On 08-Dec-04 John Whittington wrote:
> At 20:42 08/12/04 +0000, Ted Harding wrote (in small part):
>
>>This estimate (as of 8 Nov) was "just under 4,000" (see above),
>>it is the lowest of all the numbers floating around (and, in
>>relation to Martin Bland's point, it is outside the Lancet's
>>Confidence Interval of 8000-193000). It represents (if I understand
>>aright) the numbers of "civilian" deaths that have occurred in
>>Iraqi hospitals (i.e. not counting those of people classified as
>>"combatant", for which the criterion apparently is "Male, 15-59
>>years old -- see the Hansard statement).
>
> Hmmmmm. Two immediate observations:
>
> 1...The exclusion of 'combatants', defined as you mention, is
> clearly going to result in a serious underestimate of what you
> and I would regard as 'civilian deaths'.
Quite so ...
> 2...In most countries I know about (and I admit that does not
> include Iraq), only a very small proportion of those dying
> from major trauma die in hospital, or ever get near a hospital
> - such that a hospital-based estimate of deaths could easily
> be an order of magnitude lower than the truth.
> If you caste your mind back to September 11th 2001, I suspect
> the estimates of the number who died on that day as a result
> of the 4 plane 'crashes' would be close to zero had it been
> based on hospital data.
No doubt ... yet that is the preferred basis of our Government's
estimate of such deaths:
"So while recognising the bravery and professionalism of
those conducting the Lancet study, the Government do not
accept its central conclusion, and continue to believe that
the most reliable figures for casualties in Iraq are those
provided by Iraqi hospitals to the Iraqi Ministry of Health."
It could hardly be more explicit! -- Or could it ... ??
One can see weasel words here. "Most reliable" in the sense that
the number of deaths reported from Iraqi hospitals to the Iraqi
Minstry of Health is no doubt much more reliable as a measure of
deaths in Iraqi hospitals than either the Iraq Body Count or the
Lancet study is a reliable measure of overall deaths. The phrase
"most reliable figures for casualties in Iraq" does not explicitly
say "overall casualties". You can -- and if you're a Minister may
want to retain the option -- say that what you REALLY meant is
"of all the categories of casualties in Iraq, the category of
which we have the most reliable estimate is the category of
casualties in hospital, as reported by Iraqi hospitals to the
Iraqi Ministry of Health".
Is that not true, now? (or is it ... ??)
Best wishes,
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[log in to unmask]>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 [NB: New number!]
Date: 08-Dec-04 Time: 23:43:49
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|