• sunzu@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    At what rate it will get certified a genocide…

    Population of Gaza is like 2 million. 200k is 10%

  • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    12 days ago

    The non-governmental organisation Airwars undertakes detailed assessments of incidents in the Gaza Strip and often finds that not all names of identifiable victims are included in the Ministry’s list. Furthermore, the UN estimates that, by Feb 29, 2024, 35% of buildings in the Gaza Strip had been destroyed, so the number of bodies still buried in the rubble is likely substantial, with estimates of more than 10,000.

    Armed conflicts have indirect health implications beyond the direct harm from violence. Even if the conflict ends immediately, there will continue to be many indirect deaths in the coming months and years from causes such as reproductive, communicable, and non-communicable diseases. The total death toll is expected to be large given the intensity of this conflict; destroyed health-care infrastructure; severe shortages of food, water, and shelter; the population’s inability to flee to safe places; and the loss of funding to UNRWA, one of the very few humanitarian organisations still active in the Gaza Strip.

    In recent conflicts, such indirect deaths range from three to 15 times the number of direct deaths. Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death to the 37 396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza. Using the 2022 Gaza Strip population estimate of 2 375 259, this would translate to 7·9% of the total population in the Gaza Strip.

  • sqgl@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    Lancet is the same journal which published Andrew Wakefield’s bs claim that vaccines cause autism.

    • rammer@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      12 days ago

      They also publish almost all cutting edge medical research. So what’s your point?

      • sqgl@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        12 days ago

        As if you didn’t know my point…

        Their credibility is damaged enough to be sceptical about this report (which is not even medical research).

        And here is another example:

        They published (and retracted) a key study that linked anti-malarial drug HCQ to increased risk of death and irregularity in heart rhythms in coronavirus patients.

        • rammer@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 days ago

          That is to be expected with cutting edge research. Studies get retracted all the time. The vetting process is not perfect and never can be. Especially when there are bad actors gaming the system.

          You could attack Lancet and Elsevier in general on other grounds. But this in my opinion is not one of them.

          • sqgl@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 days ago

            Regardless of the Hamas issue, that anti-vax publication did untold harm. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary vetting.

            Am going off topic, but the BMJ (another titan in the journal industry, and it is an industry) was responsible for publishing a paper incorrectly linking plaques with Alzheimer’s which ended up wasting billions of dollars through more than a decade of other followup studies chasing that angle.

            It was only debunked a couple of years ago. To be fair it is also irresponsible for all that subsequent research to have gone ahead, seeking glory for “the cure” while nobody cared to replicate the study.

            As a science under-graduate myself I am disillusioned especially since my Mum has had dementia for thirteen years now.

            See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis