Can anyone explain this?

Modern day Britain...I'm just deciding where and when and how to become an expat. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

The former case just sounds like one of those situations where the manager was looking for any excuse to get rid of the employee. If they want to fire you, they can. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

A figure of 655,000 derived from a survey of 12,801 household members appears suspect to me. 51.16 reported deaths per household member. I know that's a very crude way of analysing the given evidence, but if correct in its original form, presents an extremely harrowing and upsetting situation. It makes me feel ashamed to be experiencing an existence during such a grim period of our history. Do I count myself partly responsible? Off course I must. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

Jack: "The former case just sounds like one of those situations where the manager was looking for any excuse to get rid of the employee. If they want to fire you, they can." True enough, but what can he have done (other than the grape eating) to justify sacking a 56 year old trolley collector who supports his 85 year old mother through osteoporosis...? ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar

He was old and probably a bit doddery. The manager likely just didn't think much of him. Please don't think I'm offering an excuse for it or saying it's OK. "A figure of 655,000 derived from a survey of 12,801 household members appears suspect to me. 51.16 reported deaths per household member." Hate to say it, but I agree. Suspect there's a degree of exaggeration going on. Still doesn't make the war any more of a classy move though. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

"Hate to say it, but I agree." Eh? There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

Jack: Please don't think I'm offering an excuse for it or saying it's OK. No, I didn't, Jack! :-) I agree, they probably were just looking for an excuse. Obviously we don't know the ins and outs of the situation, but it seems a sad state of affairs when a business (supermarket or whatever) can't take into account personal circumstances when making such "decisions"... ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar

A figure of 655,000 derived from a survey of 12,801 household members appears suspect to me. 51.16 reported deaths per household member That's a joke right? From what I gather it's a pretty standard methedology for estimating deaths in conflicts and disasters. Other methods (passively analysing reported deaths) are understood to underestimate by large factors in conflict situations, which fits the data. Also their estimate for pre invasion deaths match reported figures, which implies that their estimates for post invasion deaths are accurate. The only real problem is that they were using two year old population data, and if the population has significantly reduced (due to emigration) in that time then it will be an overestimate. Their lower bound figure is about 400,000 so it's safe to say there have been *at least* 400,000 additional deaths. Which is still a hell of a lot. The report is here if anyone wants to read it. It's actually pretty readable for a statistical survey. If rather grim.

Why a joke? They interviewed 12801 household members across 47 different areas of Iraq which resulted in a figure of 655000. The figure is derived from the gobs of 12801 people, an average of 51 missing (presumed dead) per person. maybe they have large families. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

655,000 is the figure they extrapolated from the 12,801 household members. You can't interview everyone, so you interview a small percentage and multiply your result by the reciprocal of that percentage. It's hardly rocket science.

I get it now. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

It's rubbish then isn't it. They can achieve two precise figures (that of the total household members 'interviewed' and a death toll) but they then guess the result. hardly worth going to the trouble of visiting 47 separate areas if they're gonna extrapolate a result from a calculator back at the uni. The average of 51 dead per person remains - in my estimation. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

you've heard of this they've invented called 'mathematics' right?

"It's rubbish then isn't it." It's an estimation, based on ratios. Next best thing to actually counting from one to 655,000. Most of the figures you read will be based on similar methods. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

"It's rubbish then isn't it. They can achieve two precise figures (that of the total household members 'interviewed' and a death toll) but they then guess the result." How did you think statistics were usually generated? With the exception of the census - which only takes place once every ten years for a reason - more or less all national statistics are generated by taking a sample and then multiplying.

They should do a census. Anyway, the figures are biased. Statistics are okay for estimating relatively novel figures, but not for something so serious. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett