What they shold be doing is gettinig a hold of low level unit After Action Reports. I cant imagine even in the bush regime that kind of thing would be cencored. They could base there estimates much more clearly then. Knowing who was where what happened and what the result in damge and death was to th civilians in the area.

__________________
Cussing out low class inbreds isnt uninteligent, its honest

Good typing is not inteligent its dexiteritous.

Everything you just said is total bullshit

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

They should do that, but I don't know how it would work when some of the deaths are Muslim on Muslim conflicts and maybe the military can't get to the area. I also don't know if they would report it the same way as they would if they were involved.

Hmm true enough. But as I see this debate. Its about Blame And if they want to attribute deaths to the Americans and allies they can do that with those reports. The diffuclty would be in deteriming, regarldess of the what is reported, if the Coaltion troops were the hunter or the hunted.

__________________
Cussing out low class inbreds isnt uninteligent, its honest

Good typing is not inteligent its dexiteritous.

Everything you just said is total bullshit

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That is something tha should be done regardless. They could then come up with some way to figure out how to add deaths not directly caused by conflicts with Coalition troops.

Would it really matter if the Coalition troops were the hunter or the hunted when figuring out the deaths?

Key is several points mentioned on limitations of the study because of refugees that had one or more family member killed and the remaining family members fleeing Iraq.Here is an excerpt about deaths underreported secondary to to a refugee population. Those who died and their family mebers were gone -there is no reporting. The JH study did count witnessed deaths by non family members. Here is the limitations to this recent study:


In general, the underreporting of deaths is likely to be common in household surveys. The most serious concern is household dissolution after the death of a household member. Several demographic assessments have suggested that there has been an underreporting of deaths in the IFHS. The application of the growth balance method,7 with the use of the age distribution of deaths in the population obtained from the household roster, indicates that the level of completeness in the reporting of death was 62%. However, this estimation needs to be interpreted with caution, since a basic assumption of the method — a stable population — is violated in Iraq. Furthermore, the comparison is not made to a rate of death derived from two successive censuses, as is usually done, but from the age distribution of the households in the IFHS.

I really think people overcomplicate this shit. Okay, so "household roster" to me indicates they knew who WAS in the building. But they might not know who is dead cause the family "bailed". So check the local morque for John Doe's....its not completely accurate but whould partialy fill in the blanks.

__________________
Cussing out low class inbreds isnt uninteligent, its honest

Good typing is not inteligent its dexiteritous.

Everything you just said is total bullshit

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you had reporting of deaths from non-family members you could also have duplicate reports for the same person leading to an overestimation.

Even if you take the high estimate for this recent study it is still far less than the JH study - more than a quarter less with the upper estimates for both. The method they used to compile the numbers in this most recent study would have to be horrible to think that they are missing the count by 400%.

Bottom line-this study while not as inclusive on criteria and polling methods hit the low end of the JH study which epidemiologists believed was more accurate then any of the numbers that Bush/Cheney liked to site(15,000-30,000) from very limited studies.

Both cluster method studies concluded long before the highest point in casualties. This recent study sites its limitations and likely under reporting-the numbers are clearly in the hundreds of thousands-far greater then all other studies at the point in time which numbers were 15,000-30,000.

The refugees if they all return will help shed further numbers.

The survey said they took under reporting into account and it was part of their estimate. They said it at least twice that I saw while briefly reading the link. The numbers weren't in the hundreds of thousands, it was one hundred and fifty thousand. Plus, not all numbers were from 15-30K, IBC was the lowest of the estimates from any kinds of studies that I saw and it was over twice the midpoint of the numbers you just listed.

Read closely-they stated they took into account the fact they could not enter the most violent neighborhoods , but they could not take into account the disolution of families (refugees). I copied that excerpt-it is clear. Read carefully my post-I did not say the new study reported hundreds of thousands-I said the study concluded before the most violent time period in Iraq and with a likely underestimate of 151,000 that concluded before the deadly period in 2006 it is clear the casualty rate is now in the hundreds of thousands.

Anyway-same methods-different polling-the new study is in the low end of the JH study and clearly sheds light on all the oddly low reports so easily accepted by the WH and others.

I think the infrastructure deaths reported in the JH study were around 50,000.