[Schrodinger's Cat]

I find it intriguing that in March of 2003, the Health Ministry was ordered to cease the reporting of civilian casualties. A new head of the ministry was appointed and then fired 10 days later for having had too close a tie with the Saddam regime. There has been great difficulty finding qualified professionals in Iraq who did NOT have a tie with the Saddam regime, since such ties were a requirement for anybody to do much of anything at all in Saddam's Iraq. One can't help but wonder how the Health Ministry has managed to regain credibility in such a relatively short amount of time, and under war conditions, at that.

The Lancet survey measures excess death. The count of the Iraqi Health Ministry measures civilian casualties. A direct count is the most accurate measure, as long as it can be reasonably assumed that most victims would make it to hospitals or morgues. Frankly, I don't know if it is reasonable to make this assumption about victims in the Iraqi conflict or not.

To calculate excess mortality, one needs estimates of death rates before and after. The Lancet study estimates something like 5 per 1000 before and 7.5 per 1000 after.

I will be very interested to see how this story continues to evolve.