Good share. I use this all the time. It should, however, be noted a very conservative estimate not sufficiently taken into account underdevlopment causing death; it’s essentially calculating excess deaths with the presumption that the country would not develop further.
As a thought experiment, consider a wealthy western country and then:
(1) suddenly take its wealth so it suddenly reaches a gdp /capita of say Congo or Sierra Leone (this realistically would mean a large loss of technology, infrastructure, public sector, and wealth extracted from the global south)
(2) then impose sanctions
If we only consider the baseline for excess deaths after number (1) is applied but not include (1) we are probably missing a large chunk of death in said country.
Absolutely; this paper has been my go to reference countless times. Lancet also have done a more realistic estimate on the genocide as well (which you may already know).
Good share. I use this all the time. It should, however, be noted a very conservative estimate not sufficiently taken into account underdevlopment causing death; it’s essentially calculating excess deaths with the presumption that the country would not develop further.
As a thought experiment, consider a wealthy western country and then:
(1) suddenly take its wealth so it suddenly reaches a gdp /capita of say Congo or Sierra Leone (this realistically would mean a large loss of technology, infrastructure, public sector, and wealth extracted from the global south)
(2) then impose sanctions
If we only consider the baseline for excess deaths after number (1) is applied but not include (1) we are probably missing a large chunk of death in said country.
For sure, it’s far worse in practice, but even the most conservative estimate already shows that US sanctions are horrific siege warfare.
Absolutely; this paper has been my go to reference countless times. Lancet also have done a more realistic estimate on the genocide as well (which you may already know).
yeah, they do some good work