Colrom

What I meant by that is that they only count the bodies (deaths) viewed at the scene - by and large - not the subsequent deaths or deaths reported by families in which no bodies are reported by the media. My impression from reading the media is that they are reluctant to report deaths for which they did not see a body or for which coalition forces say there was a death. It was sloppy speach. Sorry about that. I think that counting deaths using death certificates and also adding family reported deaths is the better way to determine how many have died. If somebody falsified alot of death certificates and family stories to match those death certificates that would be a problem - but, in a statistical study such deception would quite likely be detected because it would demonstrate very unlikely statistical behavior. Historical records indicate that the US and UK militaries have falsified some data in ways that are statistically difficult to detect - but most organizations would have trouble doing that.

Rosbjerg, Nice. Good writing too. You should wear my hat. It's too big for me. It would fit you better.

Di, Muslims are included as sources in the hateful trash comment. But since you and and I and some others are doing such a good job of putting them down and calling them out I thought it wasn't really necessary for me to add my voice to the overall anti-muslim roar here. I will get off my high horse some other time. I can see better from up here right now. Even if my head is too small for my hat!

IBQ really doesn't count bodies or deaths. They count civilian deaths reported by selected news media on the internet for newsreported events. If fifty people are brought to a morgue with gunshot wounds they will not be counted by IBQ unless they are reported over the internet as deaths resulting from one or more well defined events (which, most recently, can be just being found together at a location) reported by two approved news agencies. If ten civilians are killed and forty people are wounded at an event reported by two approved news sources the ten civilians will be counted by IBQ but no record of the forty wounded will be recorded. If fifteen of those forty die in the next few days but those deaths are not reported in association with the causative incident by two approved news sources then those fifteen deaths will not be counted by IBQ. By the way I can't figure out some of the news symbols in the latest listings and some of the events list news organizations not given in their methodology. It is hard to dive into the details of their data and check anything. Does that help?

You didn't really clarify things. What exactly is the body count? It seems to me to be counting the number of people that have died. But you say that it doesn't count the number of people that have died. So what exactly does the body count count (and please don't say bodies). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Here is the Iraq Body Count description of their methodology with text bolded in areas that relate to your question. I will talk about it more in a separate post. This post is intended just to establish a background for answering your question. IBQ Methodology

It wasn't the "final solution" at that time. The "final solution" came later, Lucius. I don't know what will happen later with us. But if we kill alot we will kill them in their own cities - so it will be different, if not completely different.

Err, I am kind of confused, but how else do you determine the number of people dead, if counting the number of people that have died is "stupid." It's a lower estimate (since people have probably died that you didn't see), but anything higher than that is just guessing. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Iraq body count does not count the number of people who have died. It counts a heavily filtered subset of that. Like I said elsewhere it is a miracle that they count anybody at all given all their constraints. The Iraqi University, Johns Hopkins MIT procedure does count a sample of the number of people who have died. Interestingly a subset of their results covering just the period before the war (to provide a baseline) matches the US CIA estimates for Iraqi mortality in that period. I remember when the genocide in Cambodia was in process and the reports came out how most people really didn't want to hear about it. I gather that it was that way in regard to reports of the holocost too. People don't want to believe it. It would mean that some people they like are covered in blood. It would mean they really ought to do something. But they don't know what to do. So many deny it and many push it aside. Not a pretty picture.

What are A, B, C, D catagory bugs? My guess is A= deadly = game dies; B=crippling = game runs but is no fun. But what about C and D?

Sorry.

I have yet to meet five Christians or five Jews who give a damn about insulting Muslims. I have certainly met plenty of Christians who care alot about insulting Christians and plenty of Jews who care alot about insulting Jews. I've even met some Christians who care about insulting Jews. But I haven't met any Jews who care about insulting Christians - although those I know tend to do it in Jiddish or Hebrew so that Goyim like me don't realize. After all the Goyim have a bad reputation for being very unforgiving and vindictive. I think we are right on track to repeat our past excesses with a whole new population of victims. By the way - in New Jersey USA - the Jews here beat the crap out of the Nazis and their sympathizers when they gathered to spread their antisemetic hate and enlist new supporters in the 30s and the 40s. Sadly, fear is a proven restraint for hatespeach. So it is not just Muslims who act out when treated badly. I need to find a small population of Christians that acted out. Isn't there a population like that in Africa. Ahhh. But they are black. Anyone know a white population of Christians that flew off the handle when criticised or abused or made fun of? Please excuse raging sarcasm. I am so sick of this hateful trash and yet I am starting to do it myself. Bah!

