Putting Iraq Deaths in Perspective

[antieverything]

The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health study [from which the
100,000 civilian deaths estimate comes from] is the most reliable estimate to
date of Iraqis killed in the 18 months after the March 2003 invasion. The
house-to-house study fills a void left by George W. Bush’s administration,
which has refused to track and publicize Iraqi civilian deaths. The researchers
concluded that the risk of death from violence since the invasion has been 58
times higher than the period before the war. Air strikes from coalition forces
accounted for most of the deaths. The majority of those killed were women and
children. (http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=853)

I did a few basic calculations in an attempt to put this in perspective:

Population of Iraq: 25,374,691 (July 2004 est.) [source: CIA World Factbook]
Civilian Casualties: 100,000 (recent estimate)
Proportion of Iraqis Killed: about 1 in every 254

Population of the US: 293,027,571 (July 2004 est.) (Roughly 11.5x Iraq)
Theoretical US Casualties: roughly 1,150,000


I don't know what this proves exactly (it seems strange to do proportions with
human lives) but I do think it is worth knowing.

[cormacobear]

That's just deaths from violence, what about all those that have died because of destroyed infrastructure, lack of clean water, lack of medical supplies, and overflowing hospitals in time of crises.

[Dio]

Nvm... I found it..... move along everyone, nothing to see here.

[Invader Zim]

Thats all very nice, but its bullshit, the death count is not even close to 100,000: -

Min Max
14,272 16,405

http://iraqbodycount.net/

[Ian]

The Iraq Body Count doesn't try to tally the complete toll, it only collects the deaths of people which have been reported in the media (generally in 2 or 3 newspaper minimum I believe). The unreported deaths, we can assume, would be 3 or 4-times the number of reported.

So you can't really say if it's 'bullshit' or not, you haven't even done a study, but 'The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health' have, so credit where credit is due, they've done their research, you've tapped some keys on a browser, so they're a much more credible and useful source than someone who would outright dismiss research as 'bullshit'.

[Ian]

antieverything: I don't see any calculus, I see some algebra though.

[h&s]

Ian's right - the IBCP only count deaths reported to the western / worlwide media. That can only account for the small areas where the media are based. I used to be very sceptical about these high figures, but I'm starting to think they are true.
BTW, The new survey deliberatly didn't count Fallujahn deaths becase they said they would put the overall death count up massivley!

[Dio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 10:16 AM
Thats all very nice, but its bullshit, the death count is not even close to 100,000: -

Min Max
14,272 16,405

http://iraqbodycount.net/
13,000-16,000 people died from violance. However if you followed the Iraq war from the beginning, you would know that the estimate for Iraq death toll due to starvation only was about 7 million people. And they still went to war.

[antieverything]

antieverything: I don't see any calculus, I see some algebra though.
Of course you don't. Space calculus is way too advanced for you too understand. It involves imaginary numbers: eleventy-teen, sixthreedy-four...stuff like that.

[h&s]

Of course you don't. Space calculus is way too advanced for you too understand. It involves imaginary numbers: eleventy-teen, sixthreedy-four...stuff like that.
Sounds like mathmeticians are stoners to me...

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 11:42 AM
The Iraq Body Count doesn't try to tally the complete toll, it only collects the deaths of people which have been reported in the media (generally in 2 or 3 newspaper minimum I believe). The unreported deaths, we can assume, would be 3 or 4-times the number of reported.

So you can't really say if it's 'bullshit' or not, you haven't even done a study, but 'The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health' have, so credit where credit is due, they've done their research, you've tapped some keys on a browser, so they're a much more credible and useful source than someone who would outright dismiss research as 'bullshit'.
Can we fuck.

The media is the only real source of figures which exists. There are two others, the US authorities, bullshit we can safley say, and the Iraqi's, also bullshit we can safley say.

Thus we have one more or less accurate figure, that of the press.

Also The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health have not done a proper study, they basically asked a few thousand Iraqi's how many deaths have been in their families, and this is in a country of millions, then tried to work out how many that is for the whole country, as if they ever could. Hell I would expect more accurate data from the coalition forces.

If you kids want to swallow this bullshit, then be my guest, you poor naive fools.

[antieverything]

Also The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health have not done a proper study, they basically asked a few thousand Iraqi's how many deaths have been in their families, and this is in a country of millions, then tried to work out how many that is for the whole country, as if they ever could. Hell I would expect more accurate data from the coalition forces.
The sample size is large enough for it to be an accurate estimate. One could do an census in this manner though the sample size would be much larger. Still, the method of sampling is completely valid. That's how exit polls are done and some observers are quick to note, exit polls are never wrong...unless a state uses Diebold voting machines.

[cormacobear]

so you think the news papers are going to the morgue every night asking how many today. or going out into smaller towns and asking each and every perso how many family members they've buried recently.

how many boddies are still under collapsed buildings from air strikes. No the news is just printing what the Military is letting them.

[refuse_resist]

Mass media and the military are the two sources you don't want to listen to.

For example, when the military took over that hospital in Fallujah the other day, they did it because they knew that they would be able to hide the number of Iraqis being killed.

This is what makes it hard to know the exact number of civilians that have been killed since the war started. Lots of these numbers are just estimates. Another thing is they never count how many die after trying to recover from whatever happend to them.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 01:39 AM
so you think the news papers are going to the morgue every night asking how many today. or going out into smaller towns and asking each and every perso how many family members they've buried recently.

how many boddies are still under collapsed buildings from air strikes. No the news is just printing what the Military is letting them.
No every attack on civillians by US troops is reported, the reporters go to the scene and attempt to establish the death count. They then report the attack, etc.

The sample size is large enough for it to be an accurate estimate.

No its not, if that were the case, then census details would be collected in a similar manner. They are not, census details are only considered accurate if every household is involved.

No the news is just printing what the Military is letting them.

Don't be stupid, the military has no control over the media, if they did then how do you explain the large differences in figures they report?

they did it because they knew that they would be able to hide the number of Iraqis being killed.


How the hell do you know? Were you there? No, so what do you really know? Fuck all!

[fuerzasocialista]

I'm willing to venture and say that many more people in Irak have lost their lives as a result of US military interventions/sanctions then under Saddam's rule. And Saddam was a sick fuck who didn't hesitate to kill anyone at anytime. Yet, what is happening in Irak is a direct result of not letting these people liberate themselves. I mean honestly, what kind of a country would the US be if some other foreign power liberated the American colonies from the British rather then they liberate themselves? Everytime time I bring up that point to a fuckhead who supports the war, they don't know what to say.

[antieverything]

No every attack on civillians by US troops is reported, the reporters go to the scene and attempt to establish the death count. They then report the attack, etc.
That is the most absurd thing I've heard all day. Sure, it is only 9:30 AM here but still! You really believe that?


The sample size is large enough for it to be an accurate estimate.

No its not, if that were the case, then census details would be collected in a similar manner. They are not, census details are only considered accurate if every household is involved.
Actually, every time there is a census some people propose we stop doing it household to household and begin using the sampling method. Nobody argues that sampling wouldn't give a very close estimate. The only reason they don't do the census that way is because they need the most precise, accurate results possible and they feel that a full survey is worth the extra effort. It is pretty much scientific fact, however, that if they did a large enough sample the results wouldn't come up much different than the survey results. Have you ever taken statistics?


they did it because they knew that they would be able to hide the number of Iraqis being killed.


How the hell do you know? Were you there? No, so what do you really know? Fuck all!
Well, seeing as reports coming from that exact same hospital largely caused the PR failure of the first assault on Fallujah, I don't think it is out of the question to say they may have taken that hospital (before anything else, I might add) in order to keep that from happening again!

So...I think I've sufficiently proved that you don't know what you are talking about. Hell, though, it happens to the best of us--ain't no shame in it.

[Sabocat]

A few points:

1. How can you possibly trust a media that has been "embedded" with the troops to report factual numbers. The U.S. and Britain have even decided who gets to be "embedded". Notice how Al Jazeera isn't "embedded" with the troops?

2. It has been widely reported that roughly 1 out of 10 buildings in Falluja have been completely destroyed. Falluja is a city of approximately 300,000. That would suggest that the civilian population is being decimated by the indescriminate bombings and shellings.

3. Colin Powell when asked about the number of civilian deaths once stated, "It's not a number we're terribly interested in."

4. General Tommy Franks also stated, "We don't do body counts".

[Invader Zim]

That is the most absurd thing I've heard all day.

What compaired to yuour own rubbish? Please, surley I dont compair to that!

Have you ever taken statistics?


On numerous occassions, studying the number of torists visiting, and for what reasons, to a park. The first thing which one expects when making these tests is that the data recieved will be inaccurate, because the trend may only be limited to the people you have asked.

Also if you think that statistics taken of a small % of a population are accurate, then you are a fool. Practically every election time, these surveys are done, and they are usually wrong.

