Gawain 0 #26 October 11, 2006 QuoteQuoteDid the government kill these people or did these people kill eachother? The invasion set this in action. Had Bush not invaded, these deaths would not occured. Regardless what Saddam was he would not had allowed his country to fall the way the Bush admin and the current government(?) has. That doesn't make any sense. Saddam already did let his country fall to shambles. He already killed millions of Arabs, Kurds and Persians. QuoteWhether the numbers are correct or not the death rate is far above what it would had been had Bush not waged an illegal war on the Iraqi people. I understand your argument and disagree, the matter is still up for debate.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #27 October 12, 2006 QuoteIf our government was corrupt, another country removed our government because we could not, and we began killing each other then is it the fault of the country that removed our corrupt government or the fault of us?Our govt IS corrupt and sooner or later we are going to be ganged up upon just as Hitler was. And it's goin to be a sad day for the American citizen. Hopefully we'll do the opposite and unite. Either way. Fuck gold and silver. Stock up on brass and leadI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #28 October 12, 2006 QuoteDoes it actually matter what the real number is? Maybe not. Let's call it 6 million dead. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #29 October 12, 2006 >That doesn't make any sense. Saddam already did let his country fall to > shambles. By our standards, perhaps. But it was working better than it is now, despite all his misdirection of funds and corruption. Hard to count that as a plus for us (although we are trying to make it better, which is a good thing.) >He already killed millions of Arabs, Kurds and Persians. Right - but we considered him an ally in the war against Iran. Condemning him for that is like condemning the British for killing lots of Taliban. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #30 October 12, 2006 Quoteleading to an estimate of an increase in total deaths (combatants plus noncombatants) of 98,000 (95% confidence interval: 8000 to 194000) 8000 to 194000????? Yup, that thar's some ACCURATE estimations, there!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #31 October 12, 2006 QuoteQuoteIf our government was corrupt, another country removed our government because we could not, and we began killing each other then is it the fault of the country that removed our corrupt government or the fault of us?Our govt IS corrupt and sooner or later we are going to be ganged up upon just as Hitler was. And it's goin to be a sad day for the American citizen. Hopefully we'll do the opposite and unite. Either way. Fuck gold and silver. Stock up on brass and lead Are you being serious? Are you seriously comparing us to Hitler? If so, please move, please move to a third world country. May I suggest moving to Darfur?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #32 October 12, 2006 QuoteQuoteleading to an estimate of an increase in total deaths (combatants plus noncombatants) of 98,000 (95% confidence interval: 8000 to 194000) 8000 to 194000????? Yup, that thar's some ACCURATE estimations, there!! It's worse than that. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061012/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_death_toll;_ylt=AsOIADhW6OmIsIiOdU2prFis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b3JuZGZhBHNlYwM3MjE- QuoteThe researchers, reflecting the inherent uncertainties in such extrapolations, said they were 95 percent certain that the real number lay somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636 deaths. Of course, they base this on a survey of 1800 households in Iraq. The margin for error on this has got to be astronimical. Quote"I don't consider it a credible report," President Bush said Wednesday. Neither does Gen. George W. Casey, the top American military commander in Iraq. "That 650,000 number seems way, way beyond any number that I have seen," Casey said. "I've not seen a number higher than 50,000. And so I don't give it that much credibility at all." And neither does Michael E. O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, which also tracks Iraqi deaths. "I do not believe the new numbers. I think they're way off," he said. Other research methods on the ground, like body counts, forensic analysis and taking eyewitness reports, have produced numbers only about one-tenth as high, he said. "I have a hard time seeing how all the direct evidence could be that far off ... therefore I think the survey data is probably what's wrong." There is no unification on the findings of this study. The methods may have been sound, but they may not have been able to account for irregularities in such an environment. Even the co-author the study isn't standing by it. QuoteIf the estimate seems high, it's because the door-to-door survey turned up deaths that are typically overlooked when sought by other means in wartime situations, said Les Roberts, who was with Johns Hopkins when he co-authored the study but has just taken a post at Columbia University. As for extrapolating a nationwide figure from the sample of the few hundred deaths actually reported, "almost every statistic you've ever heard about health in America comes from a sample," Roberts said. "It may not be extremely precise, but at least it gets us in the right ballpark." This guy needs a different line of work, a ballpark might mean a variance of 50,000 - 100,000 people, not 300,000 - 1,000,000... So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #33 October 12, 2006 I'm wondering how many Statistics classes you have had.