ToServeIsToLive
Posts: 222
Joined: 11/16/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote:
ORIGINAL: ToServeIsToLive quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebargle Iraq Body Count, If I recall correctly, only uses published reports of deaths? That would underreport actuals. They want to quibble about the accuracy of their numbers? I'd like to remind us that Baghdad is still a war zone, and it's so out of control, they need to send in more troops to go door to door and clean out "Undesirables". They use UN reports which sum iraqi morgue and ministry of health information. Obviously there's going to be some percentage of undiscovered deaths, but to use a small scale poll and then believe that it's 1000% is a bit out there. But seriously folks. Where is it written that you must take your dead brother to a morgue and get a certificate? What? Like his life insurance is going to pay out, living in Iraq? I think, given the tradition of burial within 24 hours, it's perfectly reasonable to expect that people don't bother filling out the paperwork. THEY know their son is dead. Who the fuck cares what MinHealth accumulates statistics for or is going to take the risk of getting shot dead going downtown to file some camelshit paperwork? Well, if you follow the lancet reports logic then you're also lead to believe that 800,000 wounded Iraqi of which are most are noncombatant didn't seek any medical attention for their injuries. Hospitals have a huge interest in accurately reporting the numbers of violent injuries they've treated so they can get proper funding from the ministry of health. I think believing they wouldn't bother getting a death certificate is an underestimation of Iraq as a country. They're a mostly urbanized society. Also, it's still staggering that 9 out of 10 wouldn't receive death certificates. No matter how you cut it 1000% inaccuracy is a sign that ones methods need to be retooled.
|