On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:51:28 -0600, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have read about a recent study on the number of civilian deaths during > the last year in Iraq. This is the Lancet study Dan is refering to: http://image.thelancet.com/extras/04art10342web.pdf > The methodology seems, on paper, capable of > providing at least order of magnitude accuracy (i.e. differentiating to > within at least a factor of 2). It reports at least 100k civilian deaths > in Iraq since the US's invasion.. My questions are: > > 1) Is there anything obviously wrong with their methodlogy? I don't know enough about stats to say but I have yet to see a convincing rebuttal so that suggests no. > 2) How bad would the death rate have to be before conditions are worse than > before the invasion? If I understand the question right then I don't think there is any answer, only personal preference. Whether conditions are better or worse depends on which variables people prioritise (stability, freedom, risk of death, future opportunity, etc). Martin _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