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #34 October 12, 2006 QuoteI appreciate you giving another source. However, after reading the article it is apparent that the statistics can not be proven to be accurate any more than the other statistics presented by other parties. Many, hence the previous statement. How many have you taken?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #35 October 12, 2006 QuoteQuoteI appreciate you giving another source. However, after reading the article it is apparent that the statistics can not be proven to be accurate any more than the other statistics presented by other parties. Many, hence the previous statement. How many have you taken? Not many, which is why I have refrained from commenting on the data. I have had enough to realize that some of those questioning said data may have limited Statistics knowledge.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #36 October 12, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteleading to an estimate of an increase in total deaths (combatants plus noncombatants) of 98,000 (95% confidence interval: 8000 to 194000) 8000 to 194000????? Yup, that thar's some ACCURATE estimations, there!! It's worse than that. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061012/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_death_toll;_ylt=AsOIADhW6OmIsIiOdU2prFis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b3JuZGZhBHNlYwM3MjE- QuoteThe researchers, reflecting the inherent uncertainties in such extrapolations, said they were 95 percent certain that the real number lay somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636 deaths. Of course, they base this on a survey of 1800 households in Iraq. The margin for error on this has got to be astronimical. Wrong. I's a larger sample than many of our esteemed public opinion pollsters use. Any issue with the methodology has to do with the randomness of the sample, not its size.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #37 October 12, 2006 QuoteAre you being serious? Are you seriously comparing us to Hitler? If so, please move, please move to a third world country. May I suggest moving to Darfur? OK, as for that comparison I think it is done in a much more elegant fashion by Kevin Barrett QuoteHitler had a good 20 to 30 IQ points on Bush, so comparing Bush to Hitler would in many ways be an insult to Hitler. Now, turning back to the topic at hand, it seems to me that they have actually gone to great lengths to give statistically sound estimates in this work. Agreed, there may be systematic errors biasing the result but I have yet to see someone arguing what these errors might be and in what direction they might pull the estimate. This all reminds me of the Florida recounts where every democrat thought that all recounts would automatically be in Gore's favour. You may not like to hear it, but this is the way to estimate the death toll as a result of the conflict given that all other parameters had remained approximately at status quo in the event that the invasion had not taken place. Going through the numbers I would say that I was mostly surprised over the number of violent deaths. I had expected an excess mortality to arise primarily from a lowered standard of living: Less food,less medical care. The number of violent deaths is a very tangible thing. One might view this number as a "prediction" of what would be found should a larger study be conducted. Indeed from a scientific point of view this is how I would see it, had it merely been an academic point of contention. Sadly, it is not which is probably the reason that it has not just been presented a "quadrupling of the baseline mortality rate since whatever date".HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livetofall 0 #38 October 12, 2006 WOW! just think..almost as many killed as those who die in car accidents a year in US! lets stop those cars those evil car drivers. I guess we better kill 400,000 more so we dont look like fucked up drivers. Oh jeez, i guess my own ass does stink. So lets all ride bicycles and drink alot..i think alcoholism takes less that 200k a year Sure beats one millionwww.911missinglinks.com the definitive truth of 9/11..the who and why, not how You can handle the TRUTH www.theforbiddentruth.net Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #39 October 13, 2006 No wonder why the Iraqi people dispise the U.S.. Quote you obviously know this from being there yourself right?History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Butters 0 #40 October 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteAre you being serious? Are you seriously comparing us to Hitler? If so, please move, please move to a third world country. May I suggest moving to Darfur? OK, as for that comparison I think it is done in a much more elegant fashion by Kevin Barrett QuoteHitler had a good 20 to 30 IQ points on Bush, so comparing Bush to Hitler would in many ways be an insult to Hitler. Now, turning back to the topic at hand, it seems to me that they have actually gone to great lengths to give statistically sound estimates in this work. Agreed, there may be systematic errors biasing the result but I have yet to see someone arguing what these errors might be and in what direction they might pull the estimate. This all reminds me of the Florida recounts where every democrat thought that all recounts would automatically be in Gore's favour. You may not like to hear it, but this is the way to estimate the death toll as a result of the conflict given that all other parameters had remained approximately at status quo in the event that the invasion had not taken place. Going through the numbers I would say that I was mostly surprised over the number of violent deaths. I had expected an excess mortality to arise primarily from a lowered standard of living: Less food,less medical care. The number of violent deaths is a very tangible thing. One might view this number as a "prediction" of what would be found should a larger study be conducted. Indeed from a scientific point of view this is how I would see it, had it merely been an academic point of contention. Sadly, it is not which is probably the reason that it has not just been presented a "quadrupling of the baseline mortality rate since whatever date". The survey consisted of 47 randomly selected clusters with 40 households from each cluster (1849 houses total). The estimated mortality was 654,965 (95% CI 392,979-942,636) Population of Iraq: 27,139,584 Average Residents Per House: 6.9 Population of Iraq / Average Residents Per House Houses in Iraq: 3,933,273 Houses in Irag / Houses Surveyed Percent of Houses Surveyed in Iraq: 0.00047 From a statistics point of view, that is small. Combined with other factors stated in the article, the results should be taken with a grain of salt."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,463 #41 October 13, 2006 >>No wonder why the Iraqi people dispise the U.S.. >you obviously know this from being there yourself right? I think this guy knows from being there: --------------------------- LONDON - Britain's new army chief called for a withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, warning that the military's presence there only exacerbates security problems, according to an interview published Thursday. Gen. Richard Dannatt described British Prime Minister Tony Blair's Iraq policies as "naive," declaring that while Iraqis might have welcomed coalition forces following the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the good will has since evaporated after years of violence. The British military should "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems," Dannatt said in an interview with the Daily Mail released on the tabloid's Web site. "Whatever consent we may have had in the first place" from the Iraqi people "has largely turned to intolerance," he was quoted as saying. -------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rasmack 0 #42 October 13, 2006 QuoteHouses in Irag / Houses Surveyed Percent of Houses Surveyed in Iraq: 0.00047 From a statistics point of view, that is small. Combined with other factors stated in the article, the results should be taken with a grain of salt. Hence the quoted errors. It seems to me that the grain of salt you mention is already incorporated in the result.HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Butters 0 #43 October 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteHouses in Irag / Houses Surveyed Percent of Houses Surveyed in Iraq: 0.00047 From a statistics point of view, that is small. Combined with other factors stated in the article, the results should be taken with a grain of salt. Hence the quoted errors. It seems to me that the grain of salt you mention is already incorporated in the result. 95% CI 392,979 - 942,636 From a statistics point of view, that is large. That combined with the previous post and other factors stated in the article, the results should still be taken with a grain of salt."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rasmack 0 #44 October 13, 2006 Quote95% CI 392,979 - 942,636 From a statistics point of view, that is large... From a statistics point of view that is a meaningless statement. Large? wrt. what? As long as their boundaries are well away from zero they have no formal problems. They might underestimate systematic effects and they might have underlying assumptions on the gaussianity of the errors that may or may not be true, but this is where the medical profession differs from my own field sufficiently in its methods that I cannot give a qualified evaluation.HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,672 #45 October 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteAre you being serious? Are you seriously comparing us to Hitler? If so, please move, please move to a third world country. May I suggest moving to Darfur? OK, as for that comparison I think it is done in a much more elegant fashion by Kevin Barrett QuoteHitler had a good 20 to 30 IQ points on Bush, so comparing Bush to Hitler would in many ways be an insult to Hitler. Now, turning back to the topic at hand, it seems to me that they have actually gone to great lengths to give statistically sound estimates in this work. Agreed, there may be systematic errors biasing the result but I have yet to see someone arguing what these errors might be and in what direction they might pull the estimate. This all reminds me of the Florida recounts where every democrat thought that all recounts would automatically be in Gore's favour. You may not like to hear it, but this is the way to estimate the death toll as a result of the conflict given that all other parameters had remained approximately at status quo in the event that the invasion had not taken place. Going through the numbers I would say that I was mostly surprised over the number of violent deaths. I had expected an excess mortality to arise primarily from a lowered standard of living: Less food,less medical care. The number of violent deaths is a very tangible thing. One might view this number as a "prediction" of what would be found should a larger study be conducted. Indeed from a scientific point of view this is how I would see it, had it merely been an academic point of contention. Sadly, it is not which is probably the reason that it has not just been presented a "quadrupling of the baseline mortality rate since whatever date". The survey consisted of 47 randomly selected clusters with 40 households from each cluster (1849 houses total). The estimated mortality was 654,965 (95% CI 392,979-942,636) Population of Iraq: 27,139,584 Average Residents Per House: 6.9 Population of Iraq / Average Residents Per House Houses in Iraq: 3,933,273 Houses in Irag / Houses Surveyed Percent of Houses Surveyed in Iraq: 0.00047 From a statistics point of view, that is small. Combined with other factors stated in the article, the results should be taken with a grain of salt. Apparently you need to learn some more about sampling theory. YOUR conclusions are invalid.