• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

Lies, damned lies, statistics, the Iraqi death toll...

#1
The latest figures to emerge from Iraq suggest that the Lancet's suggested figure of 600,000 violent deaths (2006) were out by, well, a fair bit. A new study from the Iraqi Ministry of Health counts a death toll of between 104,000 to 223,000, and gets a mention in the New Scientist:

Link

Has the moment for these figures passed, politically speaking?
 
#2
Phew - only a 104 thousand. Glad it hasn't got out of control then
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
Somebody, somewhere, can't think who, said that killing 20 people is mass murder, but killing half a million is something else. Is there really a substantive difference between 120,000 dead bods and 600,000, apart from the number of course? I thought people stopped counting at 100,000 anyway.

Honestly not trying to be funny, but when you look at Rwanda and various other genocides, it tends to become a little meaningless, arguing the semantics of a couple of hundred thousand.
 
#5
Biped said:
Somebody, somewhere, can't think who, said that killing 20 people is mass murder, but killing half a million is something else. Is there really a substantive difference between 120,000 dead bods and 600,000, apart from the number of course? I thought people stopped counting at 100,000 anyway.

Honestly not trying to be funny, but when you look at Rwanda and various other genocides, it tends to become a little meaningless, arguing the semantics of a couple of hundred thousand.
"One death is a tragedy, a million dead is a statistic"

Stalin I believe
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
IT_Guy said:
Biped said:
Somebody, somewhere, can't think who, said that killing 20 people is mass murder, but killing half a million is something else. Is there really a substantive difference between 120,000 dead bods and 600,000, apart from the number of course? I thought people stopped counting at 100,000 anyway.

Honestly not trying to be funny, but when you look at Rwanda and various other genocides, it tends to become a little meaningless, arguing the semantics of a couple of hundred thousand.
"One death is a tragedy, a million dead is a statistic"

Stalin I believe
That's the cookie - I think he was right - after all, he was responsible for nigh on 50 million from the purges, mass starvation, farming collectives, gulags and salt mines to cr@p fighting practices against the krauts.
 
#8
Reminds me of the number of Scud missiles the USAF said they had destroyed in 1991 - was something like 400% more than the Iraqi's acttually had.
Daily briefs were a work of fantasy
 
#9
TopBadger said:
Vimeiro said:
Herrumph said:
Phew - only a 104 thousand. Glad it hasn't got out of control then

...and only a 119k variation.
Nah, its a figure of 163.5K with a 59.5K variation... maybe 600K is the 3 sigma value eh?

I'll get my coat.

TB
Get you. The point I wanted to make was that the Ministry quoted anything from 104k to 223k. this struck me as being a bit aof a wild variation and led me to remember the word of the imortal Bard, when he said 'It's all bollocks'
 
#10
Statistics are only balls when created by some group/person with a vested interest... sadly this seems to be most of the time.

But, "87.5% of statistics are made up on the spot" - Vic Reeves.

TB
 
#11
Who really cares?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top