San Juan Mayor: Trump administration ‘completely looked away’ over hurricane death toll

[Ted Frazier]

Donald Trump had no reaction whatsoever to a study showing that the death toll in Hurricane Maria (Puerto Rico) last year was 4,645 people.

This doesn't look good on Trump. We are talking about the mayor of Puerto Rico's capital condemning Trump by showing that he is insensitive to loss of human life that resulted in part from his ineptitude in handling this catastrophe.
San Juan mayor: Trump administration ‘completely looked away’ over hurricane death toll

 

[martybegan]

Donald Trump had no reaction whatsoever to a study showing that the death toll in Hurricane Maria (Puerto Rico) last year was 4,645 people.

This doesn't look good on Trump. We are talking about the mayor of Puerto Rico's capital condemning Trump by showing that he is insensitive to loss of human life that resulted in part from his ineptitude in handling this catastrophe.
San Juan mayor: Trump administration ‘completely looked away’ over hurricane death toll

Yeah... about that study.

Do you really think Hurricane Maria killed 4,645 people in Puerto Rico? - Hot Air

From that base of survey data, the researchers extrapolated to the whole island and came up with a range of excess deaths. That range is 793 to 8,498, with a 95 percent confidence interval. This is a statistical estimate the means that about 95 of 100 samples of the same size and design drawn from the same population would fall with the range noted in the article. The widely reported number of 4,645 is simply the midpoint and is no more or less valid than any other number in the range.

Let’s be clear. If your 95% confidence interval covers a range of numbers from some (793) to a sh** load (8,498) you don’t really have an estimate. You have what is known as a “scientific wild-assed guess” aka SWAG, which is nothing more than a “wild-assed guess” to which you’ve assigned numbers. And while the research team provides context separately, the abstract, which is in a pull-quote above, makes no such caveat. It gives the impression that the 4,645 number is a hard, fast number.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The same San Juan mayor that told the truck drivers not to distribute aid?

 

[TNHarley]

Not that thieving chick again

 

[Ted Frazier]

Donald Trump had no reaction whatsoever to a study showing that the death toll in Hurricane Maria (Puerto Rico) last year was 4,645 people.

This doesn't look good on Trump. We are talking about the mayor of Puerto Rico's capital condemning Trump by showing that he is insensitive to loss of human life that resulted in part from his ineptitude in handling this catastrophe.
San Juan mayor: Trump administration ‘completely looked away’ over hurricane death toll

Yeah... about that study.

Do you really think Hurricane Maria killed 4,645 people in Puerto Rico? - Hot Air

From that base of survey data, the researchers extrapolated to the whole island and came up with a range of excess deaths. That range is 793 to 8,498, with a 95 percent confidence interval. This is a statistical estimate the means that about 95 of 100 samples of the same size and design drawn from the same population would fall with the range noted in the article. The widely reported number of 4,645 is simply the midpoint and is no more or less valid than any other number in the range.

Let’s be clear. If your 95% confidence interval covers a range of numbers from some (793) to a sh** load (8,498) you don’t really have an estimate. You have what is known as a “scientific wild-assed guess” aka SWAG, which is nothing more than a “wild-assed guess” to which you’ve assigned numbers. And while the research team provides context separately, the abstract, which is in a pull-quote above, makes no such caveat. It gives the impression that the 4,645 number is a hard, fast number.

It is the New England Journal of Medicine versus the "Hot Air" conservative blog. Place your bets!

 

[Ted Frazier]

Not that thieving chick again

Because a nickname in a messageboard just charged the San Juan Mayor with theft.

 

[Ted Frazier]

The same San Juan mayor that told the truck drivers not to distribute aid?

you made that up. Gateway Pundit links don't count.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Remember how the Psychocrats called Bush a racist for not walking around New Orleans after hurricane Katrina while there was looting and shooting going on.
Troglocrats are dumb

 

[martybegan]

Donald Trump had no reaction whatsoever to a study showing that the death toll in Hurricane Maria (Puerto Rico) last year was 4,645 people.

This doesn't look good on Trump. We are talking about the mayor of Puerto Rico's capital condemning Trump by showing that he is insensitive to loss of human life that resulted in part from his ineptitude in handling this catastrophe.
San Juan mayor: Trump administration ‘completely looked away’ over hurricane death toll

Yeah... about that study.

Do you really think Hurricane Maria killed 4,645 people in Puerto Rico? - Hot Air

From that base of survey data, the researchers extrapolated to the whole island and came up with a range of excess deaths. That range is 793 to 8,498, with a 95 percent confidence interval. This is a statistical estimate the means that about 95 of 100 samples of the same size and design drawn from the same population would fall with the range noted in the article. The widely reported number of 4,645 is simply the midpoint and is no more or less valid than any other number in the range.