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freethefly 6 #46 October 13, 2006 QuoteNo wonder why the Iraqi people dispise the U.S.. Quote you obviously know this from being there yourself right? They welcomed us in the beginning. They welcomed our support during the Iran/Iraq war (my ship gave support during that war). After three years and no end in sight other than more death what are they to think. Very few interviews of Iraqi people are in the U.S.'s favor. The number of people leaving for Iran, Syria and Jordan should clue any person in on what the reality is. Iraq is to date the biggest blunder of this country and those who support continuing this mess should be ashamed."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Butters 0 #47 October 13, 2006 I understand sampling theory. For a statistic used to affect social policy I do not believe the sample size was appropriate and I do not believe the way in which the sample was obtained accurately represented the whole population. In this situation the survey should be repeated to properly gauge outliers and other errors attributed to the sample size, the sample representing the whole population, and other factors. PS: Whether you agree with the statistics or not does not mean you are for or against the war."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,672 #48 October 13, 2006 QuoteI understand sampling theory. . Apparently you don't understand it very well. The sample size was quite adequate for an acceptable margin of error. The most likely source of error is non-randomness of the sample, not its size.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #49 October 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteI understand sampling theory. . Apparently you don't understand it very well. The sample size was quite adequate for an acceptable margin of error. The most likely source of error is non-randomness of the sample, not its size. Gotta agree, and the survey question and analysis itself is likely more in question. If someone came to my work and asked 100 people how many skydivers they know, the total would be about 75. And all 75 of those would be referring to me. That one guy in 1500 or so, and maybe some one-timers that did tandems once. The surveyer wouldn't know the difference. But multiple counting the same guy would be the big difference. "Clusters" of homes indeed. Likely the survey was written poorly and the results purposely analyzed incorrectly to make the results dramatic. It helps to get published, you get more grant funding. Another reason that it's nice to validate inferences with testing and independent studies on other factors. Nothing wrong with the sample size though - the CI is very large, but it does bound the lower end at a significant number and establishes an error range. So what? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Butters 0 #50 October 13, 2006 First, I made an error in an earlier statement. The "Percent of Houses Surveyed in Iraq: 0.00047" should be changed to "Percent of Houses Surveyed in Iraq: 0.047". Second, the sample size does contribute to the margin of error. Third, I agree that there are other factors that contribute to the margin of error. However, factors compound each other causing small factors to play a role in the margin of error."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Butters 0 #40 October 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteAre you being serious? Are you seriously comparing us to Hitler? If so, please move, please move to a third world country. May I suggest moving to Darfur? OK, as for that comparison I think it is done in a much more elegant fashion by Kevin Barrett QuoteHitler had a good 20 to 30 IQ points on Bush, so comparing Bush to Hitler would in many ways be an insult to Hitler. Now, turning back to the topic at hand, it seems to me that they have actually gone to great lengths to give statistically sound estimates in this work. Agreed, there may be systematic errors biasing the result but I have yet to see someone arguing what these errors might be and in what direction they might pull the estimate. This all reminds me of the Florida recounts where every democrat thought that all recounts would automatically be in Gore's favour. You may not like to hear it, but this is the way to estimate the death toll as a result of the conflict given that all other parameters had remained approximately at status quo in the event that the invasion had not taken place. Going through the numbers I would say that I was mostly surprised over the number of violent deaths. I had expected an excess mortality to arise primarily from a lowered standard of living: Less food,less medical care. The number of violent deaths is a very tangible thing. One might view this number as a "prediction" of what would be found should a larger study be conducted. Indeed from a scientific point of view this is how I would see it, had it merely been an academic point of contention. Sadly, it is not which is probably the reason that it has not just been presented a "quadrupling of the baseline mortality rate since whatever date". The survey consisted of 47 randomly selected clusters with 40 households from each cluster (1849 houses total). The estimated mortality was 654,965 (95% CI 392,979-942,636) Population of Iraq: 27,139,584 Average Residents Per House: 6.9 Population of Iraq / Average Residents Per House Houses in Iraq: 3,933,273 Houses in Irag / Houses Surveyed Percent of Houses Surveyed in Iraq: 0.00047 From a statistics point of view, that is small. Combined with other factors stated in the article, the results should be taken with a grain of salt."