Hopkins study on Iraqi deaths

Factual Questions
1

Hi. I searched but only found discussions of the Lancet study (link below) in the BBQ pit and Great Debates. I know the press and some other “body counters” dismissed the numbers, so what is the straight dope on it? Seems like peer review would have weeded out truly flawed research, but are the methods considered at all unreliable? invalid? highly questionable?

I think this report and how it was covered an interesting study of how the press and public respond to and (mis)understand social science. So, thanks for any thoughts or educated opinions (flaming can go to BBQ pit section of this site :cool: ).

2

It used commonly accepted means and methods to arrive at it’s conclusions. Many don’t understand or accept those conclusions.

Not sure exactly what your question is.

3

I guess my question is (and the silence might be the sound of people answering in agreement with you): are there any valid criticisms of the study?

Additionial question, no in OP: is there collaborating evidence? 600,000 dead is alot of people to bury over 4 years.

4

600,000 in 4 years is a lot of dead bodies. OTOH, Rwanda managed around a million deaths in less time. :frowning:

5

Here is Steven Moore who works for a political consultancy firm and who has worked for the coalition in Iraq (surveying) raised a number of problems. I have no idea how valid these criticisms are and don’t have the epidemiological chops to offer any interpretation – just to answer if anyone raised questions about the methods -yes.

Here is one of the Hopkins Authors answering that criticism

6

The main problem that has been brought up is not the research on how many have died since the invasion. What I read was that some have a problem with the studies reliance on data from the Hussein government on the death rate in the country before the invasion. The death rate seemed very low compared to other countries. I read this on paper and not online so I don’t have a link. It wasn’t a politician who wrote the article. In fact the research itself was praised as being very complete. The question is with the conclusion when you are making a comparision between the number of deaths before and after the invasion if you can’t rely on one half of the data.

7

Lots of political footballs in this one. In addition, how do you count the war dead.

Daddy was shot. OK
Daddy was shot by a burglar. Nope
Daddy was shot by a burglar as part of postwar looting. Maybe.
Daddy died because wartime chaos cut off his insulin supply. I don’t know.

In addition, the level of violence in this war has varied widely in time and space. Is asking people in Baghdad and then extrapolating a far way of doing it? How do you get a real sample?

Given cultural values, how do you ask the questions? Will people tell authority figures the truth? Will they lie high or low?

The high end of the estimate seems to indicate eighty some odd dead per day since the invasion. That ‘seems’ high, but it is not out of the question.

Someone has to make an estimate, but even given good faith, it a big and tough job.