3 ms·

The article discusses the methodology in-depth including the meat of the specific points you raise. The study was published in a peer-reviewed journal by profes

The article discusses the methodology in-depth including the meat of the specific points you raise. The study was published in a peer-reviewed journal by professionals who understand the subject intimately and whose conclusions carry overwhelmingly more weight than your off-the-cuff analysis, one which misses the overarching point that based on available data, it is a statistical near-certainty that hundreds or thousands of people died as a direct result of the hurricane. Had you been a victim, I sincerely doubt you'd be so concerned about the distinction between being drowned right away or dying of a medical issue that would have been preventable with care that would have otherwise been accessible before the hurricane.

nonbel 8y ago
>"The article discusses the methodology in-depth including the meat of the specific points you raise." The meat of my methodological issues is that the survey has not been validated in any way as a measure of mortality. Where do they deal with that? From the supplement, it looks like this is a custom survey that has never been used before to me. >"The study was published in a peer-reviewed journal by professionals who understand the subject intimately and whose conclusions carry overwhelmingly more weight than your off-the-cuff analysis, one which misses the overarching point that based on available data, it is a statistical near-certainty that hundreds or thousands of people died as a direct result of the hurricane." Anyone who has looked at enough studies like this knows the results are typically highly questionable. My comment was more to alert them to which of the usual issues seem to be present. If you are still reliant on the "peer-reviewed" heuristic, then I agree that you should not listen to random people on the internet, or even in person, like me. >"Had you been a victim, I sincerely doubt you'd be so concerned about the distinction between being drowned right away or dying of a medical issue that would have been preventable with care that would have otherwise been accessible before the hurricane." Taken literally, this is true. If I had been a victim I would be dead, so I wouldn't care about anything at all. I think that is the more generous interpretation of you just wrote. If a family member had been a victim, I would definitely want such studies to distinguish between dying from drowning and dying due to eg lack of access to healthcare a week later. I don't see how it is helpful to conflate these two and confuse the public since they require different solutions.

nonbel 8y ago

>"The article discusses the methodology in-depth including the meat of the specific points you raise." The meat of my methodological issues is that the survey has not been validated in any way as a measure of mortality. Where do they deal with that? From the supplement, it looks like this is a custom survey that has never been used before to me. >"The study was published in a peer-reviewed journal by professionals who understand the subject intimately and whose conclusions carry overwhelmingly more weight than your off-the-cuff analysis, one which misses the overarching point that based on available data, it is a statistical near-certainty that hundreds or thousands of people died as a direct result of the hurricane." Anyone who has looked at enough studies like this knows the results are typically highly questionable. My comment was more to alert them to which of the usual issues seem to be present. If you are still reliant on the "peer-reviewed" heuristic, then I agree that you should not listen to random people on the internet, or even in person, like me. >"Had you been a victim, I sincerely doubt you'd be so concerned about the distinction between being drowned right away or dying of a medical issue that would have been preventable with care that would have otherwise been accessible before the hurricane." Taken literally, this is true. If I had been a victim I would be dead, so I wouldn't care about anything at all. I think that is the more generous interpretation of you just wrote. If a family member had been a victim, I would definitely want such studies to distinguish between dying from drowning and dying due to eg lack of access to healthcare a week later. I don't see how it is helpful to conflate these two and confuse the public since they require different solutions.