Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 131
  1. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    I haven't read the report. Did the death count take in mind the loss of power to hospitals which can account for more persons dying earlier than they might have? I wonder how many died directly due to the hurricane and how many died due to a broken infrastructure after the storm. Does the report break that down?

    What we know about the death toll in Puerto Rico

    Researchers were interested in calculating not only the people who died during the peak of the storm, but also from the resulting loss of power, water, medical, and emergency services.

    The ideal way to calculate the death toll from a hurricane, disaster researchers say, generally, is to count all the deaths in the time since the event, and then compare that number to the average number of deaths in the same time period from previous years. Subtract the average number from the current number and that’s the death toll.

    In Puerto Rico, there was some delay in the processing of death certificates in the months after the storm hit. And given how long the power outages lasted, there were storm-linked deaths even into February, five months after the storm hit.

    What was different about the GWU study was that it looked at death certificates and other mortality data from September 2017 through the end of February 2018. It fed that data into a mathematical model that also adjusted for age, sex, and migration from the island, and ultimately found that there were an estimated 2,975 excess deaths related to Hurricane Maria, or 22 percent more deaths than would have been expected during that period in a year without the storm.

    And it also provided a clearer picture of who died. The risk of death, they wrote, was 45 percent higher for people living in poorer areas. It was also higher for the elderly.

    Researchers at GWU issued a statement Thursday after the Trump tweets standing by their study, calling it “the most accurate and unbiased estimate of excess mortality to date.” Indeed, though it doesn’t give us the names of the dead or how they died, the study does appear to be the most comprehensive statistical attempt to measure the deaths from the storm in part because it was able to include the deaths from January and February.

    Read more at: https://www.vox.com/2018/9/13/178554...ico-death-toll
    Last edited by Cruze; 09-14-2018 at 08:17 AM.


  2. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cruze View Post
    What we know about the death toll in Puerto Rico

    Researchers were interested in calculating not only the people who died during the peak of the storm, but also from the resulting loss of power, water, medical, and emergency services.

    The ideal way to calculate the death toll from a hurricane, disaster researchers say, generally, is to count all the deaths in the time since the event, and then compare that number to the average number of deaths in the same time period from previous years. Subtract the average number from the current number and that’s the death toll.

    In Puerto Rico, there was some delay in the processing of death certificates in the months after the storm hit. And given how long the power outages lasted, there were storm-linked deaths even into February, five months after the storm hit.

    What was different about the GWU study was that it looked at death certificates and other mortality data from September 2017 through the end of February 2018. It fed that data into a mathematical model that also adjusted for age, sex, and migration from the island, and ultimately found that there were an estimated 2,975 excess deaths related to Hurricane Maria, or 22 percent more deaths than would have been expected during that period in a year without the storm.

    And it also provided a clearer picture of who died. The risk of death, they wrote, was 45 percent higher for people living in poorer areas. It was also higher for the elderly.

    Researchers at GWU issued a statement Thursday after the Trump tweets standing by their study, calling it “the most accurate and unbiased estimate of excess mortality to date.” Indeed, though it doesn’t give us the names of the dead or how they died, the study does appear to be the most comprehensive statistical attempt to measure the deaths from the storm in part because it was able to include the deaths from January and February.

    Read more at: https://www.vox.com/2018/9/13/178554...ico-death-toll
    Thanks Cruze.
    So the deaths did not happen as a direct result of the hurricane hitting the island, but were the result of a failed infrastructure that happened after the hurricane went through.
    Exactly how is that the fault of the US government? Should Puerto Rico have the same standard of infrastructure as any given State in the US? To what level of response should a territory of the US receive support? Should it be equal to the response give to a State in the Union?

  3. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    Thanks Cruze.
    So the deaths did not happen as a direct result of the hurricane hitting the island, but were the result of a failed infrastructure that happened after the hurricane went through.
    Exactly how is that the fault of the US government? Should Puerto Rico have the same standard of infrastructure as any given State in the US? To what level of response should a territory of the US receive support? Should it be equal to the response give to a State in the Union?
    These are valid questions. But I'm not sure they change the argument. The question is, what is the difference between the "normal" number of deaths in the period of time following the hurricane vs. what the actual numbers were? That's your death toll attributed to the hurricane. That's not debatable.

  4. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GopherJake View Post
    These are valid questions. But I'm not sure they change the argument. The question is, what is the difference between the "normal" number of deaths in the period of time following the hurricane vs. what the actual numbers were? That's your death toll attributed to the hurricane. That's not debatable.
    It might be debatable. All the study did was take the norm and then compare it to a period of time that was abnormal, but ascribe all the abnormalities to the hurricane. This may or may not be accurate as there may be other abnormalities not directly connected to the hurricane that affect the death count.
    Now, the claim that only 6 people died from the hurricane is absurd, but the claim of nearly 3000 deaths from the hurricane may also be drastically wrong as well.
    What are other factors which this study may not account for, yet attributes to the hurricane?
    Finally, Trumps an idiot so please don't imagine that I'm siding with the Oompa Loompa on this issue.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    16,975

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GopherJake View Post
    These are valid questions. But I'm not sure they change the argument. The question is, what is the difference between the "normal" number of deaths in the period of time following the hurricane vs. what the actual numbers were? That's your death toll attributed to the hurricane. That's not debatable.
    No, that is absolutely debatable. smh

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    16,975

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered User View Post
    Methodology:
    We implemented the project as three studies, each
    with specific yet complementary methodologies.
    Our excess mortality study analyzed past mortality
    patterns (mortality registration and population
    census data from 2010 to 2017) in order to predict
    the expected mortality if Hurricane María had not
    occurred (predicted mortality) and compare this
    figure to the actual deaths that occurred (observed
    mortality).The difference between those two
    numbers is the estimate of excess mortality
    due to the hurricane.

