The Lancet publish article estimating 186,000 death toll in Gaza

The title doesn't claim that the 186,000 is the current number of dead people in Gaza. The title, post and article aren't difficult to understand - I genuinely can't see an issue with them being posted and I think it's a real shame that people aren't more concerned about the actual content of the published piece. If the price of this conflict is potentially 186,000 lives, are people actually ok with that? Should we not question the processes which are leading to that sort of outcome? Should we not try to stop that from happening?

https://x.com/JewishChron/status/1810638958373863879

From the Jewish Chronicle:

https://www.thejc.com/news/israel/did-the-lancet-really-estimate-the-gaza-death-toll-at-186-000-tp50gw2f

"Did the Lancet really estimate the Gaza death toll at 186,000?
The figure was shared by MPs and UN officials, but is purely speculative and not a peer-reviewed study"
"Last week, the Lancet, a well-respected British medical journal, published a letter from three academics – Rasha Khatib, Martin McKee, and Salim Yusuf – discussing the death toll in Gaza.
The letter, which is not peer-reviewed, suggests that, if the death toll in Gaza is 37 396, then it is “not implausible” to estimate that up to 186 000 deaths could be attributed to the war at some point in the future.
Already, the figure has taken on a life of its own. Zarah Sultana, writing on X, said “The Lancet - the most prestigious medical journal in the world - conservatively estimates that the death toll in Gaza could be 186,000 or more. That’s 8% of the population”. The “Gaza Genocide” entry on Wikipedia already cites the figure.
A former UN official also shared that “1 in every 12 Gaza inhabitants [have been] killed in the last 9 months of genocide”.
But what does the figure actually reference? The letter, which is speculative, and not a peer-reviewed article, makes the estimate that up to 186,000 deaths could be attributable to the current conflict due to “indirect health implications”.
This figure was decided by multiplying the current death toll, as reported by the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry, by five. The forward-looking estimate does not suggest that 186,000 have been killed in the 9 months of war so far.
The death toll in Gaza has long been difficult to report accurately. This is not unusual in wartime, but worsened by the specific situation in Gaza. Relying on the Gaza health ministry, figures are often revised.
The Hamas health ministry reports deaths recorded in hospitals, deaths reported by family members, and deaths from “reliable media reports”.
The letter sent to the Lancet was signed by Radha Khatib, Martin McKee, and Salim Yusuf. Khatib – the lead signatory – works at Birzeit University, near Ramallah, which has been outspoken on the war in Gaza. On October 15, Birzet called for international academic instituions to “take concrete action to stop the genocidal war on the Palestinian people and to end Israeli settler colonialism”.
Khatib has also previously shared Anti-Israel posts on social media. During the 2014 war in Gaza, she shared an article which stated there are “no ‘Both Sides’”. She also posted: “Palestinian violence is the inevitable response to… occupation and apartheid-like inequality. Violence therefore will only end when the occupation and Israeli apartheid end”.
Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of United Nations Watch, criticised the validity of the letter in the Lancet. “Nowhere does the lancet say this amount ‘were killed in the last 9 months,’” he shared on social media.
"

Couldn't have put this better myself.

I hope this puts this to bed now.

Wow. If those numbers are anything close to accurate, surely it's very hard to deny the genocide claims.

A huge number of those deaths will be innocent children. We can't just stand by and let this continue.

It's the opinion of several professionals who have written a coherent summary of their modelling of projected mortality as a result of this conflict. It's incorrect to say it's not based on any evidence. The authors have used recognised approaches to modelling in such scenarios.

It's not some randoms writing an angry letter to a tabloid - everything published in journals like The Lancet has to meet certain standards.

Yes,

It estimates that the current death toll is 186000. Outrageous.

Not confusing at all. Just accept there is an issue with the thread title.

The OP could change it if he or she so chooses, but has so far not chosen to do so and so the the objections will continue - that's inevitable with such a grossly inaccurate figure.

If lancet wasn’t happy with it they’ve have taken it down. I’m pretty sure if I went and wrote my opinion about something they’d not allow it to stay in their web if they didn’t agree with it. Also, the people that have written it have got more knowledge and experience than myself at least on the topic

Is there a reason why you’ve not opened that thread if you’re so keen on it ? Why do you expect (want) others to do it and not yourself?

Can you explain to me how taking the number that lancet has said in their report is incorrect to put in a title ? As someone has told you if you’re not happy with the numbers then take it with lancet it’s not the ops or the titles thread.

ps. You know for well which thread @poshsnobtwit means

So let's change things.

Let's see multiple threads calling for Hamas to release the hostages, give themselves up and protect Israel's future security from stated annihilation.

Because much as I disagree with some of IDF action and mourn for the death of innocents, nothing will change.

Lol - it’s someone’s opinion that has been published in the lancet. It’s not a peer reviewed study or based on any sort of evidence. It’s just someone’s opinion (not the lancets faod).

The thread title does not claim 186,000 people have been killed in Gaza. It references an estimate of a death toll. In a board where posters regularly use the titles of opinion pieces as statements of fact in their own thread titles, a thread title which gives the name of a journal and says there is an estimated death toll in something published in that journal is hardly the most confusing title people will read today.

Do please elaborate.

Where have I started a thread where I inflate by a factor of 5.5 x the deaths in a conflict?

I am also of the opinion that predicting a future total is unhelpful and unscientific.

It is neither unhelpful nor unscientific to predict an outcome based on current knowledge and project what the total may be if things don't change

The un didn’t remove 10k casualties and it’s been explained what they did several times

This is a letter to the lancet. It is not a study which has been peer reviewed. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that type of casualty rate - the UN just removed about 10,000 alleged casualties made up by Hamas. This is a letter written by partisan individuals- it should not have been published in a medical journal.

I repeat, it really is not on to post thread titles with vastly misleading ideas

And yet you've done it yourself on another thread.

Once again, as I have said many times, I am contesting the the thread TITLE!

I am also of the opinion that predicting a future total is unhelpful and unscientific.

I do hope that we have a ceasefire soon so that the suffering of the innocents stop.

The thread isn't about 186,000 Gazans having been killed, though.

The published piece is saying that it's not implausible that the death toll of the conflict could reach that figure. Some of the estimates they've used are actually at the conservative end of calculations.

Looking at modelling or estimates of 6-figure death tolls as part of the cost of a conflict really should prompt reflection and consideration of whether enough is being done to mitigate those harms and prevent those deaths. We currently live in a world where there are several horrendous conflicts, where similar death tolls could be part of the cost. Are we satisfied that there are no alternatives? That nothing else could be done? Is this cost a price we think is worth paying?

There are things that could be done today, to try to avoid that potential outcome. Rather than seeking to dismiss or distract from a sobering reminder of part of what is at stake here, maybe we should be thinking about whether there is anything we can do to try to reduce the chances of these estimates becoming reality.

Those governments complicit in genocide are hardly going to acknowledge genocide.

Not at all. Perfectly happy to discuss whether a genocide is happening on the appropriate thread and at the moment, a genocide is your opinion unsupported yet by any official bodies and certainly not recognised as such in the UK or the USA.

This thread is about apparently 186000 Gazans being killed.

They haven't.

I repeat, it really is not on to post thread titles with vastly misleading ideas.

Oh super. Do put them on for me.

Ooh I don't know, I would say it is about six all actually.

Tiebreak?

Five others are actually.

The Lancet called. They're waiting with bated breath for your insight.