This study is certainly different than a body count study. It will include indirect deaths and stress deaths. For example if a person dies of infection from stepping on a nail because they could not get to a hospital because it was destroyed they might add to the pool of "excess deaths" relative to before the invasion. If they die because they get a disease from water that is no longer clean because the purification technology is destroyed they might add to the pool too, although those deaths would likely show up pre war as well because we destroyed their water system and their water purification capabilities pre war. Certainly the US military is well familiar with these types of casualties. They figured them into the estimates that were made for likely casualties from nuclear exchanges.

By the way, ignore that stuff I posted about 1/(1.6^2). I am too simple for fancy stuff like that. They say right out what they mean.

So far as I know this group is the only group actually trying to find out the effects of the war. By the way, if the car they get run over by is a US military or insurgent vehicle or is a vehicle that ran out of control because of a bomb or a hole in the road caused by a bomb - those would be casualties of the war.

Here are some of the studies comments (in an appendix) regarding the issue of cluster sampling which Taks is commenting on. It may be heavy for some. From an Appendix: "A problem with cluster surveys is that households adjacent to each other are more likely to be similar than those located farther away. In the case of localized violent events, the same event is likely to affect households close together. This makes simple random sampling a stronger survey method where this is possible. But in war this is seldom possible. To compensate for this "clustering effect" (sometimes called the design effect), the number of households or persons in a cluster sample is increased over that of a simple random sample in order to provide adequate precision. As one does not know the extent of "clustering" before the survey is started, it is usually estimated at two, meaning that a cluster survey would need twice the number of households as a simple random survey in order to have equal statistical power. Afterwards the clustering or design effect can be calculated from the results to see if the estimate of 2.0 was indeed correct. In the 2006 Iraq mortality study, during its analysis this effect was found to be only 1.6

What the report says about sampling is this: "Selection of the sites Selection of households to be interviewed must be completely random to be sure the results are free of bias. For this survey, all households had an equal chance of being selected. A series of completely random choices were made. First the location of each of the 50 clusters was chosen according the geographic distribution of the population in Iraq. This is known as the first stage of sampling in which the governates (provinces) where the survey would be conducted were selected. This sampling process went on randomly to select the town (or section of the town), the neighborhood, and then the actual house where the survey would start. This was all done using random numbers. Once the start house was selected, an interview was conducted there and then in the next 39 nearest houses. The distribution of the sample sites or clusters is shown in Table 1, which is based on the 2004 UNDP/Iraqi Ministry of Planning population estimates." Table omitted The report continues: "Conduct of the survey The two survey teams consisted of two females and two males each with one male supervisor. All were medical doctors with previous survey and community medicine experience and were fluent in English and Arabic. All were Iraqis. All were trained in the use of the questionnaire. Rules were established about how to randomly choose another area if the first one chosen was unsafe on the day of the survey visit." I do not see bias in this - other than possible bias due to families being completely wiped out and therefore unsurveyed - but they checked for that too. What do you have in mind Taks?

I don't understand what you are saying. I will look into it. So far as I could tell their choices of coordinates to interview were randomly decided based on population density weighted geography. That seems good to me. Will check and get back.

Here's more data: They claim 95% confidence that the casualties since the invasion are more than 426,000 and less than 794,000. They calculated an estimate based on the new sample results just for the period from the start of the war till August 2004. They get 112,000 casualties from teh new sample data as compared to about 100,000 reported based on teh old sample data. For 92% of the casualties reported family members had death certificates.

I don't think the muslim world would like that very much. Maybe you are thinking of some other religious group. "

The Iraq Body Count numbers are virtually useless for a number of reasons. They count bodies. They only count civilian casualties. They require two independent original source news reports of the casualties. They require that the news reports be in english. They also engage in propaganda by using the word "maximum" to mischaracterize their higher results. I actually spoke to them a long time ago about their misuse of the word "maximum", suggesting, perhaps unfairly, perhaps not, that they could easily be seen as a source providing preemptive damage control for the governement. They were determined to keep their terminology. Most folks recognize that their "maximum" numbers are wildly low by any rational standard - but just how wildly low is difficult for a person, like me, who reads just english language sources to really know. As an cynical aside the university where they work has many UK government funded projects. There are various stories on the latest casualty estimates based on population sampling. A completely different approach - much more likely to reveal overal casualty levels - including even evidence of casualties that have been burried in the dark in the dirt on the side of the road. I have seen various versions based on the AP story. A key bit was the statement that most families provided death certificates. So the sample is not just hearsay. CNN had added additional info supporting the credibility of the sampling methodology employed and also included a link to the actual report and the data appendix. I may be able to post a link if folks want. They are PDF files. CBS had added to their version of teh AP story additional info from a political research group friendly to the administration which criticized the report - but provided no grounds. I am inclined to think that the sampling methodology is solid and the results are reasonably accurate. I need to see what the estimate of uncertainty is (95% confidence level). That is a key number. In any case this estimate appears to be generally consistent with the earlier Lancet estimate - which had a very large uncertainty - which covered the period from the start of the war till Aug 2004.

