On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Fergal Daly wrote:
Read iraq body counts FAQ:
"What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of
civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our
maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a
sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has
been reported."
In fact their criteria is that the death must be reported in at least
2 "credible" sources and given that "credible" journalists cannot
travel in Iraq this means the numbers are only somewhat related to
reality. So IBC's accurately counts something that just confuses the
issue.
The Lancet study on the other hand is the same methodology used in
Darfur, the Congo, the Balkans and a variety of other conflict zones.
Strangely the numbers have been accepted without argument for all
those other places but the Iraq studies are hotly disputed by all
kinds of people who know nothing about statistics and/or how to count
deaths in a war zone. They are generally not disputed by
statisticians.
The Lancet studies are questionable in Iraq because the extreme paucity of
cluster points they chose to extrapolate from. Which is why not even the
UNDP ILCS study supports the Lancet numbers. ILCS used 2,200 clusters
versus only 33 for the Lancet, and the sampling rate was similarly bad. In
short, the Lancet study is an extrapolation from hell.
--Arthur Corliss
Live Free or Die
