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

Thank you for admitting @EasterIssland that the thread title might be inflammatory and have inaccuracies.

I respect that.

Whatever to suit your story.

You grossly insult me to say I have been taught a wrong lesson.

Give us your thoughts on say, a death toll at 40k. Let's put that number out there as the factual and current death toll. What are your thoughts? Genocide? Massacre? Tragic? Because your response will tell me right now how much you value the lives of others. You feel grossly insulted, you say. Well, maybe I've hit a stone cold nerve of truth. People often feel insulted when that happens.

If the thread title changes, then discussion of the title will stop.

Up to the OP.

I am currently present on this thread to contest the inaccurate nature of the title.

Huh?

Why is a disagreement about a thread title more important than the content of the published work? Would we be discussing the thread title if the article said it wasn't implausible that not far off 200,000 people could die as a result of something happening elsewhere?

And why should the OP change the title? They're only sharing what The Lancet has published. Write to The Lancet directly, keenforhelp. You're kind of tilting at windmills over here on MN. Go make noise at the source if it's THAT important to you.

Because it talks about Israel’s actions and leaves Israel in a bad place. If it was about festivals celebrating terrorism or all pro Palestinians being antisemetic then many wouldn’t bat an eyelid.

I am currently present on this thread to contest the inaccurate nature of the title.

I'll reiterate: Go tell The Lancet they're causing 'title inaccuracies' on MN. Go straight to the source if it's such a thing to you.

@AhNowTed please don’t change the title to please some. Your title has said what has happened if some don’t like it it’s their fault. Not yours.

Seriously, OP. Ignore the pressure. Do NOT change the title of this thread. It is an accurate title based on The Lancet's work. The Lancet and 'gross inaccuracies' are not bedfellows. The poster arguing this point is not above The Lancet. None of us are.

Indeed. Articles with much less credibility are held up as incontrovertible proof when it comes to dismissing the harms being caused to certain populations.

Five others are actually.

And? Many others are happy with the thread title.

@EasterIssland if only I'd known we could give equal weight to tabloid articles and publications in internationally respected academic journals, I could have really beefed up that section of my CV.

Five others are actually.

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

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

Tiebreak?

Oh super. Do put them on for me.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.