18,000 - 29,000 in one year times 4.5 years is 81,000 - 130,000, if rates remained constant. Still a ways below the lower Lancet figure of 393,000.
How does the UN study define "war related deaths"? Directly as a result of combat, or from insurgency, or from poor living conditions, or from reduced medical care? All these causes were included in the Lancet study, but I couldn't find what the UN study included.
The Lancet study indicated 31% of violent deaths from invasion to June 06 were due to "coalition".... 31% of 393,000 is 122,000, so now we are in the same range as the UN study. Given that death rates have risen over the time span, it seems like maybe the two studies are not necessarily contradictory.
And to not include all causes in tallying the total increase in deaths since the invasion is hypocritical when weighing the costs of the war.
Current Events » in reply to Another study for comparison
Well...
The whole thread (38 posts)
- Johns Hopkins/Lancet pull another number out of their asses.
- Another study for comparison
- Considering no nukes, WMDs, no al-Qaeda no link to WTC - how many is too many? (n/t)
- Link to actual study
- That's nothing. Remember the ONE MILLION IRAQI CHILDREN who supposedly died due to the sanctions?
- Does it make you feel better, Tom...
- What should be disturbing....
- Cluster surveys, used in this study, are routinely used to determine rates of death in natural disasters.
- Got any idea why Bush & Co. don't keep track of Iraqi deaths?