Meaghan McArdle at Asymmetrical Information must have had a visit by the same flocks, er, folks, that came swooping in here and anywhere else where some questioned the Lancet "study" that claimed massive civilian casualties in Iraq. Just guessing.
What is it with people who haven't read the Lancet study triumphantly demanding to know whether I've read the Lancet study? Yes, I've read it; it's not exactly heavy going, since it's eight pages long and surprisingly fuzzy. They don't break out the figures by individual province; the only clue is a map, on which Baghdad is in the basket marked "2-10 deaths per thousand per year". This does not inspire much confidence. And the reason it is not confidence inspiring is that the fuzziness prevents comparison with figures known to be relatively reliable, such as those from Baghdad's central morgue. Why isn't there a table showing the results for each cluster?
Go read the whole post, it's quite short. But it's stinging.
UPDATE: Bob Owens does a bit of calculating that really bears on the questions here.
