I see that some blogs such as Sock Thief: The Lancet study on Iraqi deaths and Crooked Timber: The Lancet study on Iraq - it hasn't gone away you know think the Lancet study still has some basis in reality.
UPDATE: Well that first estimate was a pile of crap. I forgot to take into account accelerated death rates in the elderly. Factoring that in would give a median life expectancy of around 68 years pre invasion and 67 years post invasion. Adding nothing to human knowledge I have removed it to save myself further embarassment. Lesson learned. I am not a demographer. Having said that the number of 4 male deaths and 12 child deaths are very low figures to extrapolate off. Women and elderly deaths apparently declined on an annualised basis.
|
|
People in Sample |
Deaths in Sample |
Violent Deaths in Falluja |
Deaths per Year |
Deaths per Year excl Falluja |
People In Iraq m |
Average Age |
Extra Deaths excl Falluja |
Children |
Pre Inv |
2,736 |
12 |
|
9.9 |
9.9 |
9.0 |
7.5 |
|
0-15 |
Post Inv |
3,084 |
53 |
24 |
35.4 |
19.4 |
9.6 |
7.5 |
43,775 |
Men |
Pre Inv |
2,187 |
4 |
|
3.3 |
3.3 |
7.2 |
37 |
|
15-59 |
Post Inv |
2,220 |
51 |
25 |
34.0 |
17.3 |
6.9 |
37 |
65,244 |
Women |
Pre Inv |
2,205 |
9 |
|
7.4 |
7.4 |
7.2 |
37 |
|
15-59 |
Post Inv |
2,233 |
13 |
3 |
8.7 |
6.7 |
6.9 |
37 |
( 3,607 ) |
Elderly |
Pre Inv |
320 |
21 |
|
17.4 |
17.4 |
1.0 |
70 |
|
|
Post Inv |
331 |
25 |
|
16.7 |
16.7 |
1.0 |
70 |
(3,249 ) |
Total |
Pre Inv |
7,438 |
46 |
0 |
38.1 |
38.1 |
24.4 |
- |
|
|
Post Inv |
7,868 |
142 |
52 |
94.8 |
60.1 |
24.4 |
- |
102,163 |
If young people kept dying at the same rate at which they died when they were young, then all sorts of funny things might happen.
However, it has been known to medical science for some time, that as people get older, they become more likely to die.
Fool.
Posted by: dsquared | Jan 28, 2005 at 07:40 PM
Owned.
Posted by: Hipocrite | Jan 28, 2005 at 07:55 PM
sagenz, you know have the opportunity to join a very very small and select group, that of critics of the Lancet study who were big enough to admit that they stuffed up their criticism. Can you rise to the challenge?
Posted by: Tim Lambert | Jan 29, 2005 at 06:53 AM
That was actually pretty big of you, and I apologise for the insult.
Posted by: dsquared | Jan 29, 2005 at 03:44 PM