Play Nice 45th President of the United States: Donald Trump - Part 6 - It begins. (cont in pt 7)

[bourbons]

Really? He's a proud white racist, the only reason he would take harshly to an individuals mental health being questioned is because he's the subject of said questioning.

I wouldn't say racist, but the rest yeah absolutely. No issues with the almost daily replies of 'TDS' or similar questioning of mental state in reply to posters in this thread - but the second some of it his directed his way he has a sook. Massive snowflake imo.

 

[PurpleEyes]

No I'm just waiting for some sort of basis for the dispute other than "people don't like Trump".

Why did you pick this one out as exaggerated?

The Milken report is nowhere near as bad as the Harvard report ... I'll concede that.
But the Milken report does state something about reducing mortality rates in the previous decade when the CIA World FactBook shows different data to that. The Milken report appears to put a great deal of weight on what I believe are false mortality stats and what they term displacement scenario, hence their predicted deaths are considerably greater than the data produced by the Puerto Rico Department of Health that shows recorded/observed deaths.

Now unless the Puerto Rico stats are missing large numbers of actual deaths, then I'm confident the Harvard report has exaggerated estimates via their predicted deaths calculations. I'm always suspicious when a report is so lengthy but has little information showing their raw data, how to find it and their calculations that led to their conclusions.

The other part of this discussion which is far more just my subjective opinion/concern is the way these reports classify and consider a death to be attributed to the Hurricane. There have been anecdotal accounts like a 95 year old dying due to the Hurricane, when he suffers a heart attack and can't get adequate treatment due to power problems at a medical centre. Now, one can argue that the Hurricane may have contributed to the death, but the age/health of the person plus power problems from an electricity infrastructure that was in decay prior to the Hurricane may have contributed moreso.

Is this going to be the standard where all deaths become part of the official fatalities, if the disaster can be blamed in any way whatsoever ... which appears to have happened here where predicted deaths appear to be much greater than any apparent increases in deaths recorded by the Puerto Rico Department of Health.

 

[floodbuster]

Oh, this is funny. Apparently Trump has taken to skulking around the WH and won't talk to anybody at all.

He has cancelled all meetings, there is literally thousands of people who work there and he is avoiding everyone like the coward he is.

I can imagine him walking down a corridor and peering around a corner to see if anyone is there and if there is he will wait until they move on.

 

[Gough]

Oh, this is funny. Apparently Trump has taken to skulking around the WH and won't talk to anybody at all.

He has cancelled all meetings, there is literally thousands of people who work there and he is avoiding everyone like the coward he is.

I can imagine him walking down a corridor and peering around a corner to see if anyone is there and if there is he will wait until they move on.

Doing lines and ranting like a demented man at the ghost of R.M. Nixon.

 

[floodbuster]

I wouldn't say racist, but the rest yeah absolutely. No issues with the almost daily replies of 'TDS' or similar questioning of mental state in reply to posters in this thread - but the second some of it his directed his way he has a sook. Massive snowflake imo.

When I say racist I'm only going by what he regards himself in his profile, I don't think he has anything of any consequence to make to a conversation.

To talk about him like this and not too him is the best way to treat him as he is like a fly that is constantly there ready to cut and paste another piece of verbal poo at a moments notice.

 

[PurpleEyes]

How about these articles?

https://caribbeanbusiness.com/puert...-its-commissioned-report-on-hurricane-deaths/
The issue of deaths in Puerto Rico from Hurricane Maria took an unexpected turn this week after a new independent study, published by the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, came to light, which sets the number of victims at 4,645, which is 70 times more than the 64 deaths reported by the local government.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1803972
Quantifying the effect of natural disasters on society is critical for recovery of public health services and infrastructure. The death toll can be difficult to assess in the aftermath of a major disaster. In September 2017, Hurricane Maria caused massive infrastructural damage to Puerto Rico, but its effect on mortality remains contentious. The official death count is 64.
Methods
Using a representative, stratified sample, we surveyed 3299 randomly chosen households across Puerto Rico to produce an independent estimate of all-cause mortality after the hurricane. Respondents were asked about displacement, infrastructure loss, and causes of death. We calculated excess deaths by comparing our estimated post-hurricane mortality rate with official rates for the same period in 2016

Thanks for those links.
I'm big on the maths ... And here we have 3299 randomly chosen households. Puerto Ricos mortality rate is typically around 8 per 1,000 people. Let's say there are 4 people at each household just for arguments sakes. That gives us 3,299 x 4 / 1,000 x 8 = 105.5 expected deaths.
The danger here is that is an extremely small sample size. You would only need to get 10 more deaths than expected and using some of the methodologies described in these reports, that could easily translate into an extra predicted 3,000 deaths attributed to Hurricane Maria.

This is the danger of these reports when you use a very small sample size and use that to predict ... when really, the only way to get a proper accurate idea is to use the recorded/observed deaths from Puerto Rico and find the cause of the death. Why go and do a survey on 3,299 random households when surveying even 500 of the next of kins of those people who died during Sep'17-Feb'18 would likely result in a report that is 5 times more accurate.

 

[floodbuster]

Doing lines and ranting like a demented man at the ghost of R.M. Nixon.

That’s exactly what I thought when I heard that.

 

[yebiga]

Beyond doubt. Still waiting for you to provide a single instance of me calling anyone an idiot though, you squibbed that one.

I did notice that, had a chuckle. Although your point would be stronger if Maggie herself did it, or if I didn't tag you.

Me me me me

 

[Father Jack]

Doing lines and ranting like a demented man at the ghost of R.M. Nixon.

There is no way Elvis is missing that party

 

[bourbons]

Me me me me

Says the bloke who took the time to research my posts lol

'Rent free' I believe is the term?

 

[Maggie5]

Thanks for those links.
I'm big on the maths ... And here we have 3299 randomly chosen households. Puerto Ricos mortality rate is typically around 8 per 1,000 people. Let's say there are 4 people at each household just for arguments sakes. That gives us 3,299 x 4 / 1,000 x 8 = 105.5 expected deaths.
The danger here is that is an extremely small sample size. You would only need to get 10 more deaths than expected and using some of the methodologies described in these reports, that could easily translate into an extra predicted 3,000 deaths attributed to Hurricane Maria.

This is the danger of these reports when you use a very small sample size and use that to predict ... when really, the only way to get a proper accurate idea is to use the recorded/observed deaths from Puerto Rico and find the cause of the death. Why go and do a survey on 3,299 random households when surveying even 500 of the next of kins of those people who died during Sep'17-Feb'18 would likely result in a report that is 5 times more accurate.

I think there is little more to be gained so at least can we agree on the following?

There were many more deaths than 64 and the constant reference to this much earlier number unnecessary?

Trump was wrong to tie in a 'Democrat' conspiracy to the unfortunate loss of lives in Puerto Rico for political points.

The response to the disaster was poor.

 

[Maggie5]

'Rent free' I believe is the term?

Me too although I would prefer eviction.

 

[yebiga]

Says the bloke who took the time to research my posts lol

'Rent free' I believe is the term?

Well how does that make sense? Your posts are about you.

Maggie can you engage your latent maternal instincts to assist here with a hug.

 

[yebiga]

I think there is little more to be gained so at least can we agree on the following?

There were many more deaths than 64 and the constant reference to this much earlier number unnecessary?

Trump was wrong to tie in a 'Democrat' conspiracy to the unfortunate loss of lives in Puerto Rico for political points.

The response to the disaster was poor.

Puerto Rico, Florence and Stormy all came.
But The storm is still coming.

 

[Financialpanther]

Stormy all came.

No evidence of this.

 

[Maggie5]

Puerto Rico, Florence and Stormy all came.But The storm is still coming.

Think that Trump might have come as well, especially with Stormy.

 

[Satan]

Puerto Rico, Florence and Stormy all came.
But The storm is still coming.

 

[Chief]

The Milken report is nowhere near as bad as the Harvard report ... I'll concede that.
But the Milken report does state something about reducing mortality rates in the previous decade when the CIA World FactBook shows different data to that. The Milken report appears to put a great deal of weight on what I believe are false mortality stats and what they term displacement scenario, hence their predicted deaths are considerably greater than the data produced by the Puerto Rico Department of Health that shows recorded/observed deaths.

Now unless the Puerto Rico stats are missing large numbers of actual deaths, then I'm confident the Harvard report has exaggerated estimates via their predicted deaths calculations. I'm always suspicious when a report is so lengthy but has little information showing their raw data, how to find it and their calculations that led to their conclusions.

The other part of this discussion which is far more just my subjective opinion/concern is the way these reports classify and consider a death to be attributed to the Hurricane. There have been anecdotal accounts like a 95 year old dying due to the Hurricane, when he suffers a heart attack and can't get adequate treatment due to power problems at a medical centre. Now, one can argue that the Hurricane may have contributed to the death, but the age/health of the person plus power problems from an electricity infrastructure that was in decay prior to the Hurricane may have contributed moreso.

Is this going to be the standard where all deaths become part of the official fatalities, if the disaster can be blamed in any way whatsoever ... which appears to have happened here where predicted deaths appear to be much greater than any apparent increases in deaths recorded by the Puerto Rico Department of Health.

As covered in the report, if the disaster contributed to a death it should be recorded.

The report notes that medical professionals were not sure how to record this information. There was no system in place. Therefore their health authorities had no idea what to attribute to a natural disaster.

So the study went through and applied their methodology to come up with a more accurate figure.

The difference in death toll numbers, it turns out, are entirely expected. It would have been an unlikely event that the numbers did match.

Have another read of the report, without skimming “filler”.

Why did they do this?

To hurt Trump?

That’s what Trump says.

Or would it have been to work out how to reduce loss of life in future disasters?

 

[armpit]

Oh, this is funny. Apparently Trump has taken to skulking around the WH and won't talk to anybody at all.

He has cancelled all meetings, there is literally thousands of people who work there and he is avoiding everyone like the coward he is.

I can imagine him walking down a corridor and peering around a corner to see if anyone is there and if there is he will wait until they move on.

In *this* forum, surprised you didn't get more likes.

 

[Showbags]

In *this* forum, surprised you didn't get more likes.

Trump acting like a triggered beta male snowflake is a daily occurrence so barely rates a glance.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Oh, this is funny. Apparently Trump has taken to skulking around the WH and won't talk to anybody at all.

He has cancelled all meetings, there is literally thousands of people who work there and he is avoiding everyone like the coward he is.

I can imagine him walking down a corridor and peering around a corner to see if anyone is there and if there is he will wait until they move on.

I missed this story. Where did it run?

 

[bfff]

Now unless the Puerto Rico stats are missing large numbers of actual deaths, then I'm confident the Harvard report has exaggerated estimates via their predicted deaths calculations. I'm always suspicious when a report is so lengthy but has little information showing their raw data, how to find it and their calculations that led to their conclusions.

Did you actually read the report? There is a very visible link to the data and the code used.

As for random sampling? Well if you know anything about stats one of the fundamentals of nearly all statistical tests, models or predictors is the data must be independent. i.e. they have to take random samples or any of the statistical methods they apply are not valid.

 

[Chief]

Thanks for those links.
I'm big on the maths ... And here we have 3299 randomly chosen households. Puerto Ricos mortality rate is typically around 8 per 1,000 people. Let's say there are 4 people at each household just for arguments sakes. That gives us 3,299 x 4 / 1,000 x 8 = 105.5 expected deaths.
The danger here is that is an extremely small sample size. You would only need to get 10 more deaths than expected and using some of the methodologies described in these reports, that could easily translate into an extra predicted 3,000 deaths attributed to Hurricane Maria.

This is the danger of these reports when you use a very small sample size and use that to predict ... when really, the only way to get a proper accurate idea is to use the recorded/observed deaths from Puerto Rico and find the cause of the death. Why go and do a survey on 3,299 random households when surveying even 500 of the next of kins of those people who died during Sep'17-Feb'18 would likely result in a report that is 5 times more accurate.

3300 houses is not an extremely small sample size.

 

[floodbuster]

I missed this story. Where did it run?

I heard it on a vid first but here is the original link
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/tr...e-bombshell-book-everybody-inside-knows-true/

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I heard it on a vid first but here is the original link
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/tr...e-bombshell-book-everybody-inside-knows-true/

Sounds like Sherman at Vanity Fair.