much even without Lancet.

What I do disagree with is the attempts of certain members here to spin the estimates. They attempt to lay each Iraqi death at the feet of the US military.

This sort of spin is statistically and forensically impossible and plainly dishonest. I challenge anyone to break down the sum-death-total into distinct mortality catagories with empirical data.

Unless one can do this, the causal nature of sum-total mortality cannot be quantified and thus conclusions exist only as speculation. One can say with relative certainty that the mortality rate is elevated, but one cannot solely attribute this elevation to one specific catalyst without the requisite catagorical data.

Tashah

That's the whole point Billo. The Lancet study does not tell us what the estimate represents beyond an elevated mortality rate.

Hundebolg

Firstly, the Lancet is England's most reputed journal on medical and public health issues. A study published there likely has a very high confidence. Highlighting that this study is, afterall, only an estimate is misleading about the studys highly scientific methodology.

Secondly, to adress your concern about exact death categories, the study concedes that 600.000 died during US invasion and occupation of violent death, while it is also noted that the total number of excess deaths including deaths from insufficient medical care or spoiled water under the occupation, exceed 1.000.000.

Why is differentiating the death categories so important ? All these over 1.000.000 dead are in the clear and immediate responsibility of the wardrum beaters and the coalition of the 'willing'.