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

[AhNowTed]

The Lancet has just published this article "conservatively" estimating that the death toll in the Gaza genocide could be 186,000 people or more. That's 8% of the population, obliterated.

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext

Only the OP can request the thread title change despite the gross inaccuracies but the thread title still remains in its original wording.

Yes, by all means, kindly point out the gross inaccuracies. If you're going to write this shit, back it up, qualify it.
I am alive because my father happened to survive what his family members did not: Genocide. So please, list those 'gross inaccuracies' because it really fucking matters that you do so. Especially in light of the fact that what is happening in Gaza is, in fact, genocide to its absolute core.

Based on experience on similar scenarios ? It does even explain it in the letter ?
I mean come on it’s not the first genocide that happens!

"And insult people...."

Now...point to precisely where I insulted anyone via pejorative terms and so on. 🧐

Unfortunately, that doesn't mean very much..... 🤷‍♂️

Actually the Hamas estimate (according to the "article " is 35091, so the 186000 is 5.5 x this so apologies - it is greater than quadruple.

No @EasterIssland it is simply not possible to get direct and indirect deaths and future deaths from the thread title "The Lancet publish article estimating 186,000 death toll in Gaza"?

End of story.

I find your use of this emoji insulting and dismissive of posters

End of story

Good so can you stop derailing

I still don’t see where the thread title said it’s quadruple. I must go to specsavers

The 🤦‍♂️ emoji is entirely correct in response to any suggestion this was a Lancet study or view.

Your point is rather weak there.

Agree. End of story. Let’s focus on the important thing. Thousands of Palestinians being killed by Israel

It's not derailment to point out the misleading title.

It would be if the content of posts was irrelevant to this thread....

It is derailing to be saying it over and over again as one poster has done.

Your point is rather weak there.

Not making a point, merely letting you know how I view the use of that emoji, you don't agree fine.

There are options - report and also thread title altered. But it isn't derailment.

It's not disputed that this letter in the Lancet has been misrepresented as a peer reviewed academic article from the beginning.

You've heard the saying, "opinions are like assholes....everyone has one"?

Yeah.

If you're going to claim I've insulted people, you're going to need something much stronger than a 🤦‍♂️ in response to anyone who thinks this letter is a Lancet study or view.

You don't, so that IS weak.* *

6 posters have questioned the thread title actually.

And ? That doesn’t mean that the op is going to change the title just because those 6 want the op to change it. I’m not happy with the titles of other threads. The op is aware in those threads as the title has been questioned. Had the op changed it ? No.

you can continue complaining on this thread about the title all you want and reporting the thread. That won’t change the reality. Lancet has published a letter where the experts estimate that 186k Palestinians could die as a result of what Israel is doing in Palestine.

These writers do not have a crystal ball.

And I hope the reality doesn’t match what they’re expecting. It would mean many innocent civilians won’t die as a result of Israel’s actions.

“That sentence I’ve highlighted is good. For those that say that the figures are fake because they’re coming out from Hamas .”

But his evidence is shoddy to prove the figures veracity.
You believe Hamas figures?

I mean most of the worlds organisations (who are more important and expert than me) believes these figures … as far as I can see , only those that are pro Israel are the ones that are trying to reduce them

I think it's pretty clear that this is a piece published in The Lancet, using data that estimates how the current conflict may impact upon the population. It's not claiming to be an RCT, or claiming a current death toll of over 180,000. I'm not sure why it's confusing to people or why people can't get that from reading the posts and the published link.

The title of the thread is pretty clear. 'Article' isn't a word which only applies to clinical trials or studies - people use it to refer to everything from RCTs through to journalists' blogs.

The fact that on page 5, people are still more upset about whether they would have chosen different wording for the title, rather than about the significant health and mortality implications for the affected population, is an example of the phenomenon of dehumanisation. Would we be having this particular discussion if the population being discussed by the authors had been a different population? Or would we instead be concerned about the points raised - that the population being discussed is at risk of what really are societally and individually devastating harms - and would we instead be feeling and expressing compassion and empathy for the people affected?

Where have I said that one person's life is more important than another. You grossly insult me to say I have been taught a wrong lesson.

Indeed, most people on these boards know that I lost 600 of my family in the Shoah.

The thread title is misleading. That is all I have said.