A note about "numbers"...

[GepperRankins]

each report cites at least 2 sources, so you could check yourself if you wanted.

You don't get it, do you?

You can't get accurate figures without counting the bodies yourself, Dave.

Get hopping, then; we'll wait.

I'll believe you, too-I promise.

i don't think you get it.

they always check for errors, they make sure they don't double count. they make an minimum and maximum deathcount for fuzzy numbers. the whole point is pwn you with accuracy. they wouldn't let one dodgy report in because they know you'd dismiss the whole thing

[Rat Faced]

Repeatedly saying that someone who produces a count is not bias-free does not make their figures wrong either.

Your inclusion of that last word indicates the lack of usefulness endemic in such cases, lynx.

One may take numbers at face value; I also prefer to form an opinion as to the credentials of those assembling them.

In most cases, one person cannot effectively intuit accurate numbers, and so cannot reliably use them.

You've intimated that coalition forces know what the true figures are, but I don't see any publication of them. Why not? "The press won't believe them" simply won't wash.

No?

Why not?

Okay, if I say the U.S. Army/theater commander advises there have been approximately 10,000 civilian casualties, you can take it to the bank.

What, you don't believe me?

Okay, google www.usarmydeadiraqicivilians to verify same.

What, still don't believe me?

Why not?

See?

It does wash; quite thoroughly, too.

You wouldn't believe such a thing and you know it, so stop jerking my chain.

Your search - www.usarmydeadiraqicivilians/ - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:
- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.

[lynx]

Repeatedly saying that someone who produces a count is not bias-free does not make their figures wrong either.

Your inclusion of that last word indicates the lack of usefulness endemic in such cases, lynx.

One may take numbers at face value; I also prefer to form an opinion as to the credentials of those assembling them.

In most cases, one person cannot effectively intuit accurate numbers, and so cannot reliably use them.

You've intimated that coalition forces know what the true figures are, but I don't see any publication of them. Why not? "The press won't believe them" simply won't wash.

No?

Why not?

Okay, if I say the U.S. Army/theater commander advises there have been approximately 10,000 civilian casualties, you can take it to the bank.

What, you don't believe me?

Okay, google www.usarmydeadiraqicivilians to verify same.

What, still don't believe me?

Why not?

See?

It does wash; quite thoroughly, too.

You wouldn't believe such a thing and you know it, so stop jerking my chain.

You can take your own view on the numbers, that's your prerogative.

The sources have provided what they consider to be factual evidence. Certainly you can dispute those figures, but you seem to think that repeated denial constitutes proof that the figures are incorrect and that simply is not the case, and no matter how much you whine or try to pick holes in simple statements it won't help your case.

There is no need for a great deal of intuition when presented with a plethora of numbers which are in approximate agreement.

However, you have offered a figure of 10,000. Where is your proof for this figure? You have rejected all other figures because you state there is nothing to back them up, despite the rigour with which they have presented their claims, yet you have accepted this figure without a single shred of evidence being presented.

I'm sorry to have to say it, but that it the sort of claim I would only expect from a charlatan.

[lynx]

Writing on Slate, Fred Kaplan translated that little technical phrase between the parentheses: It means that the authors are 95 percent certain that war-caused deaths totaled somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000."

The point is that this quote from Fred Kaplan is totally untrue. That is NOT an accurate or even approximate interpretation of (95% CI 8,000-194,000). It actually refers to a 95% Confidence Interval, which is nothing to do with how certain they are about the figures but is a measure of Standard Deviation and the probability of the accuracy of the data. Without looking at the original data (which is published and therefore available for criticism) I am unable to give further information. In any case, I have already indicated that contrary to popular belief statistics is a very exact science, so I would only come to the same conclusion as the original team.

The conclusions drawn are that 98,000 excess deaths were caused by the military intervention. Since the data is published and no-one has questioned the actual data it is a reasonable assumption that the conclusions indicated are valid. If the opposite were the case it would be easy to deny the conclusions simply by referring to the data. That has not happened.

After 30 years I may be a little rusty when it comes to statistics, but be warned that I used to be rather good at it.

Edit: typos

[Busyman]

The point is that this quote from Fred Kaplan is totally untrue. That is NOT an accurate or even approximate interpretation of (95% CI 8,000-194,000). It actually refers to a 95% Confidence Interval, which is nothing to do with how certain they are about the figures but is a measure of Standard Deviation and the probability of the accuracy of the data. Without looking at the original data (which is published and therefore available for criticism) I am unable to give further information. In any case, I have already indicated that contrary to popular belief statistics is a very exact science, so I would only come to the same conclusion as the original team.

