More on Burnham

Tim Lambert snarks:  "McArdle does not seem to have understood what Roberts was saying was in agreement: the excess deaths in the Lancet study (about 650,000) and in the IFHS study (about 400,000)."

Of course I didn't understand it, because it was arrant nonsense.  That's why the WHO team took care to say, in their paper:

The IFHS results for trends and distribution of deaths according to province are consistent with what has been reported from the scanning of press reports for civilian casualties through the Iraq Body Count project. The estimated number of deathsin the IFHS is about three times as high as that reported by the Iraq Body Count. Both sources indicate that the 2006 study by Burnham et al. considerably overestimated the number of violent deaths. For instance, to reach the 925 violent deaths per day reported by Burnham et al. for June 2005 through June 2006, as many as 87% of violent deaths would have been missed in the IFHS and more than 90% in the Iraq Body Count. This level of underreporting is highly improbable, given the internal and external consistency of the data and the much larger sample size and quality-control measures taken in the implementation of the IFHS.

Given that almost all the deaths in their study resulted from violence, this is the same as saying that they overcounted.

Moreover, if I made a mistake, apparently every conflict epidemiologist I talked to made the same mistake, because they had trouble believing that I was quoting Les Roberts correctly.  I worked with his statement in front of me, and asked whether there was any possibility that these studies agreed with each other on the overall level of deaths in Iraq.  That's one point were everyone I talked to was unanimous:  they didn't, and also, you couldn't compare the violent deaths figure to the overall deaths estimate that Kieran Healy tried to back out of the raw data.  The people I asked included Olivier Degomme, one of the very few researchers who had access to both data sets.

That does not prove that Burnham was wrong, only that the two studies do not, in any sense recognized by the other conflict epidemiologists I talked to, agree.  Iraq in 2006 was a terrible place to collect data, and even with a large data set it wouldn't be totally shocking if the WHO study were off.  And though I think that the WHO is the most likely to be accurate, given its much larger sample size and better supervised research teams, that certainly doesn't prove that Burnham et al. did anything wrong--only that there was something wrong with their methodology, or that they simply hit the jackpot and got two outlying results.  But the attempt to salvage the Burnham study by claiming it basically found the same thing as the WHO did is deeply silly.

Presented by

Megan McArdle is a columnist at Bloomberg View and a former senior editor at The Atlantic. Her new book is The Up Side of Down.

Why Is Google Making Human Skin?

Hidden away on Google’s campus, doctors at a world-class life sciences lab are trying to change the way people think about their health.

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register with Disqus.

Please note that The Atlantic's account system is separate from our commenting system. To log in or register with The Atlantic, use the Sign In button at the top of every page.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Videos

Why Is Google Making Skin?

Hidden away on Google’s campus, doctors are changing the way people think about health.

Video

How to Build a Tornado

A Canadian inventor believes his tornado machine could solve the world's energy crisis.

Video

A New York City Minute, Frozen in Time

This short film takes you on a whirling tour of the Big Apple

Video

What Happened to the Milky Way?

Light pollution has taken away our ability to see the stars. Can we save the night sky?

Video

The Pentagon's $1.5 Trillion Mistake

The F-35 fighter jet was supposed to do everything. Instead, it can barely do anything.

More in Business

Just In