It's entirely your prerogative, but I decided he was a basket case when he opted to run a represssive police state, kill millions of his citizens by economic mismanagement and ideological fervour ...and have that haircut. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I actually did a search some time ago on the phrase "economic mismanagement" which I decided I had heard too many times about Cuba, Russia, Argentina, North Korea, Sweden, France, Germany and so on, with frequency decreasing as the nation becomes less socialist and more friendly to US business. If we could just get Cargill business cooking in NK (with what crops I don't know)I'm sure all claims of economic mismanagement would miraculously vanish without a single ounce of additional food ever reaching hungry NK mouths. (w00t) I think there is a case to be made for claims of economic mismanagement but I also think the claim is often ideologically motivated - code speak for socialist or poor. We certainly are helping to make economics a problem for the NK by freezing their assets.

Hmmm. Probably yes. Although the actual charges would likely be more technical or maybe even unrelated. After all, impeachment is a political process.

My tendency to adopt a knee jerk us vs them alignment has been irrevocably damaged in part because there have been so many cases where - because of technical expertise or other specialized knowledge - I have known that certain western media reports have been misrepresentations or outright lies. Because of that and a general disregard for situational and affiliation based ethics I take alot of info with a grain of salt. Because my sources are largely western they get salted most. But other sources get served with salt as well. I have also seen enough US adminsitrations actively seek to starve or otherwise economically harm targeted foreign populations so - while I think Kim is a lousy leader - I also think he is not the only one - and would like to see positive reform here and there and everywhere. That's my agenda. Not some stupid war with NK.

While I agree there is reason to be concerned about Kim and the NK I am not convinced that the information we work with is accurate. I keep finding subtle twists of misinformation and propaganda that I can recognize. So I wonder what misinformation and propaganda I am accepting because I don't recognize it. I don't like that. I'm not convinced that Kim is as crazy as he is portrayed in the western press - especially the press which is US owned and otherwise affiliated. There are certainly other leaders in NK. So what do they say and do - and why? So far as I can tell the US has certainly been working against NK interests and has gone out of its way to be offensive and damaging. And we make threats that are subtle enough to avoid western notice but must certainly be seen as significant to NK. Meanwhile the NK is reported to make claims and threats - but never threats of offensive action -but then we regularly step on folks toes so we are justifiably concerned. Often the sourcing of the news makes the exact nature of the treats uncertain. I'm not sure what all this accomplishes that can be good for normal folks. Maybe the problem is that there are too many sorta crazy folks out there and over here all trying to accumulate power by force and intimidation. So far as I can tell that always works out badly for the regular folks who don't live in estates and palaces and even works out badly for some of those who do. I hate the idea of being a forced puney participant in a fight among elephants and maniacs who think they might be elephants.

While I don't think the NK will attack my first instinct would be the same if they did. My first instinct in these kinds of matters is always overly violent and fundamentally wrong. An overwhelming response targeting the right capabilities and people would be appropriate if such a thing happened though. But lets not go there. Some of this may be bluster. Some may be misinformation. By the way the NK don't appear to have the required missile capability - but - as a backburner note - the Japanese definitely do have the capability.

I saw some of those reports too. But wasn't sure what to make of them. Are they all true? Are some of them NK propaganda and some of them SK and US propaganda? I don't know. Anyway here's what I found: Todays AP story: "North Korea said Wednesday it will consider any increased pressure from the United States as "a declaration of a war," a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman said, according to North Korea's state-run news agency, KCNA. Yesterday's AP story: "The North, meanwhile, stepped up its threats aimed at Washington, saying it could fire a nuclear-tipped missile unless the United States acts to resolve its standoff with Pyongyang, the Yonhap news agency reported from Beijing.