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

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

Chief said:
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?
Click to expand...

This is one of those situations where my simple maths and logic immediately told me something stinks with these studies reporting excess deaths of the thousands. And the more I research this topic the worse this stinks.
My latest 15 minutes of research led me to data from the US Census showing Puerto Rico's population and specifically, their Estimated populations for ages 65 years and older.

Here's what I found;

( https://factfinder.census.gov/faces...w.xhtml?pid=ACS_17_1YR_S0103PR&prodType=table )

According to data from US Census, since the year 2010, Puerto Rico's population has steadily decreased from 3,722,133 to 3,337,177 (2017).
But, the Estimated population 65 years and over has gone from 545,721 up to 658,755 in 2017.
That is, while the population has decreased by a little over 10% the aged (>=65yrs) has increased by over 20%.
This is why Puerto Rico's mortality rate has been increasing (since 2009) even though their population has been decreasing.

The Milken report does not cater for this! Why?
The Milken report actually states there is a reduction in mortality. This is a lie and is not supported by the data released by Puerto Rico's Department of Health, this US Census data or the CIA World FactBook. Why?
The Milken report justifies their low predicted/expected deaths (if no Hurricane) due to their low population and low mortality rates. Which is not accurate. Why? Clearly by doing so exaggerates the difference between the recorded/observed and their predicted deaths. FAKE NEWS!!!

This is clearly observed when you look at the following table from the Milken report;
upload_2018-9-18_0-46-4.png

This table clearly shows that the majority of their Excess deaths (2,975-1,271=1,704) comes from the months Nov'17-Feb'18.
Yet, according to the data supplied by Puerto Rico's Department of Health, for the months of Nov'16-Feb'17 (ie. the previous year) there was 10,547 recorded deaths. After the Hurricane 12months later (Nov'17-Feb'18), the recorded deaths are 10,760. That difference/increase is nothing statistically extraordinary ... unless you weight your calculations heavily by pretending there is a large drop in the population and mortality rate resulting in a supposed drop in predicted/expected deaths. This is a failed methodology that does not account for the fact that most of the population decrease is coming from younger people leaving. Younger people who are less likely to contribute to Puerto Rico's mortality rates.

Again, simple maths shows that if you look at this table and isolate their data for the months of Nov'17-Feb'18 you have;
Observed Deaths = 10,687 (16,608-5,921)
Predicted = 8,983 (13,633-4,650)
We can now find Milken's weighting for these months to be a calculated reduction of 16%
How is it that Milken's can justify a 16% weighting from the observed deaths for those months, when during those months there was only a 2% increase from the previous year (and a 6% increase from 2 years before). And also remember that there had been a 4% increase in recorded deaths for the two previous calendar years (because even though the population was decreasing, >=65yrs was increasing together with the mortality rate).

I'm telling you, this report is unbelievable, illogical & FAKE!!! ... and the Harvard one is even worse.
 
Last edited:
Chief said:
3300 houses is not an extremely small sample size.
Click to expand...
Chief, the study is not to study households ... it is to study deaths.
When you likely need to survey over 3,000 households just to study 100 odd deaths ... that's false science and a very poor methodology.

Again, why would they not just study the recorded deaths?
Unless they are trying to prove that Puerto Rico are falsifying recorded deaths?
Which brings me to the question of why CNN have sued Puerto Rico for them to release data relating to possible Hurricane Maria victims.
Further evidence as to why Trump feels these numbers are politically motivated. In the article I read about this CNN were making a big deal about why a person who died during the storm clean up was not included in the official numbers. Now they may argue that the CDC guidelines state he should be included as Hurricane Maria contributed to his death ... but it is obvious here that the only real way to accurately show official deaths would be for all deaths from Sept'17 on to be reviewed and classified appropriately.
Personally, I doubt that will ever happen because it would most likely show an official number considerably less than 3,000.
 
Last edited:
Another FAKE NEWS article/report found during my research;

( https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180531084249.htm )

This article claims that the Harvard report found an increase in the mortality rate of 62%. What the Heck?

"The researchers concluded that the original estimate of 64 excess deaths due to Hurricane Maria is likely to be a substantial underestimate. The study estimates a death rate of 14.3 deaths per thousand [95% CI 9.8 to 18.9] between September 20 (date of Hurricane Maria) and December 31, 2017, up from a rate of 8.8 deaths per thousand at the same time in 2016. About one third of the reported deaths in the households surveyed in the study were attributed to delayed or prevented access to medical care."

Now once again, simple maths can show this report and article can only be accurate if Puerto Rico are not registering/recording their dead. Highly unlikely.

According to the Milken report, there was an estimated population of ... "We estimated that in mid-September 2017 there were 3,327,917 inhabitants and in mid-February 2018 this number was 3,048,173 inhabitants of Puerto Rico".
So, even if we use extremely conservative numbers here and pretend that the Puerto Rico population had shrunk down to 3,000,000 immediately after the Hurricane (not true) that would still mean that there should have been close to 11,988 recorded deaths for 20th Sep'17 - 31st Dec'17 (3,000,000 / 1,000 x 14.3 x 102 days / 365 = 11,988). Yet the data produced by the Puerto Rico Department of Health recorded/observed just 11,459 for 1st Sep'17-31st Dec'17. Milken stated it was 11,375.
So even when we low ball the population and include an extra 19days of September, we still can't produce the high predicted deaths that this Harvard study got. That is, the mortality was not 14.3 ... it was much less.

Once again the Maths don't work and that reported 62% was FAKE NEWS!!! ... nevermind their upper range estimate for the mortality rate of 18.9 deaths per thousand.
 
Last edited:
bfff said:
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.
Click to expand...

But the studies are supposed to be to help determine how many deaths were associated with Hurricane Maria.
If you are going to take random samples, you should be doing it on the deaths recorded with the Puerto Rico authorities.
Using random households to first find deaths to then find deaths associated to the Hurricane is including an additional variable to the equation, making the accuracy of the final estimation less confident.
Are people here seriously suggesting that these studies needed to check if Puerto Rico have recorded deaths?
I don't think that was part of the objectives of the studies.
Given Puerto Rico have provided monthly statistics of recorded deaths for the period in discussion, a simple audit of any month involving a simple count of death certificates would quickly highlight any failings in regards to recording deaths.

The reports did comment on delays in processing death records, but I didn't think they were claiming that people have died and not been recorded as deaths.
The studies are focused on finding what deaths are associated to the Hurricane and again, surely the most accurate way to produce that would be by studying the details of the deaths ... not households.
 
PurpleEyes said:
Another FAKE NEWS article/report found during my research;

( https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180531084249.htm )

This article claims that the Harvard report found an increase in the mortality rate of 62%. What the Heck?

"The researchers concluded that the original estimate of 64 excess deaths due to Hurricane Maria is likely to be a substantial underestimate. The study estimates a death rate of 14.3 deaths per thousand [95% CI 9.8 to 18.9] between September 20 (date of Hurricane Maria) and December 31, 2017, up from a rate of 8.8 deaths per thousand at the same time in 2016. About one third of the reported deaths in the households surveyed in the study were attributed to delayed or prevented access to medical care."

Now once again, simple maths can show this report and article can only be accurate if Puerto Rico are not registering/recording their dead. Highly unlikely.

According to the Milken report, there was an estimated population of ... "We estimated that in mid-September 2017 there were 3,327,917 inhabitants and in mid-February 2018 this number was 3,048,173 inhabitants of Puerto Rico".
So, even if we use extremely conservative numbers here and pretend that the Puerto Rico population had shrunk down to 3,000,000 immediately after the Hurricane (not true) that would still mean that there should have been close to 11,988 recorded deaths for 20th Sep'17 - 31st Dec'17 (3,000,000 / 1,000 x 14.3 x 102 days / 365 = 11,988). Yet the data produced by the Puerto Rico Department of Health recorded/observed just 11,459 for 1st Sep'17-31st Dec'17. Milken stated it was 11,375.
So even when we low ball the population and include an extra 19days of September, we still can't produce the high predicted deaths that this Harvard study got. That is, the mortality was not 14.3 ... it was much less.

Once again the Maths don't work and that reported 62% was FAKE NEWS!!! ... nevermind their upper range estimate for the mortality rate of 18.9 deaths per thousand.
Click to expand...
People died.
 
Don't know if this belongs here but quite funny and if you were to try and draw a link to Trump well you could say he really talked up the hurricane beforehand...
But yeah, this would be drawing a very long bow.
 
