My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

April 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

« Unknown columnist doesn’t support the troops | Main | General Hayden: Terrorists ‘don’t always act like they know they’re being monitored’ »

January 25, 2006


jj mollo

Yes. The invasion relieved at least some of the suffering that was caused directly or indirectly by Saddam's actions. What I want to know is why Johns Hopkins doesn't subtract this number from their famous spitball estimate of 100,000 excess deaths.

Frank Warner

I believe that either Johns Hopkins or the follow-up study estimated that the sickness-starvation deaths were dropping at the time of the 2003 invasion, and that the invasion increased sickness and starvation at least temporarily.

Of course, the study group assumed the sicknesses and starvation deaths would stay high because of the invasion, and would not drop until the end of time.

We have to go over that Johns Hopkins study and the other one again. I realized too late that Johns Hopkins was lumping in battle deaths with deaths from illnesses. The surveys probably had some merit, but they need another good review.

The comments to this entry are closed.