2024-07-07 21:58:46
The article is published in the 'Correspondence' section of The Lancet, which is dedicated to "Our readers’ reflections on content published in the Lancet journals or on other topics of general interest to our readers. These letters are not normally externally peer reviewed." [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(20-0-62) Author
2024-07-07 22:16:46
NNN the post does not claim the article is peer reviewed. NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(36-0-8) Author
2024-07-07 22:18:56
NNN. The OP doesn’t claim the article was externally reviewed. It simply says it was published in the Lancet, which is correct. NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(38-0-7) Author
2024-07-08 01:04:51
Note needed: "Provides important context" is a key point for helpfulness, and that is what the note above does. It's not refuting the OP, just adding context. NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(1-0-20) Author
2024-07-08 03:47:21
The Lancet letter doesn't estimate the direct toll from the war, it estimates possible indirect toll from causes such as disease over the coming months and years. It also doesn't mention the word "genocide". [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(13-4-57) Author
2024-07-08 07:52:40
NNN people who die from indirect causes such as disease or starvation are still casualties of the war, NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(23-1-3) Author
2024-07-08 13:40:07
nnn: "indirect deaths" are still deaths due to war and the top reply to this post highlights that the some of the deaths are "indirect", this information is already accessible and doesn't contradict op's claim anyway, cn doesn't need to be used right now NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(21-0-1) Author
2024-07-12 17:40:07
Aside from the fact that this is not peer reviewed (it's a letter from the correspondence section), the 186,000 estimate is a forward-looking one not current. The authors theorize by multiplying the direct deaths by four potential indirect future deaths. [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(0-0-1) Author