Lancet’s 186k estimate is not reliable: Difference between revisions
→Questionable Methodology and Assumptions: Bold only relevant text Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
In July 2024, The Lancet published a [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext Correspondence] ('''not a peer-reviewed study''') suggesting that the Gaza death toll could reach up to 186,000. This figure quickly made global headlines, but was widely misunderstood. One of the authors, ''Martin McKee'', later clarified that the figure was “purely illustrative” and that the letter “has been greatly misquoted and misinterpreted.”<ref name="ref1">{{Citation | last1=Merlin | first1= Ohad | year=2024 | title=‘186,000 Gazans dead’: Lancet magazine publishes new blood libel | url=https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-809632 | access-date=5 August 2025}}</ref> In reality, the 186,000 figure was not presented as a current death toll, but as a long-term cumulative projection, based on assumptions about indirect mortality from other wars, not on verified data from Gaza. | In July 2024, The Lancet published a [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext Correspondence] ('''not a peer-reviewed study''') suggesting that the Gaza death toll could reach up to 186,000. This figure quickly made global headlines, but was widely misunderstood. One of the authors, ''Martin McKee'', later clarified that the figure was “purely illustrative” and that the letter “has been greatly misquoted and misinterpreted.”<ref name="ref1">{{Citation | last1=Merlin | first1= Ohad | year=2024 | title=‘186,000 Gazans dead’: Lancet magazine publishes new blood libel | url=https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-809632 | access-date=5 August 2025}}</ref> In reality, the 186,000 figure was not presented as a current death toll, but as a long-term cumulative projection, based on assumptions about indirect mortality from other wars, not on verified data from Gaza. | ||
===Questionable Methodology and Assumptions=== | ===Questionable Methodology and Assumptions=== | ||
The authors of the ''' | The authors of the Lancet letter '''reached their estimate by multiplying the reported direct death toll by five,''' extrapolating from other conflicts where indirect deaths, caused by factors like infrastructure collapse, famine, and disease, far outnumbered deaths from violence.<ref name="ref2">{{Cite web |last=Overton |first=Iain |date=2024-07-10 |title=A critical analysis of The Lancet's letter “Counting the Dead in Gaza: Difficult but Essential”. Professor Mike Spagat reviews the claim the total Gaza death toll may reach upwards of 186,000 |url=https://aoav.org.uk/2024/a-critical-analysis-of-the-lancets-letter-counting-the-dead-in-gaza-difficult-but-essential-professor-mike-spagat-reviews-the-claim-the-total-gaza-death-toll-may-reach-upwards-of-186000/ |access-date=2025-08-04 |website=AOAV |language=en-US}}</ref> However, this approach is highly problematic in the Gaza context. Gaza is a densely urban area with functioning international NGOs, health monitors, and ongoing data collection. As Professor Michael Spagat, a leading expert on conflict mortality, wrote: “This is not an empirical estimate, it is a speculative upper-bound projection built on weak foundations.<ref name="ref2" /> Similarly, Peter Singer, former WHO adviser, criticized the figure as “taking one unreliable number and multiplying it by another unreliable number to get a bigger unreliable number”.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last=Gilbert |first=Andrew |date=2024-11-16 |title=Concerns regarding Gaza mortality estimates |url=https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01682-9/fulltext |journal=The Lancet |language=English |volume=404 |issue=10466 |pages=1927–1928 |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01682-9 |issn=0140-6736 |pmid=39510112}}</ref> | ||
The projection also fails to account for real-time monitoring and humanitarian access, which are far more robust in Gaza today than in many of the conflicts the Lancet authors referenced. | The projection also fails to account for real-time monitoring and humanitarian access, which are far more robust in Gaza today than in many of the conflicts the Lancet authors referenced. | ||