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #41 October 13, 2006 >>No wonder why the Iraqi people dispise the U.S.. >you obviously know this from being there yourself right? I think this guy knows from being there: --------------------------- LONDON - Britain's new army chief called for a withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, warning that the military's presence there only exacerbates security problems, according to an interview published Thursday. Gen. Richard Dannatt described British Prime Minister Tony Blair's Iraq policies as "naive," declaring that while Iraqis might have welcomed coalition forces following the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the good will has since evaporated after years of violence. The British military should "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems," Dannatt said in an interview with the Daily Mail released on the tabloid's Web site. "Whatever consent we may have had in the first place" from the Iraqi people "has largely turned to intolerance," he was quoted as saying. -------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #42 October 13, 2006 QuoteHouses in Irag / Houses Surveyed Percent of Houses Surveyed in Iraq: 0.00047 From a statistics point of view, that is small. Combined with other factors stated in the article, the results should be taken with a grain of salt. Hence the quoted errors. It seems to me that the grain of salt you mention is already incorporated in the result.HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #43 October 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteHouses in Irag / Houses Surveyed Percent of Houses Surveyed in Iraq: 0.00047 From a statistics point of view, that is small. Combined with other factors stated in the article, the results should be taken with a grain of salt. Hence the quoted errors. It seems to me that the grain of salt you mention is already incorporated in the result. 95% CI 392,979 - 942,636 From a statistics point of view, that is large. That combined with the previous post and other factors stated in the article, the results should still be taken with a grain of salt."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #44 October 13, 2006 Quote95% CI 392,979 - 942,636 From a statistics point of view, that is large... From a statistics point of view that is a meaningless statement. Large? wrt. what? As long as their boundaries are well away from zero they have no formal problems. They might underestimate systematic effects and they might have underlying assumptions on the gaussianity of the errors that may or may not be true, but this is where the medical profession differs from my own field sufficiently in its methods that I cannot give a qualified evaluation.HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #45 October 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteAre you being serious? Are you seriously comparing us to Hitler? If so, please move, please move to a third world country. May I suggest moving to Darfur? OK, as for that comparison I think it is done in a much more elegant fashion by Kevin Barrett QuoteHitler had a good 20 to 30 IQ points on Bush, so comparing Bush to Hitler would in many ways be an insult to Hitler. Now, turning back to the topic at hand, it seems to me that they have actually gone to great lengths to give statistically sound estimates in this work. Agreed, there may be systematic errors biasing the result but I have yet to see someone arguing what these errors might be and in what direction they might pull the estimate. This all reminds me of the Florida recounts where every democrat thought that all recounts would automatically be in Gore's favour. You may not like to hear it, but this is the way to estimate the death toll as a result of the conflict given that all other parameters had remained approximately at status quo in the event that the invasion had not taken place. Going through the numbers I would say that I was mostly surprised over the number of violent deaths. I had expected an excess mortality to arise primarily from a lowered standard of living: Less food,less medical care. The number of violent deaths is a very tangible thing. One might view this number as a "prediction" of what would be found should a larger study be conducted. Indeed from a scientific point of view this is how I would see it, had it merely been an academic point of contention. Sadly, it is not which is probably the reason that it has not just been presented a "quadrupling of the baseline mortality rate since whatever date". The survey consisted of 47 randomly selected clusters with 40 households from each cluster (1849 houses total). The estimated mortality was 654,965 (95% CI 392,979-942,636) Population of Iraq: 27,139,584 Average Residents Per House: 6.9 Population of Iraq / Average Residents Per House Houses in Iraq: 3,933,273 Houses in Irag / Houses Surveyed Percent of Houses Surveyed in Iraq: 0.00047 From a statistics point of view, that is small. Combined with other factors stated in the article, the results should be taken with a grain of salt. Apparently you need to learn some more about sampling theory. YOUR conclusions are invalid.