Yes, they’re excellent under pretty grim conditions. However, they only count (and only attempt to count) directly verified deaths, which obviously is the lower bound on the deaths and not the actual number. The Lancet article explains this.
Didn’t we talk about this already? It seems like we did and now you’re pretending not to understand verified versus unverified deaths.
Because that’s… not the estimate that the most accurate process they can come up with leads to?
This sorta reminds me of conversations I’ve had with Trump supporters, where the very idea that you could evaluate a source and one could be more believable than another for reasons other than ideology, (like that one is trying to get the truth and one isn’t), is alien to them.
These people have banks and bills
And yes every body found is counted and attempted to be verified by hospital morgues.
What bills? What banks? What hospitals do you think are operating in Gaza right now? Who is digging up every destroyed house and carting away every corpse, to what functioning morgue?
There are 12 hospitals operating in Gaza right now. In what reality do you think they’re spending their resources on counting bodies already dead that someone transported there (for what to happen to them)?
Fuckin bills… yeah, they just fire up their home computers and pay the electric bill, and if they don’t, someone knows they’re dead. It’s all real straightforward.
I am done now
Help me out here. If I start bombing Philadelphia, and I kill 10% of the city, is it relevant that Philadelphia is part of the United States and does that make the 10% number suddenly wrong?
You’re sure there is a way to verify, huh. Well hey, you should go to Gaza and help them verify. I am sure it would be easy once you’re down there, helping them dig out families or schoolrooms from under the rubble and count 1, 2, 3, okay we got 4 corpses in this one. They’re verified now so they count. Boy, only a few hundred thousand houses to go, should be done in no time. Hey guys where is the water fountain? I’m getting thirsty, and when is lunch coming?
I am mostly done; you don’t need to tell me how biased the Lancet is famous for being, or who are these unnamed orgs who are questioning its credibility.
I used to do this kind of thing for work. Best practice is, before you sign anyone up for a list, even one they literally just clicked to subscribe to, you send them one email saying hey click this thing if you want our newsletter. Just so there’s never a misunderstanding. If they don’t click, you never send them anything else.
Report away. Fuck ‘em.
illegal - 1 of 2 - adjective
il·le·gal (ˌ)i(l)-ˈlē-gəl
: not according to or authorized by law : UNLAWFUL, ILLICIT
also : not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game)
-Merriam-Webster
?
Is your impression that the Lancet just has someone speculate on things and then write down whatever, and that’s what they publish? Why would a professionally arrived at and peer reviewed estimate, based on the best available information and with an explanation of where it comes from, not be preferable to the absolute minimum lower bound?
Why is the number of “verified” deaths relevant? I’m interested in the number of deaths. It’s impossible to know that number for sure, of course, but if you are one of those people that died, but your death wasn’t verified, you’re still dead. Saying that the quite large number of people who died but whose death wasn’t verified “don’t count” or something is obvious nonsense.
And the Gaza Strip population was 2.23 million in 2023. 186000 / 2230000 = 8%. Where are you getting 4%?
That’s four specific questions I’m asking.
The thirty-whatever thousand number is direct deaths that can be observed and counted up, I.e. a vast undercount of the actual number.
The Lancet determined a couple of months ago that you could at that point conservatively estimate about 186,000 dead, 7.9% of the population. Conditions haven’t been improving in the couple months since that happened and it was a conservative estimate anyway, so I said 10%. The truth is there’s a lot of uncertainty, it could be higher or lower than that, but saying it’s 1.5% is definitely wrong.
Do yourself a favor and read the books
The movies are fine, they are top notch, but the books are from another fuckin world
If it’s against the RULES then that means someone inTENDS on WRONGing someone else, P Barnes.
It is on Lemmy.world news subs
I almost brought up the shield surfing 🙂. I decided not to. There were some little warts like that, and “I am no man” and etc, but overall the movies are awesome + about as faithful as you can get without making it into a miniseries that spans decades of production or something.