Well, seeing as reports coming from that exact same hospital largely caused the PR failure of the first assault on Fallujah, I don't think it is out of the question to say they may have taken that hospital (before anything else, I might add) in order to keep that from happening again!


Again, you were not there, so in all honesty what do you know? Nothing. You are making assumptions based on the opinons of others.

I think

Dont try and lie to me.

I think I've sufficiently proved that you don't know what you are talking about.
No all you have proved is that you are prepaired to believe one study made by one group. Mor eover a study using a techinque which is automatically flawed, secondly putting that method into practise with a tiny preportion of the population, a method which assumes that the entire population follows one pattern. Something which any major study into human population will tell you is a false.

Again lets look at the practical considerations of this study.

You have a town of 10,000 people, the yanks drop a bomb and kill say 10 people in that town. This survey may select 100 people to ask, at random 2 of these are relatives of the deceased. Thus from that using this method 2% of the survey has suffered losses. That then reflects the whole town, but the reality of the situation is that the actual % of dead in the town is 0.001.

It only takes a small piece of bad luck invalidate an entire survey based on this method. It is intrinsically inaccurate.


I also wonder if they actually worked out how many settlements have seen action, then worked out what % that is against the total number of settlements in Iraq, also they would have to take settlement size into account. If they included a higher number of settlements which have been directly affected by US bombing, than is the actual % of the population, then the figure will be inaccurate, as that increases the probibility of finding a family which has suffered a loss.

Do you think they included refugees, many of whome are missing presumed dead?


Ohh I could spend all day pulling this survey to pieces. However the largest fault I can find is that the survey is not nearly large enough. You know that as a % of the population that survey accounts for: -

2.9166666666666666666666666666667e-4

Perhaps you would care to work that out so that we can have an exact percentage.

You know it measn there only asking approximatly 1 person in every 3400... well accurate.

[h&s]

Hey I think we're missing the point here. Regardless of whether the figure is 15,000 or 100,000 that is still one hell of a lot of people. In my books killing 15,000 people is still mass murder and is horrible.
Having said that, I think even if the US leave tomorrow (as if) the ammount they kill will still keep on going up. Think of all the Depleted Uranium Warheads (395 Tonnes in both wars put together) that have a half-life of 4,500,000,000 years that are going to carry on killing people for a long time...
Watch This (http://bushflash.com/pl_lo.html)

[antieverything]

Also if you think that statistics taken of a small % of a population are accurate, then you are a fool. Practically every election time, these surveys are done, and they are usually wrong.
The reason election surveys are wrong is that they can't accurately predict who will vote since people themselves don't know until they do. Exit polls, on the other hand are almost always astoundingly accurate.


On numerous occassions, studying the number of torists visiting, and for what reasons, to a park. The first thing which one expects when making these tests is that the data recieved will be inaccurate, because the trend may only be limited to the people you have asked.
There is a difference between doing a survey on park visitors and doing a comprehensive, scientific survey of an entire country using diverse samples from different regions and extrapolating an estimate from these various sample groups consisting of thousands of individuals. There is a huge difference! In fact, if you took the time to look at the study you can find the margin of error and all the other statistical mumbo-jumbo. That stuff is valid, these people are researchers and they know what they are doing a hell of a lot better than you do.


Again, you were not there, so in all honesty what do you know? Nothing. You are making assumptions based on the opinons of others.
No, but neither are you. All I said is that it is reasonable to assume something based on what happened last time. You, on the other hand, are just being a contrarian ass. Maybe the hospital really did have immediate strategic significance but regardless, taking it has the unfortunate result of us not being able to have any idea how many casualties there are in Fallujah.

The rest of your post is just inapplicable crap as the survey you describe is unscientific and poorly executed and the study in question is scientific and executed according to proven statistical methods using the largest practical sample size.

[antieverything]

Still, don't for a minute think that I'm saying the 100,000 number is anything more than a preliminary estimate. It is an estimate backed by a good deal of research and is certainly the best number we have to work with right now. Nobody is saying that this is a precise number...just that to the best of our knowledge somewhere in the ballpark of 100,000 civilians have died as a result of the violence since the invasion.

Your criticisms are baseless and I don't understand why you are so quick to dismiss the only usable number we have so far, especially since it is a pretty damn good study given the horrible state of affairs in Iraq right now!

[Fidelbrand]

Putting Iraq Deaths in Perspective.
this windows media wmv file might says it all..

http://bbs.piao.com.cn/dispbbs.asp?boardID...ID=10025&page=1 (http://bbs.piao.com.cn/dispbbs.asp?boardID=16&ID=10025&page=1)