On 11 Sep 2006 at 10:39, Nick Arnett wrote: > > Some of it seems to be -- the Wiki piece has claims that could easily > > pass 100K already. The info at http://iraqbodycount.org/ seems to be > > about half that. But that's current numbers, and I think Nick was > > projecting through to the end of the "war". > > It wasn't me, it was the article I quoted... but I have an idea of > what that number means. It is from a comparison of death rates before > and after the invasion, without regard to direct cause. Thus, it is > intended to include those who have died due to destruction of the > infrastructure, lack of police, etc., in addition to those directly > killed by the war.
Yes, and you know what the actual figure in the 2004 Lancet study was, right? 98,000 (95% confidence interval: 8000 to 194000) *Including* combatants. A commentry on their methodology: http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/ There appears to be no 2006 or even 2005 study. AndrewC _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
