<$BlogRSDURL$>
Return to Main Page | Ragout: UPDATE: 100,000 Killed in Iraq War?
Ragout
A Spicy Stew of Economics, Politics, Data, Food, Carpentry, etc.
 
Sunday, October 31, 2004

UPDATE: 100,000 Killed in Iraq War?


I see that Fred Kaplan at Slate has scooped me (see my previous post), speaking with Beth Osborne Daponte, who also doesn't believe the Lancet estimates of 100,000 dead since the beginning of the Iraq War:
Daponte (who has studied Iraqi population figures for many years) questions the finding that prewar mortality was 5 deaths per 1,000. According to quite comprehensive data collected by the United Nations, Iraq's mortality rate from 1980-85 was 8.1 per 1,000. From 1985-90, the years leading up to the 1991 Gulf War, the rate declined to 6.8 per 1,000. After '91, the numbers are murkier, but clearly they went up. Whatever they were in 2002, they were almost certainly higher than 5 per 1,000. In other words, the wartime mortality rate—if it is 7.9 per 1,000—probably does not exceed the peacetime rate by as much as the Johns Hopkins team assumes.
Kaplan buries the Daponte critique, and emphasizes -- to my mind, overemphasizes -- questions about the Lancet study's large confidence interval. It is worth noting that Daponte's take on this study is extremely credible.

Daponte, a respected demographer at Carnegie Mellon, had her 15 minutes of fame in 1992 when she publicly challenged the first Bush administration's estimate of civilian casualties. Daponte used demographic methods much like those in the Lancet study, and found that 158,000 Iraqis (military and civilian) died during the Gulf War and its aftermath. For her efforts, Daponte was fired by the Census Bureau, though her job was eventually saved after she initiated legal action and drew strong support from her colleagues and the academic community. She has sinced published her findings about Iraqi mortality in prestigious academic journals.

In other words, Daponte is an expert on the issue and would certainly not be afraid to challenge the Bush administration and endorse the Lancet study if she thought it were correct. I'd guess she'd probably be eager to support the Lancet findings. But she doesn't think those findings are correct.

 
|










































Number 1 in Ragout Economics!

ARCHIVES
March 2004 / April 2004 / May 2004 / June 2004 / July 2004 / August 2004 / September 2004 / October 2004 / November 2004 / December 2004 / January 2005 / April 2005 / May 2005 / June 2005 / July 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 /

LINKS
First Team
Angry Bear
Atrios
Crooked Timber
Brad DeLong
Econbrowser
Economist's View
Freakonomics
Mark Kleiman
Nathan Newman
Political Animal
Max Sawicky
Brian Setser
Sock Thief
Talking Points Memo
Tapped
Matthew Yglesias

Second Opinion
Stephen Bainbridge
Marginal Revolution
Andrew Samwick
The Volokh Conspiracy

Third Way
Fafblog
NewDonkey

Fourth Estate
Economic Reporting Review
New York Times
Slate
Washington Post

Fifth Republic
Ceteris-Paribus
Econoclaste
Le Figaro
Le Monde

Sixth Sense
Deltoid
The Intersection
In the Pipeline
What's New

Politics & Polls
Daily Kos
Donkey Rising
Electoral Vote Predictor
MyDD
PollingReport
PollKatz
Rasmussen Tracking Polls

Other
Art Sucks
Enzo Titolo
L’esprit d’escalier
A Level Gaze
Approximately Perfect


EMAIL
ragoutchef at yahoo dot com

[ATOM]

Powered by Blogger