Patterico's Pontifications

9/13/2018

Trump: Democrats Are Making Up the Death Toll in Puerto Rico

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:16 am

Because, as usual, it’s all about him:

Electricity was out for months in Puerto Rico, with reports last month that it was finally back being disputed by some residents. Drinking water was a problem for weeks, at least. It’t not facially insane to think that these and other factors could contribute to a rise in deaths after the winds and rain had subsided.

Here’s the study. I’m not interested in your purely partisan insights pro or con, but if anyone has actual thoughts on the actual methodology of the study, leave them below.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

198 Responses to “Trump: Democrats Are Making Up the Death Toll in Puerto Rico”

  1. Did anyone count the bodies or official death records?

    BillPasadena (3511cf)

  2. this study is a joke

    they just created a statistical model to make pretendsies they were counting how many people died

    this is just CNN Jake Tapper exploiting dead people like how they did on those luckless babies in newtown

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  3. oops CNN Jake Tapper *fake news* I mean

    that’s all this is

    it’s just fake news

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  4. Drinking water was a problem for weeks, at least.

    lol that’s cause nasty mayor titty-tee let all the water sit at the airport

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  5. just for convenience here’s how they describe the bogus methodology they used to make up a body count

    We began our analysis with descriptions of age-standardized mortality rates, age-specific rates and rates by level of municipal socioeconomic development after the storm relative to previous years. To estimate counterfactual mortality under the census and displacement scenarios, we developed a series of generalized linear (GLM) overdispersed log-linear regression models using the historical registration data from July 2010 to August 2017.

    These models account for trends in population size and distribution over this period in terms of age, sex and residence by municipal-level socioeconomic development. We used the model results to project forward mortality that would have been expected if the storm had not occurred and the population had not changed (the census scenario), and explicitly accounting for the massive population displacement away from the island occurring during this period (the displacement scenario).

    Comparing these projections to observed mortality in the vital registration data, we arrived at our estimates of excess all-cause mortality attributable to the storm. In addition to the GLM models, we estimated a Generalized Additive Model (GAM) using the same data as a robustness check on the GLM results. The GLM and GAM models make different assumptions and treat the data differently, including in the specification of overdispersion, autocorrelation and long-term and seasonal trends.

    in other words this is an ass-pull

    they have no idea how many people actually died by using this methodology

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  6. The study compared total deaths after the hurricane to a comparable period before the hurricane, adjusted for changes in total population (huge emigration to mainland US after the hurricane.)

    Is this how they counted the death toll from other hurricanes/natural disasters? I don’t know.

    My impression has always been that they looked at actual cause of death and attributed some (drowning, tree fell on victim, victim touched power lines, etc.) to the storm.

    Mike S (89ec89)

  7. Electricity was out for months in Puerto Rico

    electricity was coming back rapidly until CNN Jake Tapper fake news smeared smeared smeared Whitefish (without any evidence of wrong-doing), the contractor that was basically rebuilding the transmission infrastructure from scratch, and forced them to abandon the job, leaving the task to the corrupt and useless Puerto Rican bureaucrats

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  8. Drinking water was a problem for weeks, at least. It’t not facially insane to think that these and other factors could contribute to a rise in deaths after the winds and rain had subsided.

    How many lives would have been saved if they had found the bottled water that was flown in and left on the tarmac?

    AZ Bob (885937)

  9. Electricity was out on a regular basis on Puerto Rico before Maria came thru.

    Neo (d1c681)

  10. there’s no evidence that a single person died of dehydration or from drinking toxic water

    CNN Jake Tapper fake news doesn’t use evidence, they just make up models

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  11. I just read the relevant parts of the study.

    Trump, true to form, just makes up complete falsehoods for his cultists to faithfully parrot:

    If a person died for any reason, like old age, just add them onto the list.

    In truth, the numbers are based on “excess mortality”: the death rate after the hurricane minus the death rate in the past (without a hurricane).

    The mortality rate was 27% higher in the first two months after the storm, and 22% higher in the six months after the storm. These are not small effects.

    The 95% confidence-level range of excess mortality was 2658 – 3290, with the central value of 2975.

    Figure 2 in the report shows that excess mortality for the poorest Puerto Ricans rose steadily for months, in the aftermath of the storm, while neighborhoods were without electricity, clean water or sanitation.

    Other, less comprehensive, earlier studies have indicated that the death toll (excess mortality) was certainly in the thousands.

    Dave (445e97)

  12. it kinda makes you wonder why these lazy corrupt third world islanders did absolutely nothing to prepare for this inevitable hurricane

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  13. Methods
    “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 mortalitydue to the hurricane. We developed a series of generalized linear models (GLMs) with monthly data for the pre-hurricane period of July 2010-August 2017, accounting for trends in population sizeand distribution over this period in terms of age, sex, seasonality and residence by municipal level of socioeconomic development. Our estimates also considered Puerto Rico’s consistently high emigration during the prior decade and dramatic population displacement after the hurricane. We used the model results to project forward mortality that would have been expected if the hurricane had not occurred for two scenarios—if the population had not changed (census scenario), and explicitly accounting for massive post-hurricane population displacement from the island (displacement scenario). For observed mortality, we used records for all deaths occurring from September 2017-February 2018, provided by the Puerto Rico Vital Statistics Records (PRVSR) division of the Puerto Rico Department of Health (DoH). The estimates of excess all-cause mortality attributable to the hurricane are the result of comparing the projections for the census and displacement scenarios to observed mortality in the vital registration data.
    In order to respond to the Puerto Rican Government’s query about how well CDC guidelines for mortality reporting in a disaster were followed, we conducted a two-part study to assess both the death certification process and the quality of death certificate data. We conducted interviews with 26 individuals involved in the death certification and registration process to understand procedures under normal conditions and whether and how these were affected after the hurricane. In addition, we reviewed legislation and manuals related to death certification in Puerto Rico, as well as literature on death certification in general and specifically in disasters. With respect to quality of the death certificates and coding for causes of death, we consulted the relevant scientific literature. We conducted a series of checks on the mortality dataset, assessing it for completeness, timeliness, internal consistency and the quality of cause of death reporting by evaluating garbage codes, or mis-assignments, in the underlying cause of death. Our third study assessed crisis and emergency risk communications by the Government of Puerto Rico before and after Hurricane María, with an emphasis on the communications plans in place at the time
    of the hurricane, trained staff dedicated to crisis
    and emergency risk communication, procedures
    for mortality reporting to the public, spokespeople interaction with the media and key participant perceptions of the government’s risk communication and mortality reporting. For the communication assessment methodology, instruments, and analytical framework, we applied established guidelines from CDC and the World Health Organization (WHO) for communication in emergencies, which are supported by a robust scientific evidence base. We also applied principles from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Whole Community Approach for community-based emergency preparedness (FEMA 2011). We interviewed 11 Puerto Rico Government agency leadership and communications personnel in order to understand: crisis and emergency risk communication plans, processes and interagency coordination for the preparation, approval and dissemination of information to the public; their experiences related to communications before and after Hurricane María; and recommendations for future communications in emergency situations.
    We also interviewed 22 key leaders from different communities in Puerto Rico, representing diverse stakeholder groups including municipal mayors, community and faith leaders, emergency responders, police, non-profit organization personnel, health care providers and funeral directors. In order to formulate recommendations for future communications, planning and perceptions of the government’s risk communication and mortality reporting.

    To assess the post-hurricane information environment, we reviewed 17 press releases and 20 press conferences from September 20, 2017-February28, 2018 to evaluate information content and spokespeople performance, and to determine the extent to which trustworthiness, credibility and accountability were conveyed according to CDC and WHO guidelines. Finally, we analyzed 172 media coverage items from major English- and Spanish- language news outlets during the same time period, as well as related social media commentary, to identify factors that may have contributed to public concerns about mortality reporting, including: reasons and timing of mortality data reporting; contradictory information from spokespeople and alternative sources; information gaps; and perceptions of the accuracy and transparency of the Puerto Rico Government’s mortality reports.

    Excess mortality estimation:
    We estimate that in mid-September 2017 there were 3,327,917 inhabitants and in mid-February 2018 there were 3,048,173 inhabitants of Puerto Rico, representing a population reduction by approximately 8%. We factored this into the migration “displacement scenario” and comparedit with a “census scenario,” which assumed no displacement from migration in the hurricane’s aftermath. We found that, historically, mortality slowly decreased until August 2017, and that rates increased for the period of September 2017 through February 2018, with the most dramatic increase shown in the displacement scenario accounting for post-hurricane migration.

    The results of our analysis of total excess mortality by socio-demographic subgroups show that every social stratum and age group was affected by excess mortality. However, the impact differed by age and socioeconomic status. The risk of death was 45% higher and persistent until the end of the study period for populations living in low socioeconomic development municipalities, and older males (65+) experienced continuous elevated risk of death through February. Overall, we estimate that 40% of municipalities experienced significantly higher mortality in the study period than in the comparable period of the previous two years.

    We conclude that excess mortality is a good indicator for impact monitoring during and in the aftermath of a disaster.”