Let’s be clear. If your 95% confidence interval covers a range of numbers from some (793) to a sh** load (8,498) you don’t really have an estimate. You have what is known as a “scientific wild-assed guess” aka SWAG, which is nothing more than a “wild-assed guess” to which you’ve assigned numbers. And while the research team provides context separately, the abstract, which is in a pull-quote above, makes no such caveat. It gives the impression that the 4,645 number is a hard, fast number.

It is the New England Journal of Medicine versus the "Hot Air" conservative blog. Place your bets!

No, it's the people claiming the 4600 number as factual vs. people who actually read the study.

And Hot Air is just providing the platform. The criticism lists who is making the comments about the study and the use of the numbers found in it.

 

[tinydancer]

This study of hurricane related deaths has just come out. It covered a time period of months AFTER the hurricane.

It's a strange estimate. It includes people not getting their medicine promptly.

“Indirect” deaths include those in which related factors, such as difficulty reaching a hospital for care, or trouble refilling medical prescriptions, played a role.

Why Are the Death Tolls in Puerto Rico From Hurricane Maria So Different?

 

[tinydancer]

Donald Trump had no reaction whatsoever to a study showing that the death toll in Hurricane Maria (Puerto Rico) last year was 4,645 people.

This doesn't look good on Trump. We are talking about the mayor of Puerto Rico's capital condemning Trump by showing that he is insensitive to loss of human life that resulted in part from his ineptitude in handling this catastrophe.
San Juan mayor: Trump administration ‘completely looked away’ over hurricane death toll

She's one whacked out Democrat. Bitching about not getting any aid while standing in front of skids of water bottles.

 

[tinydancer]

Donald Trump had no reaction whatsoever to a study showing that the death toll in Hurricane Maria (Puerto Rico) last year was 4,645 people.

This doesn't look good on Trump. We are talking about the mayor of Puerto Rico's capital condemning Trump by showing that he is insensitive to loss of human life that resulted in part from his ineptitude in handling this catastrophe.
San Juan mayor: Trump administration ‘completely looked away’ over hurricane death toll

Yeah... about that study.

Do you really think Hurricane Maria killed 4,645 people in Puerto Rico? - Hot Air

From that base of survey data, the researchers extrapolated to the whole island and came up with a range of excess deaths. That range is 793 to 8,498, with a 95 percent confidence interval. This is a statistical estimate the means that about 95 of 100 samples of the same size and design drawn from the same population would fall with the range noted in the article. The widely reported number of 4,645 is simply the midpoint and is no more or less valid than any other number in the range.

Let’s be clear. If your 95% confidence interval covers a range of numbers from some (793) to a sh** load (8,498) you don’t really have an estimate. You have what is known as a “scientific wild-assed guess” aka SWAG, which is nothing more than a “wild-assed guess” to which you’ve assigned numbers. And while the research team provides context separately, the abstract, which is in a pull-quote above, makes no such caveat. It gives the impression that the 4,645 number is a hard, fast number.

It is the New England Journal of Medicine versus the "Hot Air" conservative blog. Place your bets!

No, it's the people claiming the 4600 number as factual vs. people who actually read the study.

And Hot Air is just providing the platform. The criticism lists who is making the comments about the study and the use of the numbers found in it.

One of the deaths that was somehow "related" to the hurricane was a woman who got wrong medication for a heart condition. She received the wrong medicine during the aftermath of Maria so it was counted as Hurricane related.

 

[Moonglow]

Donald Trump had no reaction whatsoever to a study showing that the death toll in Hurricane Maria (Puerto Rico) last year was 4,645 people.

This doesn't look good on Trump. We are talking about the mayor of Puerto Rico's capital condemning Trump by showing that he is insensitive to loss of human life that resulted in part from his ineptitude in handling this catastrophe.
San Juan mayor: Trump administration ‘completely looked away’ over hurricane death toll

Did Trump look away from the govts. fake body count or the real body count?

 

[Meathead]

Donald Trump had no reaction whatsoever to a study showing that the death toll in Hurricane Maria (Puerto Rico) last year was 4,645 people.

This doesn't look good on Trump. We are talking about the mayor of Puerto Rico's capital condemning Trump by showing that he is insensitive to loss of human life that resulted in part from his ineptitude in handling this catastrophe.
San Juan mayor: Trump administration ‘completely looked away’ over hurricane death toll

She's one whacked out Democrat. Bitching about not getting any aid while standing in front of skids of water bottles.

Ted's a she?!