Last edited:
Just listening to MSNBC before and how these Republican mega donors (one of which I mentioned the other day) have been leaving the GOP and one of the analyst's brought up a good point about why Trump's approval rating is so high within the GOP itself.

Apparently since last year the Republicans have had an exodus of between 10 and 15 million people nationwide that don't identify as Republicans any longer and places like Colorado have had a surge in Democratic members of 330%.

So even though Trump's approval within the party is still in the high 70's or so they are really just the people who haven't left the sinking ship.

I wonder if this is one of those be careful what you wish for moments.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

PurpleEyes said:
Chief, the study is not to study households ... it is to study deaths.
When you likely need to survey over 3,000 households just to study 100 odd deaths ... that's false science and a very poor methodology.
Click to expand...
This isn't going anywhere.

You have no idea what you are talking about.
 
DnU3yUkUAAA3SWk.jpg
 
Chief said:
This isn't going anywhere.

You have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

And this is what I see so very often.
A dismissive response that ignores the contents of the post and instead attacks the poster.
Your responses wrongly included you haven't read it to you have no idea.
But this is what I have come to expect from so many anti-Trumpers when confronted with evidence contrary to their chosen narrative.
 
PurpleEyes said:
And this is what I see so very often.
A dismissive response that ignores the contents
Click to expand...
Because the content is generally terrible.


"They're studying deaths"

They're studying the population, working out the cause of deaths amongst the representative, randomly sampled group.

300px-Simple_random_sampling.PNG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)


This is a process you're basically saying is invalid. Come on.

Then you go and use figures that are disputed by the results of the study, to show that the study is wrong. Without using anything beyond simple arithmetic.

And the result is.... the Democrats made up the numbers to hurt Trump!

It is ludicrous.

So what about this particular study (the one Trump is claiming is made up by the Democrats) was done incorrectly? What statistical technique was applied badly? What makes the study itself invalid?
 
Last edited:
PurpleEyes said:
This is one of those situations where my simple maths and logic immediately told me something stinks with these studies reporting excess deaths of the thousands. And the more I research this topic the worse this stinks.
My latest 15 minutes of research led me to data from the US Census showing Puerto Rico's population and specifically, their Estimated populations for ages 65 years and older.

Here's what I found;

( https://factfinder.census.gov/faces...w.xhtml?pid=ACS_17_1YR_S0103PR&prodType=table )

According to data from US Census, since the year 2010, Puerto Rico's population has steadily decreased from 3,722,133 to 3,337,177 (2017).
But, the Estimated population 65 years and over has gone from 545,721 up to 658,755 in 2017.
That is, while the population has decreased by a little over 10% the aged (>=65yrs) has increased by over 20%.
This is why Puerto Rico's mortality rate has been increasing (since 2009) even though their population has been decreasing.

The Milken report does not cater for this! Why?
The Milken report actually states there is a reduction in mortality. This is a lie and is not supported by the data released by Puerto Rico's Department of Health, this US Census data or the CIA World FactBook. Why?
The Milken report justifies their low predicted/expected deaths (if no Hurricane) due to their low population and low mortality rates. Which is not accurate. Why? Clearly by doing so exaggerates the difference between the recorded/observed and their predicted deaths. FAKE NEWS!!!

This is clearly observed when you look at the following table from the Milken report;
View attachment 560003

This table clearly shows that the majority of their Excess deaths (2,975-1,271=1,704) comes from the months Nov'17-Feb'18.
Yet, according to the data supplied by Puerto Rico's Department of Health, for the months of Nov'16-Feb'17 (ie. the previous year) there was 10,547 recorded deaths. After the Hurricane 12months later (Nov'17-Feb'18), the recorded deaths are 10,760. That difference/increase is nothing statistically extraordinary ... unless you weight your calculations heavily by pretending there is a large drop in the population and mortality rate resulting in a supposed drop in predicted/expected deaths. This is a failed methodology that does not account for the fact that most of the population decrease is coming from younger people leaving. Younger people who are less likely to contribute to Puerto Rico's mortality rates.

Again, simple maths shows that if you look at this table and isolate their data for the months of Nov'17-Feb'18 you have;
Observed Deaths = 10,687 (16,608-5,921)
Predicted = 8,983 (13,633-4,650)
We can now find Milken's weighting for these months to be a calculated reduction of 16%
How is it that Milken's can justify a 16% weighting from the observed deaths for those months, when during those months there was only a 2% increase from the previous year (and a 6% increase from 2 years before). And also remember that there had been a 4% increase in recorded deaths for the two previous calendar years (because even though the population was decreasing, >=65yrs was increasing together with the mortality rate).

I'm telling you, this report is unbelievable, illogical & FAKE!!! ... and the Harvard one is even worse.
Click to expand...
I think that this article explains some of your questions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.8f583d1272a1

To set the record straight, our study was carried out with no interference whatsoever from any political party or institution. It was based on a careful examination of all of the deaths officially reported to the government of Puerto Rico between September 2017 and February 2018. Our scientists, in collaboration with scientists at the University of Puerto Rico Graduate School of Public Health, used state-of-the-art mathematical modeling to compare the total number of deaths during that time to the expected number of deaths, based on historical patterns as well as age, sex, socioeconomic status and migration from the island.

Make no mistake: The death toll did continue to rise in the months after Maria. In September 2017, when Puerto Rico recorded a total of 2,906 deaths, we found there was an excess of 574 deaths above what would have been expected in a year without the storm. The death toll continued to mount every day, with an excess of 697 deaths in October, 347 in November, 479 in December, 558 in January and 320 in February, for a total of 2,975.

Throughout that time, researchers produced other estimates. The government of Puerto Rico came up with a figure of 64 excess deaths through October 2017; the New York Times, 1,052 through October 2017; a team at Harvard University, 4,645 through December 2017; and researchers at Penn State University, 1,139 through December. Of these, only the estimate by the government of Puerto Rico involved the examination of individual deaths to determine if the hurricane had caused them. The Harvard study, based on a household survey, was later found (by Milken Institute SPH researchers) to have overestimated the number of deaths because they did not adjust the household death reports for household size. When analyzed correctly, their study produces similar numbers. The other two studies, like ours, used death certificates.

Ours was the only study that took into account the enormous net out-migration of citizens that occurred after the storm. According to our estimates, in mid-September 2017 there were 3,327,917 inhabitants in Puerto Rico; by the end of February 2018 there were only 3,048,173, a net loss of about 8 percent of the population. This is the main reason our analysis produced somewhat larger estimates than the other studies.

We do not know the exact circumstances around each of the 2,975 excess deaths that occurred. Many factors — disruption in transportation, access to food, water, medications, power and other essentials — may have contributed. In interviews, we heard many heartbreaking stories of families struggling to obtain emergency health care, power for medical devices, prescription drugs, or even food and drinking water. This is why we were not surprised to find that the highest rates of excess deaths occurred among those living in the poorest municipalities, as well as those over the age of 65, especially men.

What was lacking was adequate planning and preparedness for such a horrific storm. No one administration or political party is responsible for why we still don’t prioritize preparedness even though we are increasingly threatened by large hurricanes. By identifying the preventable causes of these deaths, we can save lives the next time a fierce storm hits.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maggie5 said:
I think that this article explains some of your questions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.8f583d1272a1

To set the record straight, our study was carried out with no interference whatsoever from any political party or institution. It was based on a careful examination of all of the deaths officially reported to the government of Puerto Rico between September 2017 and February 2018. Our scientists, in collaboration with scientists at the University of Puerto Rico Graduate School of Public Health, used state-of-the-art mathematical modeling to compare the total number of deaths during that time to the expected number of deaths, based on historical patterns as well as age, sex, socioeconomic status and migration from the island.
Click to expand...

But Trump tweeted! That makes it all invalid.

Maggie5 said:
Make no mistake: The death toll did continue to rise in the months after Maria. In September 2017, when Puerto Rico recorded a total of 2,906 deaths, we found there was an excess of 574 deaths above what would have been expected in a year without the storm. The death toll continued to mount every day, with an excess of 697 deaths in October, 347 in November, 479 in December, 558 in January and 320 in February, for a total of 2,975.

Throughout that time, researchers produced other estimates. The government of Puerto Rico came up with a figure of 64 excess deaths through October 2017; the New York Times, 1,052 through October 2017; a team at Harvard University, 4,645 through December 2017; and researchers at Penn State University, 1,139 through December. Of these, only the estimate by the government of Puerto Rico involved the examination of individual deaths to determine if the hurricane had caused them. The Harvard study, based on a household survey, was later found (by Milken Institute SPH researchers) to have overestimated the number of deaths because they did not adjust the household death reports for household size. When analyzed correctly, their study produces similar numbers. The other two studies, like ours, used death certificates.

Ours was the only study that took into account the enormous net out-migration of citizens that occurred after the storm. According to our estimates, in mid-September 2017 there were 3,327,917 inhabitants in Puerto Rico; by the end of February 2018 there were only 3,048,173, a net loss of about 8 percent of the population. This is the main reason our analysis produced somewhat larger estimates than the other studies.

We do not know the exact circumstances around each of the 2,975 excess deaths that occurred. Many factors — disruption in transportation, access to food, water, medications, power and other essentials — may have contributed. In interviews, we heard many heartbreaking stories of families struggling to obtain emergency health care, power for medical devices, prescription drugs, or even food and drinking water. This is why we were not surprised to find that the highest rates of excess deaths occurred among those living in the poorest municipalities, as well as those over the age of 65, especially men.

What was lacking was adequate planning and preparedness for such a horrific storm. No one administration or political party is responsible for why we still don’t prioritize preparedness even though we are increasingly threatened by large hurricanes. By identifying the preventable causes of these deaths, we can save lives the next time a fierce storm hits.
Click to expand...
 
Todman said:
DnU3yUkUAAA3SWk.jpg
Click to expand...

Tbf the recent allegations are not the reason he should be rejected.

He has a pretty abysmal record in general and its laughable that the same people who wanted the swamp drained are now pushing for a a guy like Kavanaugh to be given a lifetime appointment on the bench.

I agree there is a worrying trend towards the presumption of innocence being thrown out the window lately. But I don't think this is a case of guilty till proven innocent, it's about delaying the confirmation process to allow the allegations to be properly ventilated by the Senate Committee. The Committee may find that there is nothing to the allegations but its pretty telling about the pathetically partisan mindset of some Republicans that they just want to rush through the process regardless of the credibility or lack thereof of the allegations.
 
PurpleEyes said:
unless you weight your calculations heavily by pretending there is a large drop in the population
Click to expand...
Here's probably the crux of it.

You think they are pretending that a lot of people got out when the infrastructure was destroyed? I mean, why on Earth would a whole bunch of people leave an island with no food, water or power?
 
Chief said:
Because the content is generally terrible.


"They're studying deaths"

They're studying the population, working out the cause of deaths amongst the representative, randomly sampled group.

300px-Simple_random_sampling.PNG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)


This is a process you're basically saying is invalid. Come on.

Then you go and use figures that are disputed by the results of the study, to show that the study is wrong. Without using anything beyond simple arithmetic.

And the result is.... the Democrats made up the numbers to hurt Trump!

It is ludicrous.

So what about this particular study was done incorrectly? What statistical technique was applied badly? What makes the study itself invalid?
Click to expand...

Unless you believe that studying the population (in this case households) will show deaths that have not been recorded by the Puerto Rico authorities, why waste your time studying the population?

I have already shown that sampling over 3,000 households given a documented and widely accepted historical mortality rate of about 8 per 1,000 would produce a very small sample of deaths ... possibly less than 100. Once again, simple arithmetic shows the approach in these scientific studies is flawed.

Why is it that "simple arithmetic" is dismissed when it produces evidence that these studies may not be accurate.
Once again Chief, you can't believe the findings of all these studies and reports just because you believe their scientific approach to sampling ... that would be ludicrous given the differences in the conclusions of these various studies and reports.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

N
USA Kamala Harris the 47th President of the United States - Hopefully.
181 182 183 184 185
Replies
5K
Views
104K
Aussie in exile
A
Financialpanther
USA 2024 US Presidential Election: Trump vs Harris
327 328 329 330 331
Replies
8K
Views
184K
GhostofJimJess
GhostofJimJess
Gough
Trump Bibles and trainers, what products should other Presidents have endorsed?
Replies
15
Views
1K
blackshadow
blackshadow
Satan
Mid East Helicopter crashes in Iran killing President and FM
Replies
17
Views
1K
Satan
Satan
Geoff
Australia - US Relationship (If Trump Wins 2024)
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Syd
Syd
FireKrakouer
Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from 2024 ballot!
Replies
9
Views
860
carltonchelsea
carltonchelsea
Aristotle Pickett
USA House begins vote on motion to overthrow Kevin McCarthy
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
E Shed
E Shed

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top