A round up of posts on the topic:
All Things Conservative presents a review of what was wrong with the LAST hyped up number.
Here is Seixon’s take on last years numbers, which were 500,000 lower than this years. This year’s study is a follow-up.
Clayton Cramer discusses the numbers in terms of the media (Why wouldn’t they be on this?) and escalating violence (“high” numbers don’t reach the daily requirement for this to be true).
Blue Crab Boulevard says there would need to be more than 500 deaths A DAY for this to be true.
Gateway Pundit gives some perspective, saying this would be “3-10 Hiroshima atomic blasts” or “6-20 Nagasaki atomic blasts” “Or 10 Dresden bombing campaigns.” Don’t think we would have missed that. He also notes that the AP reported 2,660 people dead this month. (Not enough to make the body count 600,000.)
Rants and Rayguns discusses the problems with the Johns Hopkins study specifically in terms of the Iraqi government’s official figures, as per the study.
Right Wing Nut House discusses the study, including quoting the people who are supporting it as saying “there is very, very little reliable data coming out of Iraq.”
Allah at Hot Air says the Iraqis claim it is exaggerated and that the pre-invasion deaths per 1000 that the study used is too low. I would certainly expect it to be higher with Saddam in charge than other countries’ death rate.
Dean’s World has an argument that includes many links backing up his statements, including Iraqis being prone to exaggeration and forging documents.
Frum at National Review says there is a problem with the sample; it is not statistically representative.
Texas Rainmaker is a little het up. He lets us know that one of the researchers ran for Congress this year as a Democrat. He also points out that males 15-44 are 59% of the results. (Jihadists?)
It seems that if these numbers from The Lancet were right that we would hear even MORE uproar than we do about the war.
Update: Clayton Cramer has a new post that points out that using the researchers’ own words, the number of deaths per day goes up to around 900. His readers also point out how the interviewing process was flawed.
Mark Goldblatt at National Review says that, based on UN numbers, 100,000 less people have died since we went to war, even if the 600,000 number is correct. (I don’t think it is, but looking at what he said scares me. How many people can die in a year before the country is debilitated and not resucitable?)
Update: Stop the ACLU discusses the problem with their cluster sampling.