 

[Papageorgio]

Sorry the facts don’t support the story, it’s the mayor who has been at odds with Trump since day one and is getting their digs in hoping no one researches the information on the lies.

Funny how the press is wanting more dead to keep their stories going.

 

[Ted Frazier]

Donald Trump had no reaction whatsoever to a study showing that the death toll in Hurricane Maria (Puerto Rico) last year was 4,645 people.

This doesn't look good on Trump. We are talking about the mayor of Puerto Rico's capital condemning Trump by showing that he is insensitive to loss of human life that resulted in part from his ineptitude in handling this catastrophe.
San Juan mayor: Trump administration ‘completely looked away’ over hurricane death toll

Yeah... about that study.

Do you really think Hurricane Maria killed 4,645 people in Puerto Rico? - Hot Air

From that base of survey data, the researchers extrapolated to the whole island and came up with a range of excess deaths. That range is 793 to 8,498, with a 95 percent confidence interval. This is a statistical estimate the means that about 95 of 100 samples of the same size and design drawn from the same population would fall with the range noted in the article. The widely reported number of 4,645 is simply the midpoint and is no more or less valid than any other number in the range.

Let’s be clear. If your 95% confidence interval covers a range of numbers from some (793) to a sh** load (8,498) you don’t really have an estimate. You have what is known as a “scientific wild-assed guess” aka SWAG, which is nothing more than a “wild-assed guess” to which you’ve assigned numbers. And while the research team provides context separately, the abstract, which is in a pull-quote above, makes no such caveat. It gives the impression that the 4,645 number is a hard, fast number.

It is the New England Journal of Medicine versus the "Hot Air" conservative blog. Place your bets!

No, it's the people claiming the 4600 number as factual vs. people who actually read the study.

And Hot Air is just providing the platform. The criticism lists who is making the comments about the study and the use of the numbers found in it.

Do you have any proof that the only people who read the study are the people who say what you want to hear?

 

[martybegan]

Donald Trump had no reaction whatsoever to a study showing that the death toll in Hurricane Maria (Puerto Rico) last year was 4,645 people.

This doesn't look good on Trump. We are talking about the mayor of Puerto Rico's capital condemning Trump by showing that he is insensitive to loss of human life that resulted in part from his ineptitude in handling this catastrophe.
San Juan mayor: Trump administration ‘completely looked away’ over hurricane death toll

Yeah... about that study.

Do you really think Hurricane Maria killed 4,645 people in Puerto Rico? - Hot Air

From that base of survey data, the researchers extrapolated to the whole island and came up with a range of excess deaths. That range is 793 to 8,498, with a 95 percent confidence interval. This is a statistical estimate the means that about 95 of 100 samples of the same size and design drawn from the same population would fall with the range noted in the article. The widely reported number of 4,645 is simply the midpoint and is no more or less valid than any other number in the range.

Let’s be clear. If your 95% confidence interval covers a range of numbers from some (793) to a sh** load (8,498) you don’t really have an estimate. You have what is known as a “scientific wild-assed guess” aka SWAG, which is nothing more than a “wild-assed guess” to which you’ve assigned numbers. And while the research team provides context separately, the abstract, which is in a pull-quote above, makes no such caveat. It gives the impression that the 4,645 number is a hard, fast number.

It is the New England Journal of Medicine versus the "Hot Air" conservative blog. Place your bets!

No, it's the people claiming the 4600 number as factual vs. people who actually read the study.

And Hot Air is just providing the platform. The criticism lists who is making the comments about the study and the use of the numbers found in it.

Do you have any proof that the only people who read the study are the people who say what you want to hear?

That doesn't make any sense. i have posted critiques of the study. What you do with that is up to you.

 

[BookShaka]

One more thing for the Trump haters to cry over. I think ya’ll had better invest in some sturdy flotation devices else drown in your own tears.

 

[BookShaka]

From the article:

“Critics say the federal government did not respond as quickly or robustly to the devastation on the U.S. territory as it had for hurricanes on the U.S. mainland.”

How surprising... This is like saying water is wet. Trump will be criticized no matter what. It doesn’t take a genius to see this.

 

[Claudette]

From the article:

“Critics say the federal government did not respond as quickly or robustly to the devastation on the U.S. territory as it had for hurricanes on the U.S. mainland.”

How surprising... This is like saying water is wet. Trump will be criticized no matter what. It doesn’t take a genius to see this.

Funny how they all think he should have done something BEFORE the hurricane hit.

I'd expect the PR Govt. to be on the ball about shelters and what they could do for their own citizens.

Guess not. Hurricanes kill people. They always have and they always will.

Light a candle and move on.