    Feel free to point out the flaws:

    https://publichealth.gwu.edu/sites/d...rto%20Rico.pdf
    The methodology IS the flaw. If there were more deaths last year in Minneapolis than in the previous year, can they all be attributed to hosting the Super Bowl?

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    16,975

    Default

    How much did these people get paid to subtract last years deaths from this years deaths and call it a study, anyhow? Very scientific.

  8. #23

    Default

    "I don't understand it and have zero expertise on the subject, so I'll just rip on it, make fun of it, and presume it's wrong."

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    16,975

    Default

    The authorities in PR claimed there were less than 60 deaths attributed to the hurricane. Now, some "researcher" from a US university claims it was over 3,000. Sounds like Trump's right again.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    16,975

    Default

    "The problem is....he wins all the time"


  11. #26

    Default

    And then he threw up on his shoes in Helsinki...

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Reality, USA
    Posts
    7,848

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Costa Rican Gopher View Post
    The authorities in PR claimed there were less than 60 deaths attributed to the hurricane. Now, some "researcher" from a US university claims it was over 3,000. Sounds like Trump's right again.
    The number I remember was mid 60's.......

  13. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Costa Rican Gopher View Post
    The authorities in PR claimed there were less than 60 deaths attributed to the hurricane. Now, some "researcher" from a US university claims it was over 3,000. Sounds like Trump's right again.
    He is right. In the week following the hurricane the official death toll was at 16. The official toll was eventually updated to 64. Then something odd happened many months later. They started making surveys and estimates and things got real fuzzy. People started talking about estimates of 100's then thousands. None of the numbers relate in any way to the Trump/ FEMA response but- this is politics as played by the left.

    Vox hates Trump. But midway through this article (in which they declare Trump wrong) you can detect how wild the estimates became and how thin the logic is. https://www.vox.com/2018/9/13/178554...ico-death-toll

    In the first week after the storm, the government announced an official death toll of 16. Immediately, to observers on the ground, this number seemed much too low. The first person to recognize it was Omaya Sosa Pascual, a reporter from the Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, a local investigative journalism group. Sosa Pascual called the 69 hospitals around the island and learned that there were an estimated 60 confirmed deaths linked to the hurricane and possibly hundreds more.

    Several other media outlets, including Vox, and independent researchers then began analyzing government data and reports from the ground. We all found additional evidence that even in the first month after the storm the death toll was much higher than the official count — likely to be more than 1,000. For instance, Vox reported in October 2017 that the death toll was likely more than 450.

    The official death toll, however, was eventually updated to 64 and remained there until August, (11 months later) even after several groups of researchers published their higher estimates in peer-reviewed journals. It took the release of the GWU report, which Gov. Rosselló commissioned himself and was the most comprehensive assessment to date, to give the government the confidence to put out a new official toll.

    But still, even the 2,975 figure is not a list of names but rather a best estimate, according to Rosselló. “This number can change,” Rosselló said in August. “It could be less, it could be more, as time passes.”

  14. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    Thanks Cruze.
    So the deaths did not happen as a direct result of the hurricane hitting the island, but were the result of a failed infrastructure that happened after the hurricane went through.
    Exactly how is that the fault of the US government? Should Puerto Rico have the same standard of infrastructure as any given State in the US? To what level of response should a territory of the US receive support? Should it be equal to the response give to a State in the Union?
    The hurricane caused loss of electricity, food, infrastructure, etc., which resulted in very many deaths. All of this was reversible given an appropriate, timely response. The methodology employed here is very similar to how any other death tally is gained from, say, war, nuclear meltdowns, famine, etc. The incorporation of the methodology is consistent with how mankind treats these situations. It is nearly impossible to get an exact count for a whole slew of reasons, so you employ methodology based on other data.

    On a related note, I'm curious how many people in Minnesota would pass away if Minnesota didn't have power or appropriate shelter and a dwindled supply of food and water for a year. I'm surprised the death tally in Puerto Rico was that "low". Another important note, they are our fellow Americans.
    Last edited by cncmin; 09-15-2018 at 12:49 AM.

  15. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bga1 View Post
    He is right. In the week following the hurricane the official death toll was at 16. The official toll was eventually updated to 64. Then something odd happened many months later. They started making surveys and estimates and things got real fuzzy. People started talking about estimates of 100's then thousands. None of the numbers relate in any way to the Trump/ FEMA response but- this is politics as played by the left.

    Vox hates Trump. But midway through this article (in which they declare Trump wrong) you can detect how wild the estimates became and how thin the logic is. https://www.vox.com/2018/9/13/178554...ico-death-toll

    In the first week after the storm, the government announced an official death toll of 16. Immediately, to observers on the ground, this number seemed much too low. The first person to recognize it was Omaya Sosa Pascual, a reporter from the Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, a local investigative journalism group. Sosa Pascual called the 69 hospitals around the island and learned that there were an estimated 60 confirmed deaths linked to the hurricane and possibly hundreds more.

    Several other media outlets, including Vox, and independent researchers then began analyzing government data and reports from the ground. We all found additional evidence that even in the first month after the storm the death toll was much higher than the official count — likely to be more than 1,000. For instance, Vox reported in October 2017 that the death toll was likely more than 450.

    The official death toll, however, was eventually updated to 64 and remained there until August, (11 months later) even after several groups of researchers published their higher estimates in peer-reviewed journals. It took the release of the GWU report, which Gov. Rosselló commissioned himself and was the most comprehensive assessment to date, to give the government the confidence to put out a new official toll.

    But still, even the 2,975 figure is not a list of names but rather a best estimate, according to Rosselló. “This number can change,” Rosselló said in August. “It could be less, it could be more, as time passes.”
    Morons write posts like that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •