More on the Johns Hopkins paper
Oct. 11th, 2006 01:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
From the BBC.
Way to go for insightful statistical analysis! Let's repeat it. The methodology is fundamentally sound. The numbers are estimates subject to normal sampling error. Whether one takesmidpoint or upper bound or lower bound figures one is looking at numbers comparable to the Ruanda genocide. Facts don't go away because an innumerate twerp claims that they are "not credible".
US President George W Bush has dismissed the report, saying he does not consider it "credible".
"I stand by the figure that a lot of innocent people have lost their life," he said.
"Six-hundred thousand or whatever they guessed at is just... it's not credible."
Way to go for insightful statistical analysis! Let's repeat it. The methodology is fundamentally sound. The numbers are estimates subject to normal sampling error. Whether one takesmidpoint or upper bound or lower bound figures one is looking at numbers comparable to the Ruanda genocide. Facts don't go away because an innumerate twerp claims that they are "not credible".
no subject
Date: 2006-10-13 08:02 pm (UTC)Still, if the word "complete" bothers you, substitute some fraction that you think is justified. My conclusion stands: the war did (is doing) so much damage to the country that I would be surprised if the mortality rate didn't shoot up. When even garbage collection is a life-threatening occupation, public health is going to get worse - even if it was bad before. (It doesn't really matter what the state of the infrastructure was before the war; the plain fact is that the war made it a lot worse.)