DNC / CTR online Astroturfing in full effect!

[Highway Star]

But this is all a clever distraction from the main issue - the relief effort has been a disaster - maybe worse than Katrina, which Obama was soundly criticized for. One thing you have to give Trump credit for is the clever way that he's able to distract people away from his primary failure into something else entirely like how to calculate a death toll properly.

Katrina was GWB, but yes ... Trump is a wizard of distraction.

You're referring to XJ2001 as a member of the left?!? LOL

Right? That's how far right the right has moved. I'm now considered a liberal.

Actually, you're a MSM zombie. Which is pretty significantly to the left, though, you might think you're "right" compared to how left the MSM is.

Trump is a centrist, which is why he seems like a radical right winger from your perspective.

[Kpdemello]

I'd be willing to believe a couple hundred directly caused deaths.

Yeah, well, science disagrees with you.

Check out this article, which goes into some depth as to the difficulty of estimating the death toll and the science used to analyze it. Bottom line, there was never an official count by medical examiners because PR didn't have the resources, so everything is an estimate based on statistics, mortality rates, and surveys, with those estimates ranging from around 800 to around 8,000. 3k is not outside the ballpark by any means, and a couple hundred is well below the lowest estimate.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... ane-maria/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Highway Star]

But this is all a clever distraction from the main issue - the relief effort has been a disaster - maybe worse than Katrina, which Obama was soundly criticized for. One thing you have to give Trump credit for is the clever way that he's able to distract people away from his primary failure into something else entirely like how to calculate a death toll properly.

No, PR is just pissed that Trump won't shovel them piles of cash to get them out of the debt crisis they put themselves in. Thus they are having a pity party and the MSM gets to blame Trump for PR's incompetence.

[Highway Star]

I'd be willing to believe a couple hundred directly caused deaths.

Yeah, well, science disagrees with you.

Using statistics to manipulate numbers out of your ass is not "science".

[XtremeJibber2001]

But this is all a clever distraction from the main issue - the relief effort has been a disaster - maybe worse than Katrina, which Obama was soundly criticized for. One thing you have to give Trump credit for is the clever way that he's able to distract people away from his primary failure into something else entirely like how to calculate a death toll properly.

Katrina was GWB, but yes ... Trump is a wizard of distraction.

You're referring to XJ2001 as a member of the left?!? LOL

Right? That's how far right the right has moved. I'm now considered a liberal.

Actually, you're a MSM zombie. Which is pretty significantly to the left, though, you might think you're "right" compared to how left the MSM is.

Trump is a centrist, which is why he seems like a radical right winger from your perspective.

I know what Trump is, but put me in the camp that does not accept results in lieu of decorum ... not as POTUS nor in any other part of my life. Just because I reject someone that's lewd, doesn't mean I'm suddenly against conservative values and part of the left.

[Highway Star]

I find it extremely amusing that the NYT is doing data "analysis".

[Kpdemello]

I'd be willing to believe a couple hundred directly caused deaths.

Yeah, well, science disagrees with you.

Using statistics to manipulate numbers out of your ass is not "science".

You're right. It's not science. It's magic! The same kind that keeps Trump's skin orange in winter.

[Kpdemello]

No, PR is just pissed that Trump won't shovel them piles of cash to get them out of the debt crisis they put themselves in. Thus they are having a pity party and the MSM gets to blame Trump for PR's incompetence.

Actually, this particular news incident started when Trump was asked about Puerto Rico in light of the impending hurricane and told people the relief effort was an unsung success when it was anything but.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I'd be willing to believe a couple hundred directly caused deaths.

Yeah, well, science disagrees with you.

Using statistics to manipulate numbers out of your ass is not "science".

You're right. It's not science. It's magic! The same kind that keeps Trump's skin orange in winter.

I think HS is a smart dude ... if he opened the study I'm sure he could at least demonstrate the mathematical basis of his disbelief.

[Highway Star]

I'd be willing to believe a couple hundred directly caused deaths.

Yeah, well, science disagrees with you.

Using statistics to manipulate numbers out of your ass is not "science".

You're right. It's not science. It's magic! The same kind that keeps Trump's skin orange in winter.

I think HS is a smart dude ... if he opened the study I'm sure he could at least demonstrate the mathematical basis of his disbelief.

I've reviewed the studies.

The premise that people are "disadvantaged" by the hurricane and thus it is responsible for their death is a logical fallacy. The people that contributed to the increased death rate were already in a significantly weakened condition.

The overall increase in death rate was approximately 1 to 2 out of 1000.

That means about 990 of 1000 people whom were "disadvantaged by the Hurricane" kept on living in it's aftermath, and that 9 of the 10 people who died, would have died anyway, regardless of the hurricane. They endured hardships but were otherwise fine.

What does that say about the people who died, but otherwise wouldn't have - the 1 in 1000? Well, it says that they were in really shitty shape. Typically old or with health conditions, poor and in remote areas.

It's a logical fallacy to claim that the hurricane "caused" those peoples deaths. When only 1 in 1000 people deemed to be an "excess death", it can only be considered to be an incremental factor in those deaths. Their deaths were OVERWHELMINGLY caused by their preexisting conditions and circumstances.

Here's one of the sh*t, politically motivated studies:

https://issuu.com/coleccionpuertorrique ... ated_exces" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Kpdemello]

Your critique makes very little sense and makes a lot of assumptions. So your explanation for the statistical excess deaths is "they would have happened anyway" ? That seems like a pretty big logical assumption. It's also mere assumption on your part that an increase in deaths is due to the deceased being somehow feeble rather than clobbered by trees or drowned in floods.

Aside from that, you're making assumptions about the premise. The studies I looked at didn't talk about people being "disadvantaged" by the hurricane, they looked at statistical death rates. If more people died after the hurricane than in the same time frame during a similar period before it, adjusting for population growth etc., doesn't that strongly suggest those deaths were caused by the hurricane?

I mean admittedly it's not an exact thing, but it's a pretty logical way to arrive at the estimate. Unless you're a Trump supporter, I guess.

It's all kind of academic, anyway. You're claiming we shouldn't consider people "disadvantaged" by the hurricane, but why then are we bothering to compile these death toll statistics? Isn't the whole point to determine what kind of devastation this hurricane wrought, how it affected the people, and what we need to do to address it? If that's the goal, shouldn't we consider how this "disadvantaged" the population? In any case, there's nothing here that suggests that the relief effort was an "unsung success" in any way, shape, or form.

[Highway Star]

Your critique makes very little sense and makes a lot of assumptions. So your explanation for the statistical excess deaths is "they would have happened anyway" ? That seems like a pretty big logical assumption. It's also mere assumption on your part that an increase in deaths is due to the deceased being somehow feeble rather than clobbered by trees or drowned in floods.

Aside from that, you're making assumptions about the premise. The studies I looked at didn't talk about people being "disadvantaged" by the hurricane, they looked at statistical death rates. If more people died after the hurricane than in the same time frame during a similar period before it, adjusting for population growth etc., doesn't that strongly suggest those deaths were caused by the hurricane?

I mean admittedly it's not an exact thing, but it's a pretty logical way to arrive at the estimate. Unless you're a Trump supporter, I guess.

It's all kind of academic, anyway. You're claiming we shouldn't consider people "disadvantaged" by the hurricane, but why then are we bothering to compile these death toll statistics? Isn't the whole point to determine what kind of devastation this hurricane wrought, how it affected the people, and what we need to do to address it? If that's the goal, shouldn't we consider how this "disadvantaged" the population? In any case, there's nothing here that suggests that the relief effort was an "unsung success" in any way, shape, or form.

Have you read the study? I literally provided a synopsis of it. I don't dispute the content of the study, I dispute the illogical attribution of fault assigned by them and the resulting media spin.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Your critique makes very little sense and makes a lot of assumptions. So your explanation for the statistical excess deaths is "they would have happened anyway" ? That seems like a pretty big logical assumption. It's also mere assumption on your part that an increase in deaths is due to the deceased being somehow feeble rather than clobbered by trees or drowned in floods.

Aside from that, you're making assumptions about the premise. The studies I looked at didn't talk about people being "disadvantaged" by the hurricane, they looked at statistical death rates. If more people died after the hurricane than in the same time frame during a similar period before it, adjusting for population growth etc., doesn't that strongly suggest those deaths were caused by the hurricane?

I mean admittedly it's not an exact thing, but it's a pretty logical way to arrive at the estimate. Unless you're a Trump supporter, I guess.

It's all kind of academic, anyway. You're claiming we shouldn't consider people "disadvantaged" by the hurricane, but why then are we bothering to compile these death toll statistics? Isn't the whole point to determine what kind of devastation this hurricane wrought, how it affected the people, and what we need to do to address it? If that's the goal, shouldn't we consider how this "disadvantaged" the population? In any case, there's nothing here that suggests that the relief effort was an "unsung success" in any way, shape, or form.

Have you read the study? I literally provided a synopsis of it. I don't dispute the content of the study, I dispute the illogical attribution of fault assigned by them and the resulting media spin.

These ‘uncertainties’ are accounted for with a 95% CI. So somewhere in the interval is the true number, which would still be considered significant by most.

I think we can agree (a) Democrats didn’t create these numbers and (b) the federal response in the aftermath of Maria was poor.

[Bubba]

Your critique makes very little sense and makes a lot of assumptions. So your explanation for the statistical excess deaths is "they would have happened anyway" ? That seems like a pretty big logical assumption. It's also mere assumption on your part that an increase in deaths is due to the deceased being somehow feeble rather than clobbered by trees or drowned in floods.

Aside from that, you're making assumptions about the premise. The studies I looked at didn't talk about people being "disadvantaged" by the hurricane, they looked at statistical death rates. If more people died after the hurricane than in the same time frame during a similar period before it, adjusting for population growth etc., doesn't that strongly suggest those deaths were caused by the hurricane?

I mean admittedly it's not an exact thing, but it's a pretty logical way to arrive at the estimate. Unless you're a Trump supporter, I guess.

It's all kind of academic, anyway. You're claiming we shouldn't consider people "disadvantaged" by the hurricane, but why then are we bothering to compile these death toll statistics? Isn't the whole point to determine what kind of devastation this hurricane wrought, how it affected the people, and what we need to do to address it? If that's the goal, shouldn't we consider how this "disadvantaged" the population? In any case, there's nothing here that suggests that the relief effort was an "unsung success" in any way, shape, or form.

Have you read the study? I literally provided a synopsis of it. I don't dispute the content of the study, I dispute the illogical attribution of fault assigned by them and the resulting media spin.

These ‘uncertainties’ are accounted for with a 95% CI. So somewhere in the interval is the true number, which would still be considered significant by most.

I think we can agree (a) Democrats didn’t create these numbers and (b) the federal response in the aftermath of Maria was poor.

No, it was an unsung success. Get with the program.

[Highway Star]

Your critique makes very little sense and makes a lot of assumptions. So your explanation for the statistical excess deaths is "they would have happened anyway" ? That seems like a pretty big logical assumption. It's also mere assumption on your part that an increase in deaths is due to the deceased being somehow feeble rather than clobbered by trees or drowned in floods.

Aside from that, you're making assumptions about the premise. The studies I looked at didn't talk about people being "disadvantaged" by the hurricane, they looked at statistical death rates. If more people died after the hurricane than in the same time frame during a similar period before it, adjusting for population growth etc., doesn't that strongly suggest those deaths were caused by the hurricane?

I mean admittedly it's not an exact thing, but it's a pretty logical way to arrive at the estimate. Unless you're a Trump supporter, I guess.

It's all kind of academic, anyway. You're claiming we shouldn't consider people "disadvantaged" by the hurricane, but why then are we bothering to compile these death toll statistics? Isn't the whole point to determine what kind of devastation this hurricane wrought, how it affected the people, and what we need to do to address it? If that's the goal, shouldn't we consider how this "disadvantaged" the population? In any case, there's nothing here that suggests that the relief effort was an "unsung success" in any way, shape, or form.

Have you read the study? I literally provided a synopsis of it. I don't dispute the content of the study, I dispute the illogical attribution of fault assigned by them and the resulting media spin.

These ‘uncertainties’ are accounted for with a 95% CI. So somewhere in the interval is the true number, which would still be considered significant by most.

I think we can agree (a) Democrats didn’t create these numbers and (b) the federal response in the aftermath of Maria was poor.

Again, you've completely missed the point. If the person didn't die during the storm, from injures sustained from it or from being trapped by it, they literally are not a fatality of the storm. Period. That's how storm fatalities are counted. Period.

If you want to start debating the response to the storm and if you want to legitimately allege that an inadequate response to the storm resulted in unnecessary deaths, then produce some hard, specific facts regarding how people died and how neglect was the direct, majority cause of it vs. preexisting conditions. I dare you.

Nobody cares about some BS statistical study saying that "disadvantaged" people died at a higher rate over a 6 month period. That happens all around the world every day. Leftist academics LOVE and LIVE to make statistical manipulations in studies to allege all sorts of farcical conclusions.