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #46 October 13, 2006 QuoteNo wonder why the Iraqi people dispise the U.S.. Quote you obviously know this from being there yourself right? They welcomed us in the beginning. They welcomed our support during the Iran/Iraq war (my ship gave support during that war). After three years and no end in sight other than more death what are they to think. Very few interviews of Iraqi people are in the U.S.'s favor. The number of people leaving for Iran, Syria and Jordan should clue any person in on what the reality is. Iraq is to date the biggest blunder of this country and those who support continuing this mess should be ashamed."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Butters 0 #47 October 13, 2006 I understand sampling theory. For a statistic used to affect social policy I do not believe the sample size was appropriate and I do not believe the way in which the sample was obtained accurately represented the whole population. In this situation the survey should be repeated to properly gauge outliers and other errors attributed to the sample size, the sample representing the whole population, and other factors. PS: Whether you agree with the statistics or not does not mean you are for or against the war."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,672 #48 October 13, 2006 QuoteI understand sampling theory. . Apparently you don't understand it very well. The sample size was quite adequate for an acceptable margin of error. The most likely source of error is non-randomness of the sample, not its size.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #49 October 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteI understand sampling theory. . Apparently you don't understand it very well. The sample size was quite adequate for an acceptable margin of error. The most likely source of error is non-randomness of the sample, not its size. Gotta agree, and the survey question and analysis itself is likely more in question. If someone came to my work and asked 100 people how many skydivers they know, the total would be about 75. And all 75 of those would be referring to me. That one guy in 1500 or so, and maybe some one-timers that did tandems once. The surveyer wouldn't know the difference. But multiple counting the same guy would be the big difference. "Clusters" of homes indeed. Likely the survey was written poorly and the results purposely analyzed incorrectly to make the results dramatic. It helps to get published, you get more grant funding. Another reason that it's nice to validate inferences with testing and independent studies on other factors. Nothing wrong with the sample size though - the CI is very large, but it does bound the lower end at a significant number and establishes an error range. So what? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Butters 0 #50 October 13, 2006 First, I made an error in an earlier statement. The "Percent of Houses Surveyed in Iraq: 0.00047" should be changed to "Percent of Houses Surveyed in Iraq: 0.047". Second, the sample size does contribute to the margin of error. Third, I agree that there are other factors that contribute to the margin of error. However, factors compound each other causing small factors to play a role in the margin of error."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Butters 0 #47 October 13, 2006 I understand sampling theory. For a statistic used to affect social policy I do not believe the sample size was appropriate and I do not believe the way in which the sample was obtained accurately represented the whole population. In this situation the survey should be repeated to properly gauge outliers and other errors attributed to the sample size, the sample representing the whole population, and other factors. PS: Whether you agree with the statistics or not does not mean you are for or against the war."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #48 October 13, 2006 QuoteI understand sampling theory. . Apparently you don't understand it very well. The sample size was quite adequate for an acceptable margin of error. The most likely source of error is non-randomness of the sample, not its size.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #49 October 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteI understand sampling theory. . Apparently you don't understand it very well. The sample size was quite adequate for an acceptable margin of error. The most likely source of error is non-randomness of the sample, not its size. Gotta agree, and the survey question and analysis itself is likely more in question. If someone came to my work and asked 100 people how many skydivers they know, the total would be about 75. And all 75 of those would be referring to me. That one guy in 1500 or so, and maybe some one-timers that did tandems once. The surveyer wouldn't know the difference. But multiple counting the same guy would be the big difference. "Clusters" of homes indeed. Likely the survey was written poorly and the results purposely analyzed incorrectly to make the results dramatic. It helps to get published, you get more grant funding. Another reason that it's nice to validate inferences with testing and independent studies on other factors. Nothing wrong with the sample size though - the CI is very large, but it does bound the lower end at a significant number and establishes an error range. So what? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #50 October 13, 2006 First, I made an error in an earlier statement. The "Percent of Houses Surveyed in Iraq: 0.00047" should be changed to "Percent of Houses Surveyed in Iraq: 0.047". Second, the sample size does contribute to the margin of error. Third, I agree that there are other factors that contribute to the margin of error. However, factors compound each other causing small factors to play a role in the margin of error."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
