2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,334
- 52,581
- 2,290
The Puerto Rican government is completely corrupt, and the deaths attributed to the Hurricane? Are now being counted 5 months out in an obvious attempt to attack Trump....is this fair?
The politics of calculating hurricane deaths
Here’s where we run into trouble. Look at the description of the methodology they used. It’s based on “a careful examination of all of the deaths officially reported to the government of Puerto Rico between September 2017 and February 2018… using state-of-the-art mathematical modeling to compare the total number of deaths during that time to the expected number of deaths, based on historical patterns as well as age, sex, socioeconomic status and migration from the island.”
They’re counting deaths which took place five months after the storm had passed.
Pardon my incredulousness over such a serious matter, but when did we start defining hurricane deaths in this fashion? When we think of people dying in a hurricane, we picture those who are washed out to sea, struck by flying debris, trapped under collapsed buildings, drowned in rising storm surge waters or even expiring from exposure while trapped on their roofs awaiting rescue. But at some point the storm is over and the immediate rescue and recovery operations are complete. People no doubt suffer ill effects from a deadly storm for some time to come, but that’s largely a matter of how good the medical and social support services available to them happen to be.
------
This new study of Maria, as indicated above, was looking at the number of people who probably would have died on average in each month following the storm going out to February fo the following year. Then they looked at the number of actual death certificates they could find (no matter what they died of) and any in excess of the projection were attributed to the storm. Five. Months. Later.
I’m not saying that there was or wasn’t any political bias involved in the compilation of the Milken Institute study, but that’s really not the point. The question is whether or not this is actual science. If you’re suggesting that every person who gets sick and dies months after a storm comes through because the infrastructure is inadequate, or medical supplies aren’t available, or because they were bitten by a dog who might have been too hungry because he lost his owners in the storm, are directly attributable to the hurricane, then… please.
The politics of calculating hurricane deaths
Here’s where we run into trouble. Look at the description of the methodology they used. It’s based on “a careful examination of all of the deaths officially reported to the government of Puerto Rico between September 2017 and February 2018… using state-of-the-art mathematical modeling to compare the total number of deaths during that time to the expected number of deaths, based on historical patterns as well as age, sex, socioeconomic status and migration from the island.”
They’re counting deaths which took place five months after the storm had passed.
Pardon my incredulousness over such a serious matter, but when did we start defining hurricane deaths in this fashion? When we think of people dying in a hurricane, we picture those who are washed out to sea, struck by flying debris, trapped under collapsed buildings, drowned in rising storm surge waters or even expiring from exposure while trapped on their roofs awaiting rescue. But at some point the storm is over and the immediate rescue and recovery operations are complete. People no doubt suffer ill effects from a deadly storm for some time to come, but that’s largely a matter of how good the medical and social support services available to them happen to be.
------
This new study of Maria, as indicated above, was looking at the number of people who probably would have died on average in each month following the storm going out to February fo the following year. Then they looked at the number of actual death certificates they could find (no matter what they died of) and any in excess of the projection were attributed to the storm. Five. Months. Later.
I’m not saying that there was or wasn’t any political bias involved in the compilation of the Milken Institute study, but that’s really not the point. The question is whether or not this is actual science. If you’re suggesting that every person who gets sick and dies months after a storm comes through because the infrastructure is inadequate, or medical supplies aren’t available, or because they were bitten by a dog who might have been too hungry because he lost his owners in the storm, are directly attributable to the hurricane, then… please.