Not really sure where you got that from, given that the article and the article’s source of the tracker they are using has pretty clear language indicating that these are 600,000 recorded deaths that can be directly attributed to the reduction in aid. Where are you getting this?
Okay, I can see how you would interpret the source that way. It certainly does use statistical data to approximate deaths. It feels a bit disingenuous to state it as “its estimated that 600,000 people would have died by now”. That makes it sound like it’s just a number pulled from estimates of how much things cost, at least in my opinion.
One of the studies on Malaria was able to create “near-real-time projections” for 2025 malaria cases. A projection doesn’t mean the same thing as an estimate. You can can estimate that 50 out of 100 coin tosses would be heads, and you’d probably be right, but if you projected it, you’d have to measure the dimensions of the specific coin, control for wind, etc, and while you still might be wrong, you’d likely be less wrong than merely estimating based on the two possible outcomes and a glancing observation that the coin is roughly symmetric/evenly distributed.
In this study we synthesised the most up-to-date information of all-funder volumes of key malaria control interventions (ITN, IRS, ACT, SMC) with PMI data on planned volumes and spatial targeting of funding in 2025 to derive near-real-time projections of malaria control intervention coverage in Africa under two scenarios: a business-as-usual scenario in which PMI commodities procured and distributed as previously planned versus a ‘no-PMI’ scenario in which PMI funding and technical assistance is absent.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.02.28.25323072v1
The 600,000 estimate is how many actual recorded deaths THIS YEAR can be attributed to reduction in USAID.
So more than 600,000 people have died, only 600,000 can be blamed on MAGA.
The other estimates are forecasts, but the 600,000 number is to date. Says so in both the headline and the article.
Well I though reading the methodology of the source material was more accurate, but I guess fuck me right?
Not really sure where you got that from, given that the article and the article’s source of the tracker they are using has pretty clear language indicating that these are 600,000 recorded deaths that can be directly attributed to the reduction in aid. Where are you getting this?
Www.impactcounter.com/methodology
Its the source linked in the article a few paragraphs down.
Okay, I can see how you would interpret the source that way. It certainly does use statistical data to approximate deaths. It feels a bit disingenuous to state it as “its estimated that 600,000 people would have died by now”. That makes it sound like it’s just a number pulled from estimates of how much things cost, at least in my opinion.
One of the studies on Malaria was able to create “near-real-time projections” for 2025 malaria cases. A projection doesn’t mean the same thing as an estimate. You can can estimate that 50 out of 100 coin tosses would be heads, and you’d probably be right, but if you projected it, you’d have to measure the dimensions of the specific coin, control for wind, etc, and while you still might be wrong, you’d likely be less wrong than merely estimating based on the two possible outcomes and a glancing observation that the coin is roughly symmetric/evenly distributed.