    Much emphasis on modeling. No doubt, it was much higher than originally reported, but who knows what the exact toll was. I do have a couple of colleagues who live and work in Puerto Rico, I am going to ask for their takes… just out of curiosity.

    Colonel Haiku (3287d7)

  14. here’s a nice overview of all the efforts to date to dummy-up some astronomically high CNN Jake Tapper fake news death numbers

    CNN’s entire business model is based on pimping out dead rotting corpses (real or imagined) for the Democrat Party

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  15. Another important note in the report:

    The official government estimate of 64 deaths from the hurricane is low primarily because the conventions used for causal attribution only allowed for classification of deaths attributable directly to the storm, e.g., those caused by structural collapse, flying debris, floods and drownings (see below). During our broader study, we found that many physicians were not oriented in the appropriate certification protocol. This translated into an inadequate indicator for monitoring mortality in the hurricane’s aftermath.

    Dave (445e97)

  16. 1. What happyfeet said. They made up an estimate of how many people should have died and then compared it to how many actually did die.
    2. Not satisfied with that, they also fooled with the death certificates to attribute as many causes of death as possible to the hurricane.

    nk (dbc370)

  17. The study was done in a rational fashion. A baseline death rate was established from the past several years. The 3,000 number is the excess of the deaths that happened over the period following the hurricane over the deaths that would be expected, based on death and emigration rates in Puerto Rico in the 5 years before the hurricane.

    If there was another reason (other than the chaos caused by the hurricane) for the excess deaths, then this methodology could be a problem. Otherwise, it is reasonable, but not precise. (A plus or minus 5% shift in the numbers would not be out of line).

    Appalled (96665e)

  18. When I was taking statistics, one of our classroom jokes was that doctors in LA went on strike and the death rate dropped to zero. True. That was because there were no doctors to sign the death certificates.

    Figures don’t lie but liars figure.

    nk (dbc370)

  19. “The official government estimate of 64 deaths from the hurricane is low primarily because the conventions used for causal attribution only allowed for classification of deaths attributable directly to the storm, e.g., those caused by structural collapse, flying debris, floods and drownings (see below). During our broader study, we found that many physicians were not oriented in the appropriate certification protocol. This translated into an inadequate indicator for monitoring mortality in the hurricane’s aftermath.”

    ‘oriented in the appropriate certification protocol’ jfc at this blatant Newspeak

    I read that as ‘Doctors were using the actual standards they had been trained in and always been using previously instead of standards we drew up afterward (to not let the crisis go to waste) that were primed to suck as much money as possible out of Big Daddy USA’.

    Nonpartisan Actor (e69291)

  20. The lower numbers cited in the Breitbart piece are all for a brief, two-month period (September and October). They agree quite well with the estimates in the GWU study for the same period (1154 – 1383 deaths). Much of the excess mortality occurred later, however.

    The Breitbart article does not cite a single factual or methodological problem with the GWU study.

    They just don’t like the result since it reflects badly on their cult leader, so they falsely say “Trump is right” when he is provably lying:

    If a person died for any reason, like old age, just add them onto the list.

    That statement is an utterly false description of how the numbers were arrived at.

    Dave (445e97)

  21. get those ricans out of the muddy muddy

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  22. 1. What happyfeet said. They made up an estimate of how many people should have died and then compared it to how many actually did die.

    If by “made up” you mean “calculated from official data, including a quantitative estimate of the uncertainty”, then yes. That is how science is done.

    2. Not satisfied with that, they also fooled with the death certificates to attribute as many causes of death as possible to the hurricane.

    No, they didn’t.

    Dave (445e97)

  23. Figures don’t lie but liars figure.

    It’s easy to lie with statistics.

    But it’s easier to lie without them.

    Dave (445e97)

  24. The study was based on a count of death certificates, compared to prior and subsequent periods and adjusted for changes in population, so the research should be sound. The problem with the death certificates themselves is that physicians weren’t trained in CDC coding, making it difficult to ascertain cause of death. The next phase is to interview family members to get a more definitive result, but I doubt it’ll be outside the range of 2,658 to 3,290. As a frame of reference, Katrina killed 1,000 to 1,800. The real question is why anyone should believe that this president has any credibility, about anything.

    Paul Montagu (9dcfd2)

  25. “If there was another reason (other than the chaos caused by the hurricane) for the excess deaths, then this methodology could be a problem. Otherwise, it is reasonable, but not precise. (A plus or minus 5% shift in the numbers would not be out of line).”

    It is incredibly unreasonable and maliciously imprecise. This is the country ruled by the mayor that let water bottles rot on the runway and kicked out an actively working power restoration organization for no other reason than the money wasn’t going to her people.

    The notion that she and other Puerto Rican officials wouldn’t go further and, say, callously stop any policing of outlying areas in order to spike the death numbers further is not credible.

    Nonpartisan Actor (e0fdd4)

  26. “The problem with the death certificates themselves is that physicians weren’t trained in CDC coding, making it difficult to ascertain cause of death.”

    Yeah, no one ever figured out how to ascertain ’cause of death’ until the CDC rolled up on them, especially not doctors, who deal with death on a daily and routine basis.

    Nonpartisan Actor (4f675d)

  27. I worked for over a year in Puerto Rico about 12 years ago and was struck by a few things.

    The people were overall very nice but for some reason many had chips on their shoulders about the US. On the radio you would often hear how the US should completely butt out of PR affairs but at the same time they would say that the US does not give them enough money or provide enough ‘help’.

    Most of the young people I talked to wanted to relocate to the US.

    Many of the beach villages should have been some of the most beautiful places on earth but they were covered in garbage. The Americans there would say, if you want a clean beach, go to an American resort. One village on the SE side I visited was just a perfect little bay, but the garbage (including dead animals) made at least a 20′ barrier to get to the water.

    There does not seem to be much of a middle class at all. Regardless of class, most homes are mini-fortresses where access to property is through heavy fences/walls. The local power and phone companies (I was a utility auditor) have gigantic lift trucks to reach backyard power poles because they can not get access to backyards. They park in front and the boom goes OVER the houses to reach the power lines.

    The elites seem to control everything. One day I was in San Juan driving back to my apartment during rush hour and there was a HUGE traffic jam. After about a half hour I made it to a bridge over one of the estuaries and there was a large table set up with tablecloth and full luxury place settings and a bunch of people all dressed in white were sitting eating a meal guarded by police. They had closed two lanes to accommodate these folks….I still haven’t figured that one out.

    harkin (fcaff0)

  28. The other thing that’s “unfair!!1!”, is the comparison of their model of expected death rate minus hurricanes with the death rate after this particular hurricane. The fair comparison is to compare death rates following the last 27* or so hurricanes with the death rate after this one.

    *27 is a magic number in statistics for reasons I never understood**.
    **But I still passed the courses.***
    ***Straight As, actually.

    nk (dbc370)

  29. “The study was based on a count of death certificates, compared to prior and subsequent periods and adjusted for changes in population, so the research should be sound.”

    So we looked at the data after covering up for our own people’s incompetence as much as possible, and treating all deaths from post-hurricane government, managerial, and criminal incompetence and opportunism as deaths from the hurricane directly, and concluded that it’s all DRUMPH’S fault.

    Nonpartisan Actor (0f7c21)

  30. BTW, this post definitely falls into the TDS: Schizophrenia category, especially when Pat writes IT’S ALL ABOUT HIM!!! immediately followed by I DON’T WANT TO HEAR YOUR PARTISAN TAKES ON THIS

    Nonpartisan Actor (e69291)

  31. I read that as ‘Doctors were using the actual standards they had been trained in and always been using previously instead of standards we drew up afterward (to not let the crisis go to waste) that were primed to suck as much money as possible out of Big Daddy USA’.

    That would be a false reading.

    The Centers for Disease Control have published detailed guidelines (“A Reference Guide for Certification of Deaths in the Event of a Natural, Human-induced, or Chemical/Radiological Disaster”) for reporting “directly related deaths” (due to the immediate violence and impact of the disaster, like structural collapse, drowning, etc) and “indirectly related deaths” (due to unsafe or unhealthy conditions before, during or after a storm).

    These guidelines were eventually distributed after the storm by Puerto Rican authorities, but were generally not followed with regard to indirectly related deaths, for reasons explained in the report.

    Dave (445e97)

  32. So Trump says the democrats are inflating the numbers. It’s really 6-16, or 64. So then Breitbart gets into it and says ‘Trump’s right, it’s not 3k people, it’s only 1200. So Breitbart is calling Trump a liar, and even their number is 20X higher.

    So the headline should be, Breitbart Says Donald Trump Is A Liar

    Colonel Klink (4bf39a)

  33. That statement is an utterly false description of how the numbers were arrived at.

    I doubt that Trump has any idea how scientific papers on mortality differentials are normally done. It may be that researchers’ personal biases sometimes affect how a study is structured, but flaws of that kind can be discerned by people who are familiar with statistical methods and actuarial science — not by people who believe that anything contrary to their own faith in Trump the Great must be a fabrication to “make him look bad.” And not by people who didn’t object to Trump’s citing of tabloid trash planted by a friend of his to make an opponent look bad.

    Radegunda (07ace3)

  34. #16

    They made up an estimate of how many people should have died and then compared it to how many actually did die.

    Made up =

    “To perform this analysis, we obtained vital registration mortality data
    including deaths by age, sex and municipality of residence from the Puerto
    Rico Puerto Rico Vital Statistics Registry (PRVSR) for the period July 1, 2010
    to February 28, 2018. We derived baseline estimates of population size in
    each month from annual census estimates of population size by age, sex
    and municipality of residence. Cumulative monthly population displacement
    after the storm in each month was estimated using Bureau of Transportation
    Statistics (BTS) data on monthly net domestic migration provided by the
    Puerto Rico Institute of Statistics and a survey of airline travelers provided
    by the Puerto Rico Planning Board (Planning Board 2018).”

    In other words, a normal rate of death was projected using deaths from 2010 to Maria, and compared to the actual rates. The normal rate was figured by averaging out deaths since 2010, and adjusting the rate to reflect Puerto Rico’s declining population that was the result of out migration.

    If the study overstates out-migration, the death rate could have got inflated. The potential inflation would not have explained a jump from under 100 to around 3,000. It might make a 100-200 person difference.

    Appalled (96665e)

  35. Yeah, no one ever figured out how to ascertain ’cause of death’ until the CDC rolled up on them, especially not doctors, who deal with death on a daily and routine basis.

    You didn’t read the report. Your comment isn’t just simplistic, it’s simpleton.

    Paul Montagu (9dcfd2)

  36. So Trump says the democrats are inflating the numbers. It’s really 6-16, or 64. So then Breitbart gets into it and says ‘Trump’s right, it’s not 3k people, it’s only 1200. So Breitbart is calling Trump a liar, and even their number is 20X higher.

    Yeah, the Breitbart shill isn’t even smart enough to realize that all those earlier estimates around 1200 are for September and October only, and entirely consistent with the larger number from the GWU study, which applies to a six-month period.

    Dave (445e97)

  37. “To estimate excess mortality associated with Hurricane María, it was necessary to develop
    counterfactual mortality estimates…”

    I love a scholarly paper that depends on “counterfactual” data to come to a conclusion. I do not believe this word means what they think it means.

    David Longfellow (8cba7a)

  38. There is some subjectivity in revising causes of death months after.

    That’s why they tried to cover their bases by using 7 years of “normal” mortality rates. Not sure why they stopped at only 7 years of history when they could have run from 1990, 2000 and it would be interesting to see how much “excess mortality” by percentage is typically found after hurricanes… with the caveat that every hurricane is different.

    steveg (a9dcab)

  39. Hurricanes kill people.
    Did Maria kill more people in Puerto Rico than previous hurricanes in Puerto Rico?
    That is the real question which the study should have asked.

    If the answer had been yes, would the cause be attributable to the person in charge in Washington DC or the people in charge in Puerto Rico? I know whom I would pick. Whom would you pick?

    nk (dbc370)

  40. I don’t want to hear estimated deaths.
    Give me a wall full of names and causes.

    Ingot9455 (afdf95)

  41. I love a scholarly paper that depends on “counterfactual” data to come to a conclusion.

    Nearly all do.

    Of the 500 or so physics papers I’ve co-authored in peer-reviewed journals, I’d guess at least 95% rely on “counterfactual data” (i.e. an estimate of what would happen in the absence of some effect under study).

    If want to test whether some statement or theory “A” is consistent with my measurements, I have to compare what I expect when A is true with what I expect when A is not true.

    If there is no difference between those two scenarios (at most one of which can be factual), I cannot make any statement about “A” based on my data.

    Dave (445e97)

  42. There is some subjectivity in revising causes of death months after.

    The GWU study did not rely on the causes of death.

    Dave (445e97)

  43. I think this is a more reasonable calculus:

    That study covers three months. The GWU study covers six.

    The results are quite consistent.

    Dave (445e97)

  44. The methodology of the study, using a GLM to estimate average number of deaths and comparing it to reported deaths in addition to two other confirmation efforts, is sound scientifically. One might want to see their code and full algorithm in order to assess whether or not any p-hacking was involved in the process that may or may not have been politically motivated. One might also wonder why they chose the window of time they did 2010 to 2017 and how the estimate would change if the data frame is expanded. It may not make a difference, it may make it look worse, it may make it look better. I can’t know unless someone takes the time to do it.

    One thing that struck me as interesting was that the deaths per thousand over the time period, with the exception of hurricane season spikes, was that the modeled death rate declined over the period as there is a very slight downward slope to the estimates as time moves forward.

    The thing that could be pointed out is that this hurricane was more powerful than most that hit Puerto Rico, that the government actively undermined cooperative efforts (much as Louisiana did), and that 3,000 deaths for a hurricane of this magnitude hitting major population centers is actually a pretty good result. One that could have been lowered by about 1,000 if post-hurricane responses and coordination were less politically charged on all sides.

    Given the political nature of discussions around Maria, I’m more likely to believe that the scholars engaged in p-hacking to inflate the numbers than I would normally be. This skepticism is amplified by my own biases, and thus motivated reasoning, so I’m wary of being too critical. I would like to see an open release of the data and code, but that might actually be available with a rigorous search that I don’t have time to do right now.

    TL;DR — while there is room for p-hacking to get specific results in the study that might make Trump look bad, the overall design of the study looks like solid statistical estimation.

    Infrequent Guest (21fe6a)

  45. did they estimate the number of deaths if Hillary and her soppy granny panties had won?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  46. GOP Senate candidate Rick Scott: Trump is lying

    Dave (445e97)

  47. There is a presumption that Democrats care and Republicans don’t. Therefore, when a natural disaster strikes, the media will attribute that not enough is being done if a Republican is the president. When a Democrat is in office, then it it is purely a natural disaster and the politicians pat each other on the back saying what a great job they are doing just like you-know-who.

    AZ Bob (885937)

  48. This is not the study — it is a report about the progress that the researchers have made with the study. It says something unpleasant about the times we live in that (1) the President took it as a personal affront to himself; and (2) dozens of commenters on patterico.com have either attacked or defended the researchers’ model, even though the report doesn’t include the model.

    Please excuse my strong language, but unless you are one of the researchers — or have read the final paper — having an opinion about the model is a sure sign that you are an idiot.

    For the record, I have a PhD in math and have written and studied hundreds of GLM models over the years. Not that it matters; the GLM model itself wasn’t given in this preliminary report, so my opinion would be as valueless as anyone else’s. Also, just for the record, the report was commissioned by Gov. Rossello, a respectable scientist and Trump ally, and the authors of the report largely confirm what the administration has been saying since the hurricane. Just how thin-skinned is our President?

    Jeffrey Hall (109508)

  49. Because, as usual, it’s all about him

    In this instance is it possible that the media made it about him?

    As far as the stats, I wonder what the modified death tolls are of all hurricanes in the last several decades.

    Maybe Bush killed way more people than previously known.

    BuDuh (6a0eea)

  50. The methodology seems sound… but it’s still a statistical analysis.

    However the raw data input seems suspect. I can’t find in the report that accurately describes how many folks left the island prior to the hurricanes. You’d think the natives would bug out for sure if you know you’re going to get hit with major hurricanes.

    Also, where are the raw counts? At least publish the official raw deaths (regardless if impacted by the storms or not). That’d be a great starting point.

    Additionally, this goes to show that the federal government can only do so much. Trump may be right that his government did all that they could, and it may be true that whatever resources the Feds could’ve provided…the feds delivered. It’s still the responsibility for the local government to maximize those resources for their constituents. Trump and the Feds can’t do that. (my memory harkins to those school buses just parked unused during Katrina).

    I do believe Trump is reflectively defensive here… but, you also have to acknowledge that a) it doesn’t appear that this methodology has been peer-reviewed or supported by other independent analysis and b) if the response to PR was such a disaster, don’t you think the media would still be hammering Trump? (ala, Katrina part-duex??) Or, it’s really bad and we’re just suffering from Trump fatigue?

    whembly (b9d411)

  51. #42 that makes more sense in extrapolating possible storm related deaths.
    “…here were 537 more deaths in September 2017 when compared with September 2016, and 657 more deaths in October 2017 when compared to October 2017. The total two months combined would be 1,194 more deaths—making September 2017 and October 2017 the two months with the most deaths in Puerto Rico for the last three years.”

    whembly (b9d411)

  52. This is not the study — it is a report about the progress that the researchers have made with the study.

    Nothing in the report suggests this.

    The word “preliminary” appears nowhere in the text of the document.

    As this page shows, the document Patrick linked (“Ascertainment of the Estimated Excess Mortality from Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico”) is not listed as interim or with any other similar qualifiers. The executive summary refers to the project in the past tense and makes no suggestion that the results are not final.

    Dave (445e97)

  53. …but, you also have to acknowledge that a) it doesn’t appear that this methodology has been peer-reviewed or supported by other independent analysis and b) if the response to PR was such a disaster, don’t you think the media would still be hammering Trump? (ala, Katrina part-duex??) Or, it’s really bad and we’re just suffering from Trump fatigue?

    It’s true that it hasn’t been peer-reviewed (yet) but it is consistent with other estimates. As for why Trump is taking less of a hit than GW Bush, I think it’s a combination of things. One, the conservative media environment is different today than 13 years ago. Two, Trump is better than Bush at PR, and Obama learned from that when Hurricane Sandy hit. Three, when you’ve made over 5,000 false and misleading statements in 20 months, how can fatigue not set in?

    Paul Montagu (9dcfd2)

  54. Here’s another
    https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/s7dmu

    Narciso (c5ae32)

  55. Maria made landfall in Puerto Rico on Sept 20th. If the additional 537 deaths occurred in the last 10 days of the month this would not have escaped the media and have been overlooked at that time.

    When, in the month, did the additional 537 deaths occur?

    BuDuh (6a0eea)

  56. This seems reasonable to me. I’ve done modeling work in other areas and used similar methods. This passes the smell test.
    They’re clear on their methodology. The results aren’t significantly different from other events. The people doing the work have credentials which indicate they’re competent to do the work. The recommendations they offer seem in line with the results they show. Btw, the report is critical of the government of PR. This isn’t a purely a hit piece on the federal response.

    Time123 (69b2fc)

  57. Because, as usual, it’s all about him:

    Here’s a thought, Pat. Howzabout the LHMFM not making it all about Trump. One of things, just one, is that Trump got attacked for not sending the East Coast hospital ship, USNS Comfort to Puerto Rico.

    Now, the Comfort and the Mercy are fine ships but they need ports. They can’t embark helos or landing craft. The Navy deployed the Kearsarge, Oak Ridge, and later the Wasp. Amphibious assault ships don’t need ports. Which are in short supply after things like hurricanes when they’re clogged with silt, trees, sunken boats, blah blah blah. Do you really want to foul the screws and ruddrers of a hospital ship? The Kearsarge and the Wasp aren’t exactly hospital ships, but they not only deliver Marines but they pick them back up too. They are equipped with 600 dedicated hospital beds and in addition battle dressing stations.

    They were exactly the right ships to send. But I get to hear from ignorami like Hillary! that if Trump didn’t send the Comfort he’s a racist.

    Maybe Trump isn’t wrong when he concludes it’s all about him.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  58. the federal response was way more than this third-whirl un-american poop-hole island deserved in its wildest dreams

    nasty little island of fail

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  59. Comparing and contrasting:

    Abstract: Excess All-Cause Mortality after Hurricane Sandy, NYC 2012-2013 (2015 CSTE Annual Conference)
    https://cste.confex.com/cste/2015/webprogram/Paper4541.html

    Narciso (c5ae32)

  60. Between deceased payee fraud and disability fraud I would be more inclined that while doing a post disaster head count a bunch of already dead or non-existant Puerto Ricans became fungible. They were previously useful for theft of the US Treasury, now they are politically useful.

    BuDuh (6a0eea)

  61. …thoughts on the actual methodology of the study…

    https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/hiroshima-atomic-bombing-1945

    ‘These rare photographs show picture of Hiroshima before and after the first atomic bomb ever detonated over a city. Really chilling images… Nearly 80,000 people are believed to have been killed immediately, with possibly another 60,000 survivors dying of injuries and radiation exposure by 1950. Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park was built on the open field created by the explosion. It is dedicated to the legacy of Hiroshima being the first city on earth to experience the horrors of a nuclear attack, and to the memories of the direct and indirect victims of the bombing.’ – source, rarehistorcalphotos.com

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  62. Seriously, give it a rest.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  63. However the raw data input seems suspect. I can’t find in the report that accurately describes how many folks left the island prior to the hurricanes. You’d think the natives would bug out for sure if you know you’re going to get hit with major hurricanes.

    Bug out where? Every place nearby was in the hurricane’s path too.

    The population of Puerto Rico at the time of the storm was about 3.6 million people. What fraction do you think left the island in the week or so when it would have been possible?

    According to the San Juan International Airport webpage, there about 600 flights weekly to the continental US. Assuming each of those has 300 seats, that makes 180k. But a significant fraction of these (say half) would have been reserved before there was any hurricane threat (i.e. the normal flow of travel to/from the island). So maybe there were ~90k open seats available during the week before the storm (probably less since air traffic would have tailed off to nothing as the storm approached).

    That’s only enough to evacuate 2.5% of the population – assuming they could afford the airfare and a place to stay for an indeterminate period of time. The per capita income in PR is only $11K/year…

    Dave (445e97)

  64. steveg 38,

    Maybe the study started after Hurricane Earl that hit Puerto Rico in 2010. It would skew the results to include a prior hurricane.

    DRJ (15874d)

  65. ‘3000 people did not die in the two hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico. When I left the Island, AFTER the storm had hit, they had anywhere from 6 to 18 deaths. As time went by it did not go up by much. Then, a long time later, they started to report really large numbers, like 3000… This was done by the Democrats in order to make me look as bad as possible when I was successfully raising Billions of Dollars to help rebuild Puerto Rico. If a person died for any reason, like old age, just add them onto the list. Bad politics. I love Puerto Rico! – Philip Francis Queeg – 5:49 AM – Sep 13, 2018′

    And take the tow line; defective equipment, no more, no less, eh, Captain sir?!

    “You’re a sick man, Rico.”- Lt. Zachary Garber [Walter Matthau] ‘The Taking Of Pelham One Two Three’ 1974

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  66. Here is a functional link, DRJ:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Earl_(2010)#Puerto_Rico_and_the_U.S._Virgin_Islands/

    The same thing happened as the other day.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  67. Thanks. Sorry again. I was in a hurry.

    DRJ (15874d)

  68. Puerto Rico was (blankety blanked) up lont before Trump was elected Preezy. The electrical grid was on its last leg in the last century. I’m not Trump fan, just ask Hoagie. But even if Trump has no association with decency, I do. And therefore I can’t blame him for all the world’s ills.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  69. Maybe Trump isn’t wrong when he concludes it’s all about him

    Such a conclusion would ignore the fact that media bias against Republicans and conservatives existed long before his presidency, but it doesn’t appear to have been of any concern to him. And Trump’s tendency to make things “all about him” exists quite independent of that bias.

    Anyway, I want to thank the people weighing in with expertise in statistical analysis (sparing me the effort). On other sites I’m seeing, predictably, a flood of assertions that “They’re just making stuff up to hurt Trump!” — an attitude that’s about as annoying as anything that Trump himself does.

    Radegunda (07ace3)

  70. I agree Puerto Rico has had problems for a long time, Steve57, including poor infrastructure, weak organization, corruption, and the difficulty with handling disasters on an island. But don’t those facts make it more likely there would be more deaths in Puerto Rico than in the States during similar disasters?

    If your point is that it’s not Trump’s fault that Puerto Rico is that way, I completely agree. But I don’t agree with Trump that we know these numbers are inflated.

    DRJ (15874d)

  71. Thank you for weighing in with what annoys you about Trump, Rade. Very helpful.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  72. And therefore I can’t blame him for all the world’s ills.

    Nor can I, by any stretch. But Trump’s demonstrable indifference to facts when he declares himself to be the best ever at everything he does makes it hard to care much if facts might be skewed “to make him look bad.” It isn’t that I would knowingly propagate falsehood in order to hurt him. It’s just that he hasn’t earned any great moral concern in behalf of his ego and image.

    Radegunda (07ace3)

  73. BuDoh, thanks for weighing in with your annoyance that anyone might say something unflattering about Trump, thus demonstrating my point that Trump fans are exceptionally hostile to what should be a normal practice of holding a president to account.

    Radegunda (07ace3)

  74. Dave, all life entails risk. Some people are saying that the Hawaiian islanders are stupid for living on a volcano. How stupid was I for moving from earthquake-ville in Kali to tornado alley in North Texas?

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  75. DRJ, I am only suggesting that Kearsarge and Wasp and the associated ships in the Amphibious Readiness Groups were the right ships to send.

    As to the numbers, I don’t know. It’s my guess that nobody else does.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  76. water and sandwich fixins and blankets and paper towels and electricity and hearty canned soups and stews

    you’re welcome you ungrateful losers

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  77. Where did I say I was annoyed, Rade?

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  78. 62 – Fletch: Hi there. I’m, uh, Harry S. Truman, from Casewell Insurance Underwriters.

    Marvin Stanwyk: Harry S. Truman?

    Fletch: Yeah, well, my parents were were big fans of the, uh, former president.

    Marvin Stanwyk: He was a good man.

    Fletch: He sure was.

    Marvin Stanwyk: He showed the J*** a thing or two.

    Fletch: Oh, yeah. He dropped the Big One, huh?

    Marvin Stanwyk: He dropped two big ones on them.

    _____

    God bless Harry Truman – he saved at least a million American and Japanese lives by ending WW2 short of an invasion of Japan.

    https://youtu.be/ylMbvf3sn_g

    harkin (fb7ea4)

  79. If I were a peer reviewer for a journal considering this paper, one thing that I would be looking at quite critically in the text after reading the precis is this:

    They find “excess deaths” by comparing mortality rate pre storm and post storm, but estimate outmigration to substantially lower the population post-storm.

    So if we are looking at deaths-per-thousand-per-month, but then a substantial portion of the folks with the means and mobility to leave say “i’m outta here”, it is not at all surprising that the deaths/1000 for those left is going to go up, just because of the demographic change.

    There is some attempt to account for the demographic change by splitting and recombining the population after weighting the estimate of outmigration by gender and age, but the age “bins” are pretty coarse. I’d have to dig way deeper into the paper to judge whether that is likely to be a fatal flaw, however.

    Given the incentives here — that if you prove the disaster was worse you may get more resources applied in the future, I think that if any investigator bias in research-design choices are pretty fully attributable to institutional incentives to find more deaths rather than political bias

    Douglas2 (f47112)

  80. Exactly imagine if Downfall had dragged on, not only for the us, but as for the UK, France, which would still be in the war, the soviets would have been invade northern Japan, like they did with Korea.

    narciso (d1f714)

  81. This is not the study — it is a report about the progress that the researchers have made with the study.

    Nothing in the report suggests this.

    The word “preliminary” appears nowhere in the text of the document.

    Well good grief, the phrase “not a bicycle” doesn’t appear anywhere in the document either, does this mean that the document must be a bicycle? No author is given, and the very first words of the document’s title, in large colorful letters on the front cover are “Project Report”, and the the next 69 pages give a report on the project. Clearly, unless the authors are playing some odd sort of joke on us, this must be a project report, not the paper or a preprint of the paper.

    Jeffrey Hall (109508)

  82. Clearly, unless the authors are playing some odd sort of joke on us, this must be a project report, not the paper or a preprint of the paper.

    Because project reports can’t be papers?

    It was a commissioned study. The document is pretty obviously the result. The press release that accompanied release of the document says, in part:

    WASHINGTON, DC (Aug. 29, 2018) — In an independent report published today, researchers at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health (GW Milken Institute SPH) estimated there were 2,975 excess deaths in Puerto Rico due to Hurricane Maria from September 2017 through the end of February 2018. The researchers also identified gaps in the death certification and public communication processes and went on to make recommendations that will help prepare Puerto Rico for future hurricanes and other natural disasters.

    Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico in September 2017 and, soon after, the government of Puerto Rico determined that 64 people had died. Later, unofficial investigations and independent scientific studies suggested that the death toll was likely much higher. To get a more accurate and rigorous assessment, the Governor of Puerto Rico commissioned an independent study from GW Milken Institute SPH.

    Today, GW Milken Institute SPH, in collaboration with researchers from the University of Puerto Rico Graduate School of Public Health, delivered on that request.

    You’re simply wrong. There is nothing in report itself, in the press release, or on the organization’s website that suggests this is anything other than the final report.

    Dave (445e97)

  83. the report’s clearly a hoax-document designed to do propaganda all up in it, which is unfortunate, but american science has been falling further and further into disrepute for a long time now, long before President Trump began helping us

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  84. Thanks, I understand now, Steve57, and that is a good point. The resources have to fit the problem and I think Trump has done well at letting the military do its job.

    DRJ (15874d)

  85. Dave,

    I would point out that there is no way to substantially determine if the deaths are directly or indirectly caused by Hurricane Maria. You have someone who dies of a heart attack three months after the storm, is that an indirect death because of lack of medical facilities or was this person’s ticker a goner no matter what? They did the same thing with Hurricane Katrina; every person who left New Orleans only to die of health issues elsewhere was counted as an indirect result of the hurricane. I think the cut off date they used to determine if it was an indirect death was October 1, 2005. Some of the dearth of reliable statistics is because of the difficulty in getting to the remoter areas of Puerto Rico. And the direct/indirect deaths have always been a bone of contention. Trump’s using direct deaths because its an easier measurement.

    CygnusAnalogMan (9c66ec)

  86. From here, the obvious thing to do is look for Obama-era disaster papers and see what methodology they use to assert deaths. Do they estimate in this method? Or do they just not bother with such a paper while they sing Obama’s praises?

    Silence is golden.

    Ingot9455 (afdf95)

  87. You’re simply wrong. There is nothing in report itself, in the press release, or on the organization’s website that suggests this is anything other than the final report.

    I don’t know what you mean by “final report”. I never used that term. Professors perform research and then write papers when they get results. This is clearly not the paper that will presumably be submitted to a journal about their research: it is a thorough report about their findings for their funders (the government of Puerto Rico.) Until we read that paper, it is pointless to argue about the model used, because we aren’t given a copy of the model. (And if it’s pointless to argue about a report that doesn’t tell us the model, it is just daft to argue about the press release.) .

    President Trump and his critics are making society stupider, but I see no reason to drink their Kool-Aid myself.

    Jeffrey Hall (109508)

  88. #43
    Yet what the study itself does is to reassign the cause of death of over 2870 people to “by hurricane”.

    The study notes: “A few interview respondents indicated some reasons for reluctance to relate deaths to hurricanes, including concern about the subjectivity of this determination and about liability.”

    steveg (a9dcab)

  89. Except the government of Puerto Rico has as much to account for in its handling of the electric grid in the delivery of supplies, in the handling of funds for said purposes.

    Narciso (7b9f03)

  90. I think Trump has done well at letting the military do its job.

    He certainly stayed out of their way by taking a four-day golfing trip during the height of Hurricane Maria!

    Speaking of golfing, anybody remember Lt.General Russel Honoré, the no-nonsense Hurricane Katrina Joint Task Force commander who famously told the press “You are stuck on stupid”? He had some advice in the wake of President Trump’s most recent comments:

    “If I was his boss or standing next to him [Trump] as his Chief of Staff I would kick him on the ankle and say ‘look, focus on the future damn storm…stay off the damn golf course.'”

    Dave (445e97)

  91. DRJ, isn’t it true you always understood?

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  92. plus the other thing to remember is that 3,000 people did not die because of Hurricane Maria

    lol

    this is a CNN Jake Tapper fake news lie

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  93. You originally wrote:

    This is not the study — it is a report about the progress that the researchers have made with the study.

    But as the press release and the report itself make abundantly clear, this is, in fact, the final report of the study that was commissioned, including conclusions on the excess mortality. The researchers themselves describe the study as completed.

    There may well be more technical detail published elsewhere about the methodology, but this is not some kind of “progress report” as you wrongly suggested and, despite all evidence, continue to insist.

    Dave (445e97)

  94. Dave, at 64: note that there’s also sea traffic. Some people, probably not a large percentage but some people, could have left that way.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  95. if these sleazy garbage-scientists can’t produce a list of the 3,000 names of the people who they’re fancifully claiming were killed then guess what

    they’re LIARS

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  96. I would point out that there is no way to substantially determine if the deaths are directly or indirectly caused by Hurricane Maria. You have someone who dies of a heart attack three months after the storm, is that an indirect death because of lack of medical facilities or was this person’s ticker a goner no matter what?

    Precisely. That’s why measuring excess mortality is much more robust and reliable than trying to say “this guy who had a heart attack died due to the storm, but this guy who had a heart attack didn’t”.

    They did the same thing with Hurricane Katrina; every person who left New Orleans only to die of health issues elsewhere was counted as an indirect result of the hurricane.

    If that is what “they” did, then it is not the same thing. What you describe is not excess mortality, it is raw mortality.

    Trump’s using direct deaths because its an easier measurement.

    But the direct deaths have virtually nothing to do with the response. And Trump didn’t make any distinction between direct and indirect deaths. He said the nearly 3000 Americans who died as result of the storm “didn’t die”.

    Dave (445e97)

  97. They’re not liars.

    What they’re saying is “normally during period of time [x] there are [y] deaths. in the period of time [hurricane+x] there were [y+z] deaths. those z deaths are almost certainly hurricane related.”

    you can disagree with the conclusion — hell, argue that correlation isn’t causation and that them proving the existence of this bump in deaths in *correlation* to the hurricane doesn’t prove causation — but that doesn’t make them *liars*.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  98. Dave, at 64: note that there’s also sea traffic. Some people, probably not a large percentage but some people, could have left that way.

    I suppose, although given that sea travel is 10-20 times slower than air, and that planes can safely fly above the center of a storm while ships are adversely affected even hundreds of miles from the center, I don’t think evacuation by sea sounds very practical.

    Dave (445e97)

  99. Ω ΞΕΙΝ ΑΓΓΕΛΛΕΙΝ ΛΑΚΕΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΟΙΣ ΟΤΙ ΤΗΔΕ ΚΕΙΜΕΘΑ ΤΟΙΣ ΚΕΙΝΩΝ ΡΗΜΑΣΙ ΠΕΙΘΟΜΕΝΟΙ

    (GO TELL THE SPARTANS PASSERBY,
    THAT HERE OBEDIENT TO THEIR LAWS WE LIE)

    You and I will not meet. I am faithful to our laws, but they aren’t written. Especially because they aren’t written.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  100. no they’re lying

    they’re saying these many people died from the hurricane

    but you can’t say this is Maria Reyes she died cause she fell into the raging flood waters

    and this is Maria Cantalopa she died when the fearsome winds embedded a small dog in her skull

    and this is Maria Colonica-Alta she was in outside when the baleful hurricane winds caused a tree to topple onto her head, bruising her skull and killing her instantly

    This is how you attribute deaths in a disaster.

    They’re still trying to do exactly this for the 9/11 people who were wrong place/wrong time that day.

    This is how we do.

    It’s a lie to say we just do a lil back-o-the-napkin thing.

    We would never EVER calculate the deaths of real americans in such a fashion.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  101. in outside

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  102. We are pretty good at staying out of our own way, Dave. Want me to mansplain the HMS Rawalpindi to you you?

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  103. We would never EVER calculate the deaths of real americans in such a fashion.

    Indeed.

    “Real Americans” would have never been left without drinking water, electricity, hospitals, food and sanitation, and living in improvised emergency shelters for months.

    Dave (445e97)

  104. we have a very cunning fugitive from the law on our hands here in Chicago

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  105. We are pretty good at staying out of our own way, Dave. Want me to mansplain the HMS Rawalpindi to you you?

    Sure!

    Dave (445e97)

  106. metaphor alert

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  107. But the direct deaths have virtually nothing to do with the response. And Trump didn’t make any distinction between direct and indirect deaths. He said the nearly 3000 Americans who died as result of the storm “didn’t die”.

    Dave (445e97)

    You seem to enjoy playing around with quotation marks. Trump did not write that 3000 Americans who died as result of the storm “didn’t die”. Trump said that 3000 people “did not die in the two hurricanes“, which is a true statement, no matter how awful his pair of tweets were. In ordinary English usage, to say that “X died in even Y” is to say that X died actually during event Y. One would say that “X died as a result of event Y” or maybe “X was a victim of event Y” to describe after-the-fact deaths.

    Omitting the bolded part of the statement turns his true statement into a debatable one.

    Jeffrey Hall (109508)

  108. In ordinary English usage, to say that “X died in even Y” is to say that X died actually during event Y. One would say that “X died as a result of event Y” or maybe “X was a victim of event Y” to describe after-the-fact deaths.

    That depends on whether you view the hurricane as a 1-day weather event or a 6-month disaster, I think.

    Regardless, Trump explicitly made the false claim that every death, whatever the cause, was “added to the list” and (in his typical ignorance) he seems to entirely discount the possibility that lack of water, sanitation, electricity, etc, for an extended period of time could lead to deaths long after the storm’s initial impact. That shows how little he understood or cared about the situation on ground.

    Dave (445e97)

  109. Real Americans would have raided a distillery in Scotland. Because it’t just what we do.

    But steve, what about the HMS Rawalpindi?

    Dave (445e97)

  110. i don’t like challenge coins i think they’re ticky-tack

    does that make me a bad person

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  111. If someone dies of a heart attack caused by the stress of dealing with the hurricane, but we can’t prove that that’s what caused the hurricane, is it a lie to say they died as a result of the hurricane or that the hurricane caused their death?

    aphrael (3f0569)

  112. Ok, maybe it wasn’t one of the first six frigates. And now, I tell you this wit a great deal of pride. The Brits told their Sailors to not take on the Americans one for one. One for one, an American was worth two of theirs.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  113. Yes it’s fudging the numbers

    hurricane deaths are deaths what you can attribute to a hurricane with a reasonable degree of certainty

    that’s what hurricane deaths are

    how is this even complicated

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  114. Omitting the bolded part of the statement turns his true statement into a debatable one.

    But then Trump stepped in it when he said, “When I left the Island, AFTER the storm had hit, they had anywhere from 6 to 18 deaths. As time went by it did not go up by much.” It actually went up by a LOT, and then he added another falsehood: “…This was done by the Democrats in order to make me look as bad as possible…” It’s typical Trump, compounding his lies, one atop another, impugning the motives of others when his own motives are suspect.

    Paul Montagu (cef528)

  115. And now, I tell you this wit a great deal of pride. The Brits told their Sailors to not take on the Americans one for one. One for one, an American was worth two of theirs.

    Something having to do with spinach consumption, isn’t it?

    :)

    Dave (226325)

  116. does that make me a bad person
    happyfeet (28a91b) — 9/13/2018 @ 1:59 pm

    does that make me a bad person
    happyfeet (28a91b) — 9/13/2018 @ 1:59 pm

    Well, not really.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  117. ok good

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  118. So second and third order effects can now be considered first order?

    This is a non serious thread. Also a non serious, anti-intellectual premise by the studies authors.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  119. Reminds me of global warming models….

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  120. Steve57,

    I understand now that your comment was about Trump being unfairly blamed for the response by the hospital ships. It is true that your earlier comment was primarily about the response by the hospital ships. However, you began with a more general statement about the media (I think) blaming Trump and then you specifically gave the hospital ship response as an example. I did not understand that to be your only point. I do now.

    DRJ (15874d)

  121. Have they announced which golf course Trump will use as his crisis response headquarters this time?

    Dave (226325)

  122. Maybe a golf course in San Diego where he can strum on a guitar.

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/08/hurricane-katrina-george-w-bush-new-orleans

    Munroe (a257fb)

  123. DRJ, the last thing I want to do is argue.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  124. what’s kooky is this junk puerto rico study uses the exact same methodology the lancet used to inflate Iraq War deaths

    Mr. patterico was unequivocally skeptical and critical and skeptical of the lancet study

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  125. and DRJ was also did the skeptical all up in it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  126. but that was then

    what changed

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  127. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Lewis_B._Puller_(ESB-3)

    This ship is purpose built to provide disaster relief. I once thought that Chesty wouldn’t have wanted a tanker named after him. But speaking as a tug boat Sailor, maybe he wouldn’t have minded.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  128. what’s kooky is this junk puerto rico study uses the exact same methodology the lancet used to inflate Iraq War deaths

    No it doesn’t.

    The Lancet used surveys to estimate the raw mortality rate.

    The GWU study uses certified deaths.

    Dave (226325)

  129. “Have they announced which golf course Trump will use as his crisis response headquarters this time?”

    Dave (226325) — 9/13/2018 @ 2:48 pm

    He’s changing it up, he’ll be setting up shop in your expansive cranial cavity. Oh, wait… that’s no change!!!

    Colonel Haiku (3287d7)

  130. same idea

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  131. I don’t either, Steve57. I didn’t think we were arguing. I thought we were just talking. What makes you feel like this is an argument?

    DRJ (15874d)

  132. same idea

    The Lancet study is like trying to accurately determine the average size the male sex organ by surveying a bunch of dudes. The problem is that the dudes are gonna exaggerate.

    The GWU study is like trying to find the same thing by actually measuring them (that sounds really gross, but for the right price some of President Trump’s girlfriends would do it…)

    Dave (226325)

  133. Off-topic: CNN reporting that “brave” Paul Manafort is about to cop a plea with Mueller in his second trial…

    Dave (226325)

  134. if he could keep the cash in the freezer, like the judges former client, when she was before the previous judge

    narciso (d1f714)

  135. What makes you feel like this is an argument?

    Too easy…

    :)

    Dave (226325)

  136. according to the GWU methodology Florence has already killed upwards of 2,000 people, many of whom aren’t even dead yet

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  137. according to the GWU methodology Florence has already killed upwards of 2,000 people, many of whom aren’t even dead yet

    nuh-uh

    Dave (445e97)

  138. Off topic,

    google in the tank like facebook and twitter and the rest of the left to manipulate elections and steer our country into a socialist shipwreck.

    NJRob (1d7532)

  139. Any concerns about foreign donations, excessive donations or manipulation of elections due to Google and tech’s interference?

    NJRob (1d7532)

  140. Dave you keep building these walls between us

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  141. Or there’s the left through Feinstein trying to torpedo Judge Kavanaugh by “Roy Moore’ing him.”

    NJRob (1d7532)

  142. Well played, Dave 137.

    DRJ (46c88f)

  143. did Kavanaugh go to high school with dirty fungus-riddled hooker stormy daniels

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  144. cowardly spend-pig Paul Ryan sez

    ‘No reason to dispute’ Puerto Rico death toll

    this is a boy who takes whatever daddy romney wants to give him, however he wants to give it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  145. Eddie haskell just makes me all twitchy, did he fins those wheelchairs thrown over the cliff.

    narciso (d1f714)

  146. If Chino shoots Tony because Tony stabbed Bernardo because Bernardo stabbed Riff, did Maria kill them? And is Dwight D. Eisenhower to blame?

    nk (dbc370)

  147. which death toll does Mitt Romney’s panting and leg-splayed little boy insist is indisputable exactly?

    The New York Times calculated 1,052 deaths through October.

    The Center for Investigative Reporting calculated 985 through October.

    University of Puerto Rico-Mayagüez professors calculated 822, with a 95 percent confidence range that the total was somewhere between 605 and 1,039.

    Pennsylvania State University professors calculated excess deaths of about 500 in September, or a total of 1,085 if the same pattern held in October. That estimate was based on six weeks of mortality records.

    A Latino USA analysis, using updated data from Puerto Rico’s Department of Health, calculated 1,194 excess deaths in September and October.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  148. How many excess deaths did Harvey cause in Texas?
    Versus how many billions of dollars, by whatever metric — total, per person or per square mile — the federal government spent to help Texas compared to the respective numbers for Puerto Rico?
    Or maybe we don’t want to look at that because we’ll find out that Texas is America and Puerto Rico is Calcutta-In-The-Caribbean?
    Ever since Bush was blamed for Katrina because the politicos of Bangladesh-On-The-Bayou couldn’t figure out how to divide the loot and graft, I have no credence for any mopes pointing fingers at Republican administrations. Or their “studies”.

    nk (dbc370)

  149. Tucker Carlson just had teh Creepy Porn Lawyer on and it’s a wonder no punches were exchanged, lol.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  150. Texas got 5 billion, which they only started distributing in June, puerto Rico got 16 billion

    narciso (d1f714)

  151. After Andrew, there were rumors of refrigerator trucks cull of bodies, roaming the streets, its funny then chilies wasnt accountable even though he waited three days to declare an emergency

    narciso (d1f714)

  152. Yup.

    nk (dbc370)

  153. Don’t get me started on lennar that seem to have build half of homestead, filling support beam with tomato cans.

    narciso (d1f714)

  154. NoBK, that’s on Alfred Thayer Mahan, Wm. McKinley and T. Roosevelt, at least the Cubans and Fillies dull some of the adverse edges of that dog wag.

    urbanleftbehind (77f429)

  155. “what’s kooky is this junk puerto rico study uses the exact same methodology the lancet used to inflate Iraq War deaths

    I was waiting for someone to bring up the ridiculous Iraq numbers thrown around by the leftists. Love that it’s someone who gets it.

    Anyone who died in Iraq during that time was blamed on Bush for not allowing magnificent humanitarian Sadaam Hussein to keep the peace. Radical Islam and Shiite/Sunni feuds?? Never heard of them.

    harkin (fb7ea4)

  156. BTW, this post definitely falls into the TDS: Schizophrenia category, especially when Pat writes IT’S ALL ABOUT HIM!!! immediately followed by I DON’T WANT TO HEAR YOUR PARTISAN TAKES ON THIS

    Ssssshhh. Adults are speaking.

    Yes, nothing says “I am deranged because of Trump!!!1!” like saying “I am uninterested in partisan takes from either side but would prefer actual analysis and logic-based arguments.”

    It’s also clearly “derangement” to observe when a dishonest narcissist acts dishonestly and narcissistically, making every issue about him, and making false claims in the process.

    Those who claim TDS, as I observed elsewhere, are the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Adults start just ignoring you.

    Patterico (52aafa)

  157. Since there’s no way of knowing exactly how many deaths in Puerto Rico are directly attributable to Hurricane Maria, 6 deaths, 18 deaths, 1,200 deaths, 3,000 deaths, and 14 million deaths are all equally probable. Just like if you don’t know exactly how much the neighbor’s dog weighs, half-an-ounce, 30 pounds, and 75 tons are all equally valid guesses.

    Jerryskids (702a61)

  158. No the other surveys are more methodologically sound, but seriously
    What does it matter, when the big one comes and Harris and waters are making the same type of charges, I guess the same response will be in order.

    Narciso (e81e98)

  159. Hi DRJ

    I understand going back to the last hurricane, but statistically that gives us only one sample to check against.
    I think if we can get back closer to the Impossible NK gold standard of statistical results (27) we can be sure, but until there is more than one hurricane to enter, it is an algorithm created without enough underlying facts to make an absolute determination

    steveg (a9dcab)

  160. Since there’s no way of knowing exactly how many deaths in Puerto Rico are directly attributable to Hurricane Maria, 6 deaths, 18 deaths, 1,200 deaths, 3,000 deaths, and 14 million deaths are all equally probable. Just like if you don’t know exactly how much the neighbor’s dog weighs, half-an-ounce, 30 pounds, and 75 tons are all equally valid guesses.

    That is just a fallacy, everything possible is not equally probable, that’s not how probability works, or plain common sense. Heck, 4 people died on the US mainland due to Maria when it was only a tropical storm when it blew through.

    Remember that Puerto Rico was hit by Hurricane Irma just 2 weeks prior, where 7 died and 1/3rd of the island was still without power, when Maria hit, and had yet to have been able to recover from Irma. Imagine if Houston was hit with a Cat 5 hurricane 2 weeks after Harvey, where well over 100 people died just by direct causes.

    Other Caribbean and Central American countries have had similar storms with as many as 20k deaths, Sure, Puerto Rico is more developed sure, but it’s not Houston, and you couldn’t just drive away, or drive in supplies, afterward, remember “This is an island surrounded by water, big water, ocean water.” Yeah, it is.

    Colonel Klink (f9132f)

  161. That is just a fallacy, everything possible is not equally probable

    I assumed he was being facetious. If not…LOL.

    Just like if you don’t know exactly how much the neighbor’s dog weighs, half-an-ounce, 30 pounds, and 75 tons are all equally valid guesses.

    Obviously there are no half-ounce or 75 ton dogs, so this seemed to give the game away…

    Dave (445e97)

  162. Is the report purporting to be an absolute determination?

    If we went back 70-100 years, where would we get the data on deaths to analyze?

    DRJ (15874d)

  163. I think that Trump is right that direct, no wriggle room deaths are around 65. The other deaths include too many of the “lady died of diabetes because her idiot relatives ‘forgot to give her the insulin’ because of the hurricane” or “my idiot son in law died of electrocution due to downed powerlines while looting the 7-11, 7 days after landfall” variety along with other less (much less) nefarious and negligent but no less tangential reasons.

    To the other readers, I used the word; direct, for a reason. Everything else needs conjecture or subjectivity. Or an algorithm

    steveg (a9dcab)

  164. Lets say that a month after the hurricane a woman drinks some rum and hits a tree that was downed by the hurricane and still in place uncleared. She dies. She would not have died if there was not a hurricane. Agreeing this is an excess death, is it her fault or the hurricanes fault?

    steveg (a9dcab)

  165. Good lord, they’re not counting ALL deaths since the hurricane, for any reason. If you’re just going to be obtuse through willful ignorance, stupidity, or sport; then there is no conversation possible.

    Colonel Klink (572cbb)

  166. Agreeing this is an excess death, is it her fault or the hurricanes fault?

    It’s obviously an excess death attributable to the hurricane, to the extent that her chance of dying during the same period would be reduced if the tree had been cleared away (or never fallen in the first place).

    There’s a reason we don’t normally leave fallen trees in the middle of our streets.

    Dave (445e97)

  167. In Houston/Hurricane Harvey, this is how they distinguished between direct and indirect deaths:

    Hurricane Harvey has directly or indirectly taken the lives of as least 88 Texans, according to preliminary numbers released Friday by the Department of State Health Services.

    The majority of deaths – 62 – were caused by wind, rain and floods, which led to drownings or trees falling on people.

    Meanwhile, 26 deaths were caused by “unsafe or unhealthy conditions” related to the loss or disruption of services such as utilities, transportation and medical care. The state health agency found deaths caused by medical conditions, electrocution, traffic accidents, flood water-related infections, fires and burns.

    Deaths from natural causes are considered indirectly related to Harvey if physical or mental stress caused by the storm exacerbated “pre-existing medical conditions and contributed to death,” the agency said.

    DRJ (15874d)

  168. So, steveg, I think all your examples are direct or indirect hurricane deaths if we use the same standard that Texas used.

    DRJ (15874d)

  169. Yeah, since jerryskids is not a Trump-worshiping buffoon, I think he was kidding.

    Funny that you can imagine an actual Trump-worshipping buffoon making a comment like that though.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  170. This study was done so irresponsibly to further the electoral ambitions of carmen him in, imagine if mayor main had the audacity to run for office after Katrina, then again we have a smaller version of this with gillum

    Narciso (e81e98)

  171. @ Col. Klink 162 – Wait, are you telling me that since either the Sun will rise tomorrow morning or the Sun will not rise tomorrow morning, that’s not a 50/50 probability the Sun will rise in the morning? I guess I have seriously misunderstood probabilities.

    Yes, I was just pointing out the utter ridiculousness of even entertaining the idea that a mere 6 people died in a major hurricane in Puerto Rico – you don’t need any sort of study to know that number doesn’t even pass the sniff test. And yet here we have the usual suspects arguing that since we don’t have the names and numbers and signed death certificates to provide proof, why, any number of deaths at all is a plausible number.

    Jerryskids (702a61)

  172. Since there’s no way of knowing exactly how many deaths in Puerto Rico are directly attributable to Hurricane Maria, 6 deaths, 18 deaths, 1,200 deaths, 3,000 deaths, and 14 million deaths are all equally probable.

    There’s some heated competition, but I nominate that one for Most Unscientific Comment of the Day.

