Freedom Is On The March

Posted without comment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

 

They used the scientific method to come up with that number. Of course, we know highly this administration esteems the practice of science. Here, my friend, have some faith instead.

 

Didn't have to be this way.

But these pigs knew they were right.

I'd love to play chess with W or Rummy . . . guys who can barely see ONE move ahead,
never mind two . . .

 

“a margin of error that ranged from 426,369 to 793,663 deaths.”

Hmmmm, funny how this study pops up just 3 weeks before election day.

 

That's true. If it is merely 426,369, then what's the big deal? I'm just glad we have the scientists on our side.

 

Gee that Iraq must have been sort of paradise before we invaded.

According to the folks who wrote that study the mortality rate was just 5.5 deaths per 1,000. In the US today our mortality rate is 8.26 deaths per 1,000. Maybe we should study what medical system they were using and adopt it? I means the numbers are the numbers - right?

Maybe the more accurate and reasonable explanation for the low pre-war figure is that the numbers weren't properly reported? At 15 deaths per 1000 - that would put Iraq just ahead of Russia (14.65 per thousand). If the number did jump up to 19.8 per thousand (the number touted in the study) would that be any big surprise seeing how IRAQ IS A WAR ZONE?

 

This is the same crew that came up with the flawed 2004 study, so call me suspicious of the new findings.

http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/

 

The reason Iraq had a low mortality rate pre-war is because the median age of the country's population is 19.7 years. There is a huge number of young people and children, and a small number of old people dying off. Families were squirting out kids like there was no tomorrow.

 

Umm... you realize that birth rates and mortality rates are two seperate numbers right?

 

The more young people there are, the fewer of the population per 1,000 are going to die. I'm not saying the figures are correct, but you did not understand his point.

 

The mortality rate is seperate for a reason.

For instance - the infant mortality in Iraq per 1,000 live deaths is 48.64. If you added that number to the overall mortality rate - you would get a much higher mortality rate.

 

The "debunking" in Slate of the previous study has been pretty well eviscerated by people who actually know something about statistical sampling. Here's one:
http://crookedtimber.org/2004/11/11/lancet-roundup-and-literature-review/
And another:
http://timlambert.org/category/LancetIraq/
All arguments apply equally well here.