Damned lies and statistics
Fark.com linked to this NewsMax story in which a Congresscritter from Iowa proclaims the relative safety of Iraq. I found a similar piece about the Congresscritter in the New York Sun.
As we all know, Iowa is home to an enormous number of experts in urban crime, insurgency, civil war and statistics, making this a particularly insightful piece. No, really. Well.
Basically, U.S. Rep. Steve King took some Pentagon estimates about civilian deaths and compared the civilian death rate of Iraq to the civilian death rate of select American cities, and found "Iraq" is safer. MeTheSheeple immediately screamed "WHAT?!?" on the realization that there's a real apples-to-oranges comparison here. MeTheSheeple is sure that the civilian death rate in some Kurdistan villages will compare nicely with, say, Switzerland. But you can't compare countries with cities. He could try it the other way, too: Why not compare the civilian death rate in Baghdad with the civilian death rate in Iowa? Yeah, let's find out how that one turns out.
Farkers are busy tearing apart his statistics, finding his calculated death rate may actually be only about half of the real rate. It's interesting reading for those inclined. For those not inclined, just think twice before accepting any statistic at its apparent face value.
Add: A quick Google search turned up earlier debates about Iraq's death toll. In 2003, one guy claimed -- very erroneously -- that the frequent availability of guns made Iraq a safe place to be. There, too, the comparison was with Washington, D.C. MeTheSheeple won't open any gun-control argument right now, but the point is the claim of relative safety was utter bullshit -- by a factor of about 20. Another 2003 story here compares the experience of a Baghdad coroner.
Little may have changed, with deaths in the Baghdad region running about 1,000 per month, or dozens of times D.C.'s rate.
Sad. So sad.
As we all know, Iowa is home to an enormous number of experts in urban crime, insurgency, civil war and statistics, making this a particularly insightful piece. No, really. Well.
Basically, U.S. Rep. Steve King took some Pentagon estimates about civilian deaths and compared the civilian death rate of Iraq to the civilian death rate of select American cities, and found "Iraq" is safer. MeTheSheeple immediately screamed "WHAT?!?" on the realization that there's a real apples-to-oranges comparison here. MeTheSheeple is sure that the civilian death rate in some Kurdistan villages will compare nicely with, say, Switzerland. But you can't compare countries with cities. He could try it the other way, too: Why not compare the civilian death rate in Baghdad with the civilian death rate in Iowa? Yeah, let's find out how that one turns out.
Farkers are busy tearing apart his statistics, finding his calculated death rate may actually be only about half of the real rate. It's interesting reading for those inclined. For those not inclined, just think twice before accepting any statistic at its apparent face value.
Add: A quick Google search turned up earlier debates about Iraq's death toll. In 2003, one guy claimed -- very erroneously -- that the frequent availability of guns made Iraq a safe place to be. There, too, the comparison was with Washington, D.C. MeTheSheeple won't open any gun-control argument right now, but the point is the claim of relative safety was utter bullshit -- by a factor of about 20. Another 2003 story here compares the experience of a Baghdad coroner.
Little may have changed, with deaths in the Baghdad region running about 1,000 per month, or dozens of times D.C.'s rate.
Sad. So sad.
posted by MeTheSheeple at 10:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home