    Paul Montagu (64b81b)

  173. Jerryskids–ya got me

    Colonel Klink (3714bc)

  174. In these times recognizing satire is hard.

    Colonel Klink (3714bc)

  175. Let me in on the key. If she’s a woman who will love me back, she’s the real deal.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  176. I am probsbly making a huge mistake. Some lost all. All lost some. I was divorced over the fact my wife didn’t understand why I returned to the fight. But that’s just the fact.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  177. Here’s the deal. She was and is a fine woman.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  178. Dave @ 129

    Certified deaths, yes. But they say in the introduction that the death certificates were not always filled out correctly to match up with CDC standards and the physicians expressed unhappiness with how this GWU team was interpreting the data. If you are a physician with five patients who died during the time frame in question, but let’s say only one died as a direct cause of the storm (drowning, getting hit by debris, etc) two died from indirect results (infection, lack of needed medicine, heart attacks caused by the stress) and three died from non-related causes (cancer,old age, etc) but GWU says they all died because of the storm, wouldn’t you be unhappy too?

    CygnusAnalogMan (9c66ec)

  179. Certified deaths, yes. But they say in the introduction that the death certificates were not always filled out correctly to match up with CDC standards and the physicians expressed unhappiness with how this GWU team was interpreting the data.

    I don’t recall that statement. There was no interpretation of the death certificates involved in the excess mortality study. They studied how the death certificates were filled out to understand why so few indirect deaths were reported and how doctors could be trained to provide more accurate (i.e. CDC-compliant) data in the future.

    If you are a physician with five patients who died during the time frame in question, but let’s say only one died as a direct cause of the storm (drowning, getting hit by debris, etc) two died from indirect results (infection, lack of needed medicine, heart attacks caused by the stress) and three died from non-related causes (cancer,old age, etc) but GWU says they all died because of the storm, wouldn’t you be unhappy too?

    But that’s not what they did. The GWU study did not specifically identify the people who were “excess”. That is the whole point – they couldn’t, because the death certificates weren’t filled out in a way that would have allowed it.

    Instead, they estimated how many were excess by

    a) Counting the number of real, certified deaths from all causes
    b) Subtracting the expected number of deaths for the same time period based on data from years with no hurricane

    Dave (445e97)

  180. There are reasons why Puerto Rico might want to inflate its death toll as high as possible.

    “The release of the George Washington University study comes as the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Maria approaches on Sept. 20, and Congress considers the island government’s request for federal aid to rebuild from the storm…

    In the document that Puerto Rico’s government filed to Congress earlier this month, island officials detailed an ambitious reconstruction proposal. The 531-page plan included requests for $139 billion worth of projects, including housing initiatives and energy investments.

    Since Oct. 1, 2017, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has designated more than $13.7 billion for Puerto Rico. There is no money specifically to help Puerto Rico in the government funding bills that both chambers are considering for next year. The bills would appropriate $7 billion for FEMA’s disaster relief fund, some of which would go to Puerto Rico. But that funding isn’t intended to help with the long-term projects that the island is requesting.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/puerto-ricos-hurricane-maria-death-toll-now-estimated-at-nearly-3-000-1535475600?mod=hp_lead_pos3

    Colonel Haiku (3287d7)

  181. This study didn’t count actual bodies on the ground, or look at how they died. It calculated the total number of deaths in the period under discussion, and compared them to death tolls in the same period in previous years, then classified the discrepancy as “hurricane Maria deaths”. It did so without actual, physical evidence that the hurricane or its aftermath had actually caused the deaths in question – it assumed that. This was a wholly statistical analysis.

    “What are the facts? Again and again and again – what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history” – what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!”

    —- Robert Heinlein

    Colonel Haiku (3287d7)

  182. 182. Dave (445e97) — 9/14/2018 @ 4:58 am

    The GWU study did not specifically identify the people who were “excess”. That is the whole point – they couldn’t, because the death certificates weren’t filled out in a way that would have allowed it.

    This is alittler like excess Caesarian sections. You can tell that must be true, unless everywhere they are performing too few, but that’s ridiculous. Bbut you can’t easily point out which ones shoudn’t have been done.

    Instead, they estimated how many were excess by

    a) Counting the number of real, certified deaths from all causes
    b) Subtracting the expected number of deaths for the same time period based on data from years with no hurricane

    Without any explanation as to HOW many many people may have died, the study is useless, and the recommendations they make are just vapid rhetoric that translated into give more money to anybody who claims to know how to spend it. They shouldn’t have made any recommendations whatsoever in that case. Maybe teh recommendation is a dog whistle for something.

    There have been explanations in newspaper stories. Some are quoted above: infection, lack of needed medicine, heart attacks caused by the stress. You could add that people did not get emergency treatment, Lack of air conditioning could have contributed to that.

    Probably some of them are truly attributable to the storm, or rather the destruction caused by the storm, and some may be too remote.

    Now some thoughts:

    This occurred withot there being any massive epidemics. It’s one by one. This can be legitimatye.

    You can always derive statistics like this from periods of cold weather etc (cold weather – where people are not used to it – is more deadly more than hot weather. The excess cold weather deaths s seem mainly to be related to blood clots and infections. The effect persits for a month or two,)

    The initial numbers were too low and did not include cases anybody could find out where the death was clearly linked to the storm. Now this may be too high, and in any case is not understandable.

    I think they overcorrected for population displacement, because the people who moved to the mainland were disproportionately healthy, except for some few who were very sick.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  183. There was some study that looked at individual cases, so you can know there is more. This study, I think, assumed that the people who left Puerto Rico were just as unhealthy as those who remained!

    The figures using the Census scenario are probably more accurate. the counterfactual will actualy give you a more accurate result (and if you added any deaths of people who moved to the mainland, you’d then get a really good figure

    I cannot seem to find the number of excess deaths according to the census scenario.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  184. Another study that some people ar ehaving trouble with (and actually forced a retraction which shouldn’t have happened) is that there are sudden, and localized, epidemics of gender dyphoria among biys and girls.

    You may not be able to point to any particuuular one (except of course if you assume ALL these cases are not what peopple say they are) but there clearly is an element of contagion.

    That contradicted the new conventional dogma that all sexual orientations etc are not affected by any social factors, which meant it couldn’t possibly be true.

    https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/08/rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-study-criticism-is-not-censorship-its-good-science.html

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  185. You can prove a lot with statistics. Sometimes things that true. But the statistics don’t mean you understand it.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  186. If that is an actual Heinlein quote, I question his statement that they “calculated the total number of deaths.” The report was based on actual death certificates filed by Puerto Rico physicians and pathologists. The report said the death certificates were accurate as to gender and age of the deceased. They did not make up deaths.

    Perhaps Heinleins’ point is that we don’t have treating physicians’ decisions on most death certificates regarding whether the deaths were a direct, indirect or unrelated result of the hurricane. That is true, and the report acknowledged and explained why that is. That is also why the report is an estimate based on modeling.

    DRJ (15874d)

  187. Colonel Haiku @184 probably should be: “calculated the total number of EXCESS deaths.”

    I think they overcalculated it because they should not have adjusted for population loss. The people who left the island were probably healthier than the people who stayed even of the same age and gender and wouldn’t have died if they had stayed on the island either.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  188. CNN got information from funeral directors and got asnumber of 499 late last year (2017) who knew more than the death certificated revealed.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  189. The big problem is that that study did not answer the quesiton of HOW did Hurricame Maria cause these deaths? It maybe did it similar to the way an increase in age does it. It made everything a little bit worse.

    I didn’t even get what was the percentage increase in the death rate.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  190. This study, I think, assumed that the people who left Puerto Rico were just as unhealthy as those who remained!

    No. It increased the expected death rate of people who stayed behind (which would reduce the excess mortality). You can see that in Figure 1 (IIRC) of the report.

    Dave (445e97)

  191. There are reasons why Puerto Rico might want to inflate its death toll as high as possible.

    That’s why they commissioned an independent study by one of the leading public health research institutes in the world.

    Dave (445e97)

  192. GWU says 400+ Florence deaths so far (and counting)

    it’s basically genocide

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  193. “If that is an actual Heinlein quote, I question his statement that they “calculated the total number of deaths.”

    The paragraph with the quotation marks was the quote from Heinlein, he’s been dead for 30 years so he wouldn’t be aware of teh hurricane.

    Or would he???

    Colonel Haiku (3287d7)

  194. There is no obvious reason to think that the study of excess deaths in PR has an upward bias, and the PR study is a lot better than the 2006 Lancet/Iraq one, because the PR study uses official death reports, rather than people’s recollections of dates of past deaths. But we don’t know what percent of deaths were recorded prior to the hurricane or after; the study authors figured this percentage did not change significantly as quality of the existing death certificates did not change significantly (even as there were delays in issuing death certificates after the hurricane). We also don’t know if the people who fled PR were more or less sickly than the people who remained, even though the study factored out differences in age/sex/income.

    The study says: “details on the methodology, data and programs used in the excess mortality calculations… will be made available online at: http://prstudy.publichealth.gwu.edu/ ” But these details do not appear to be there yet.

    DWPittelli (7d543e)

  195. But we don’t know what percent of deaths were recorded prior to the hurricane or after;

    Can you explain this? I think the report says the death certificates were filed correctly, and the only anomaly was a post-hurricane increase in the time between the dates the certificates were filled out and the dates they were officially filed. (Certificates that had typically been filed within 12 days after death were filed within 17 days after the hurricane, a not surprising delay.) I don’t recall any confusion regarding pre- vs post-hurricane deaths, but I may have missed something.

    DRJ (15874d)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5978 secs.