655,000 ‘excess’ dead in Iraq.
October 11, 2006, 1:42 pm
Posted by Grant Gallicho
The Washington Post reports:
A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.
(snip)
Of the total 655,000 estimated “excess deaths,” 601,000 resulted from
violence and the rest from disease and other causes, according to the
study. This is about 500 unexpected violent deaths per day throughout
the country.
The survey was done by Iraqi physicians and overseen by epidemiologists
at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health. The
findings are being published online today by the British medical
journal the Lancet.
For a PDF of the Lancet article, click here.
In a news conference today, the Great Decider dismissed the report, of course. He then marvelled at an Iraqi society that is, in his view, so desirous of freedom that it will “tolerate” such a high level of violence.
Regardless of the Lancet report’s validity, all I can say is, What a cretin.
cre·tin (kr t n)
n.
1. A person afflicted with cretinism.
2. Slang An idiot.
[French crétin, from French dialectal, deformed and mentally retarded person found in certain Alpine valleys, from Vulgar Latin *christi nus, Christian, human being, poor fellow, from Latin Chr sti nus, Christian; see Christian.]
Gene,
I couldn’t agree more. So what to do?
I hope everyone who feels the same will vote for candidates who oppose the war. It is probably the best chance we have of ending what the Decider started.
t
Patrick: definition # 2 seems about right.
If there have been an average of 500 deaths per day since March 2003, most due to violence, has there been a vast underreporting of violence in Iraq? How many times has the press reported even a single day with 500 deaths, let alone everyday, day after day? What gives? Something doesn’t add up.
It’s a question of credibility.
I listened to Bush, Rumsfeld, Casey on this -all on point yesterday.
Do you beleive a reputable non partisan group about facts or do you believe partisan idelogues?
Unfortunately, that’s the standard question in dealing with much of the current administration’s approach to information dissemination (pace Tony Snow.)
Yours is an interesting question, Mark, and I’m unsure what to make of it myself.
Here’s a thought: According to Wikipedia, there were 42, 643 car collision fatalities in the U.S. during 2003, making for an average of 117 fatalities per day. I doubt that average has dipped radically during 2006. Do you think any news outlet could give us a reasonably accurate idea of the number of relevant deaths from yesterday? Last week? Last month? Even if they were trying?
If the challenge of reporting on car crashes in the U.S. gives one pause, then the challenge of reporting on daily casualties in Iraq — where journalists are (for good reason) reluctant to stray too far from home-base — boggles the mind.
What I find as troubling as the number of deaths is the way the study, as reported in Lancet, attempts to gauge the accuracy of that number.
The variables that might affect the estimate of the death toll paint a pretty grim picture of what life is like in Iraq right now:
For example: Our estimate of excess deaths is far higher than those reported in Iraq through passive surveillance measures.This discrepancy is not unexpected. Data from passive surveillance are rarely complete, and are even less complete during conflict, when access is restricted and fatal events could be intentionally hidden.
And: Mortality rates from violent causes have increased every year post-invasion. Our data show that gunfire is the major cause of death in Iraq.
And: Across Iraq, deaths and injuries from violent causes were concentrated in adolescent to middle age men. Coalition forces have been reported as targeting all men of military age
And: Death rates from non-violent causes remained essentially unchanged from pre-invasion levels.
And: The extreme insecurity during this survey could have introduced bias by restricting the size of teams, the number of supervisors, and the length of time that could be prudently spent in all locations, which in turn affected the size and nature of questionnaires. Further, calling back to households not available on the initial visit was felt to be too dangerous.
And: Large-scale migration out of Iraq could affect our death estimates by decreasing population size.