The conclusions drawn are that 98,000 excess deaths were caused by the military intervention. Since the data is published and no-one has questioned the actual data it is a reasonable assumption that the conclusions indicated are valid. If the opposite were the case it would be easy to deny the conclusions simply by referring to the data. That has not happened.

After 30 years I may be a little rusty when it comes to statistics, but be warned that I used to be rather good at it.

Edit: typos

be warned that my bullshit detector is as finely calibrated as ever.

[whypikonme]

As luck would have it, the team was antiwar, and the study was released just before the presidential election.

How unbiased is that?

Perhaps, j2k4 you'd care to explain why the US refuses to count dead civilians? Could it be to avoid the truth, or add to the confusion maybe? They seem to have no problems counting their own dead, and not one of them ever referred to as collateral damage.

[lynx]

The point is that this quote from Fred Kaplan is totally untrue. That is NOT an accurate or even approximate interpretation of (95% CI 8,000-194,000). It actually refers to a 95% Confidence Interval, which is nothing to do with how certain they are about the figures but is a measure of Standard Deviation and the probability of the accuracy of the data. Without looking at the original data (which is published and therefore available for criticism) I am unable to give further information. In any case, I have already indicated that contrary to popular belief statistics is a very exact science, so I would only come to the same conclusion as the original team.

The conclusions drawn are that 98,000 excess deaths were caused by the military intervention. Since the data is published and no-one has questioned the actual data it is a reasonable assumption that the conclusions indicated are valid. If the opposite were the case it would be easy to deny the conclusions simply by referring to the data. That has not happened.

After 30 years I may be a little rusty when it comes to statistics, but be warned that I used to be rather good at it.

Edit: typos

Alright, then:

Taking your incredible (and only slightly rusty) capabilities into account, perhaps you might favor me with a layman's (remember, I am not in your league, right?) parsing of precisely what the quoted passage, "95% CI 8.000-194,000" is supposed to mean?

I should have thought you'd provide that little necessity right off, but be warned that my bullshit detector is as finely calibrated as ever.

What it means is that 95% of the possible results are expected to fall in the range 8.000-194,000. In other words, if you got another piece of data there is a 95% probability that the data would cause the likely total number to fall in the range 8,000-194,000. That may sound like a subtle difference, but it is actually very significant.

If one were simply counting numbers to reach the probable total, then another "piece of data" would be another dead body, and it would automatically shift the total higher. However, the people who compiled the report had to take into account how likely it was that a "body" was caused by the military intervention. Under those conditions another body which you could definitely say was caused by military intervention would cause the likely total to increase, while a body which you could definitely say was not caused by military intervention would cause the likely total to decrease.

Because of that uncertainty there is a wide spread of likely results. However, that spread will not be a flat line but is more likely to look something like this:

At you can see the likelihood of a central result is much higher that one at the fringes.

The significance of these figures becomes apparent not when you incorrectly snear at the 95%CI as Fred Kaplan did, but when you look at the likelihood that the total falls outside the range. It is not only a 95% confidence that the true figure falls inside that range, it is also a 95% confidence that it does not fall outside that range, both above and below, and there is actually a 97.5% confidence that the total is not below 8,000.

Would you place your money on that 2.5% chance of the true total being below 8,000?

[Rat Faced]

The 100,000 figure also includes ALL deaths both indirect and direct that would would not have happened statistically without the invasion.

These deaths include not only those killed by the coalition, but also includes those by the insurgents, disease and other natural causes that were inflamed by the current situation.


You would expect the number to be high, just look at the deaths in France during a heatwave a couple of years back... then see that Iraq has this type of heat every year, plus bloody cold winters/nights.

As there was/is no electricity in large parts of the country and lack of water treatments in parts (especially early on) then you would expect large numbers of deaths through exposure and also a number of deaths that you'd find anywhere with large unemployment and poverty, due to malnutritoin etc.

Although indirect, these deaths are also as a result of the invasion. To ignore them is to stick your head in the sand... but we're used to that here.

[whypikonme]

whypikonme-

Why don't you take it upon yourself to convince me that the U.S. "refuses" to count the dead, rather than merely saying so?

Surely you can google, just like everyone else here...

Why don't you show me some official government figures then, IF they exist. Or does that involve doing your own work instead of finding someone to do it for you?

[GepperRankins]

can i say that the number of dead in iraq will be CI 100% 20000-6000000000?