At the risk of being extremely provocative on this list, we do need
further breakdown. Of the supposed 650,000 deaths - which I don't have
any particular reason to question and may well be in the right area - how
many are attributable to coalition forces, how many are criminal or
terrorist inspired, how many are genuine accident or natural mortality and
how many are sectarian? What ages and genders where the dead a
where did they die? Experts may think of other categories of course.
Does the Lancet article go into this? Presumably if it was done with the
claimed care, some details should be available and with such a large
number we should have a rich source of information.
A very large contingency table is called for in order to evaluate more
than the usual journalistic 1-D (or even 0-D) piece of information.
We are interested in the truth after all, whatever it is and however
palatable or unpalatable it is with respect to one opinion or another.
Aren't we?
Best wishes
John
John Logsdon "Try to make things as simple
Quantex Research Ltd, Manchester UK as possible but not simpler"
[log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]
+44(0)161 445 4951/G:+44(0)7717758675 www.quantex-research.com
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, ray thomas wrote:
> >Politicians have, not unexpectedly, been dismissing
> this study as "not credible" and "flawed". I'm struck
> by the repeated use of "extrapolated": this strikes me
> as yet another play on words, confusing generalisation
> from sample to population -- which is well-founded and
> has its well-established mechanism for reporting the uncertainties involved
> -- with true extrapolation,
>
>
> Yes, the rot in this case started with Tony Blair himself who rubbished a
> Lancet estimate made in 1994 by saying it was based on the number of deaths
> counted in the sample!
>
> The new estimate of 650,000 deaths is claimed to be the most accurate
> estimate of its kind because the survey also checked documentry evidence, eg
> death certificates, from households. Also unusual because the sample size
> was based on a compromise between accuracy and the prospect of interviewers
> getting back alive.
>
> It will be interesting to see what Blair says this time. But Margaret
> Beckett the Foreign Minister and the Foreigh Office itself have just
> expressed regret at the scale of deaths. It is good to be able to report
> that Sheila Bird speaking on TV as external relations officer for the Royal
> Statistical Society endorsed the Lancet estimate as being a scientific
> estimate. It is to be hoped that the statistical community in the US will
> expose Bush's ignorant rejection of the estimate.
>
> Ted is quite right to draw attention to the ignorance displayed by media
> commentators in this area. It is to be hoped that public discussion in
> this case could lead to widespread elightenment. So don't let us forget
> this episode.
>
> Can we have a speaker on this subject at the Radstats conference in
> February?
>
> Ray Thomas
>
> ******************************************************
> 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]
> Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
> *******************************************************
>
******************************************************
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]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
|