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

Preventing this would help reducing the estimated 186k
“UN experts declare famine has spread throughout Gaza strip”
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/07/un-experts-declare-famine-has-spread-throughout-gaza-strip

I think the Lancet is being a bit political here. An article has been published with the intention of upstaging the standard figure of 38K the international press report. A lot of media channels agree on this figure and I don't think one article in a medical journal should be used to get another figure into the international narrative especially one with suppositions.

Healthcare wasn't great in Gaza prior to the war so there was probably a high mortality atrributal to a poorly ran Hamas service before this latest flare up of tension.

https://theconversation.com/decades-of-underfunding-blockade-have-weakened-gazas-health-system-the-siege-has-pushed-it-into-abject-crisis-215679

this article explains why healthcare wasn’t great before 7-10 in Gaza.

Why would you dismiss a medical journals estimation of death toll and promote a “media” estimation? Is it just you don’t like the number?

It never ceases to amaze me that people without the proper qualifications/ understanding/ experience in the field feel able to dismiss the findings of a group of experts. The mind boggles.

But when some guy on X says something, it must be true.

This is how we ended up with people drinking bleach to cure Covid.

It is NOT a medical journal's estimation of future deaths at all. 🤦‍♂️

It's just a LETTER sent in to Lancet which is not their view, not their study and isn't peer reviewed either.

With the media misrepresenting it, I can see why you thought otherwise. Breaking news - various media publications can spread misinformation as well as disinformation.

Yes I’m sorry I was inaccurate in my post. The fact it was a published letter in the Lancet and what weight that gives has been discussed, and is in fact in the title of this thread. I assumed everyone had read all that and responded sloppily to the posters point. Myself I think a letter published in the Lancet carries significantly more weight than random “media” reports.

How we have got to a place where we are quibbling about how many ten or hundreds of civilians have been killed is beyond me and sickening.

TomeTome you are right it’s sickening. Someone even described the article, which is about the importance of accurately estimating the death as ‘political’. I find this deeply disturbing.

"The fact it was a published letter in the Lancet and what weight that gives..."

No, that's doesn't give it weight at all. It's merely "our reader's reflections", i.e., the views, thoughts & opinions of the four letters authors.

To gain weight, you require an actual peer reviewed article published in The Lancet.

Not a letter that's far below that standard. 🤦‍♂️

"Myself I think a letter published in the Lancet carries significantly more weight than random “media” reports."

The media reports have clearly misinformed people to the point they thought The Lancet published an article, conducted a study & even peer reviewed it.

You were one of many, hence my response to you complete with screenshots.

Once again, it's a non peer reviewed letter that Lancet made clear is merely "our reader's reflections"!

It has no formal academic or otherwise weight. Simple as that.

That's incorrect; a non-peer-reviewed publication in a reputable journal still has to go through an editorial process which is significantly more rigorous than simply writing a letter to a newspaper. There is still an expected standard of academic rigour, and pieces may have revisions requested, criticisms raised, etc.

When reviewing medical and academic CVs, for example, credit is given to such publications - not to the same extent as a peer-reviewed publication, but they are still considered CV-worthy because of the academic rigour required for the high quality journals. If someone tried to impress me by pretending their email to The Times was just as credible, I'd probably struggle not to laugh.

I think that some believe that writing a letter to The Lancet is the same as writing a letter to the Daily Mail or any newspaper.
It is also staggering that a prestigious/ reputable/ trustworthy publication would allow anyone to write on a subject without any checks.
I thought that would be obvious. I was wrong.

I wonder what the response would be if this thread title were linked to a Haaretz article instead of a Lancet one? Oh, while we're here, Haaretz has published an article that The Lancet haters are not gonna like: IDF ordered Hannibal Directive on October 7th, which means better to kill your own before they're abducted. Controversial is the kindest thing I can say about the Hannibal Directive.

The Israeli government is not fond of Haaretz. I wonder why.
Gaza war: Israeli government has Haaretz newspaper in its sights as it tightens screws on media freedom (theconversation.com)

Haaretz employs enough journalists willing to do right by Bibi and Frenz. But there are a handful of Haaretz journalists still willing to do right by their readers and deliver evidence-backed, fair reporting.

@Scirocco and @Auvergne63 have articulated this far better than I could.
so many precious people have been lost. Whole families wiped out. To be minimising this level of killing is something I hope people will think about. What sort of humans do you want to be? What do you want your legacy on earth to be?