5 ms·

> But I think that implies 100% of the people who died during the cold snap died specifically due to that In fact, many more than 246 people died during this t

> But I think that implies 100% of the people who died during the cold snap died specifically due to that In fact, many more than 246 people died during this time. The 246 number from Winter Storm Uri, published by Texas Department of State Health Services is significantly undercounting the deaths during the storm which can be attributed to the storm. The number from DSHS is decomposed as - "148 as 'direct,' 92 as 'indirect' and six as 'possible,'" https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/02/texas-winter-storm-final-death-toll-246/ https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/02/texas-winter-storm-f... Buzzfeed suggests that the deaths are closer to 700. Buzzfeed provides code to substantiate their claims on the data - https://buzzfeednews.github.io/2021-05-tx-winter-storm-deaths/ https://buzzfeednews.github.io/2021-05-tx-winter-storm-death... https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/texas-winter-storm-power-outage-death-toll https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/texas-wint...

jdgoesmarching 3y ago
I’m not sure why people struggle to believe that extended power losses can result in deaths. Knowing how much Texas wanted to shove this under the rug, I’d expect extreme underreporting.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  Never thought I'd see a "did they die of freezing, or WITH freezing?" take. Truly the worst discourse.
- dpkirchner 3y ago
  I don't think they actually struggle, I think they want to be seen as struggling (virtue signaling) to try to make some point they're afraid to come out and just say.
Waterluvian 3y ago
None of that is what I’m commenting on. The title says “the same strategy that led to 200 people's deaths” but I don’t see any data at all on power outage related deaths. “X led to y” means x caused y. So the title says they contribute 200 deaths to power outage. But then they don’t back that up. And to be clear because everyone’s always looking for a fight: I wouldn’t be surprised if the number is lower or higher. But they fail to back up the title. They falsely equate one statistic with another.

jdgoesmarching 3y ago

I’m not sure why people struggle to believe that extended power losses can result in deaths. Knowing how much Texas wanted to shove this under the rug, I’d expect extreme underreporting.

jeffbee 3y ago
Never thought I'd see a "did they die of freezing, or WITH freezing?" take. Truly the worst discourse.
dpkirchner 3y ago
I don't think they actually struggle, I think they want to be seen as struggling (virtue signaling) to try to make some point they're afraid to come out and just say.

Waterluvian 3y ago

None of that is what I’m commenting on. The title says “the same strategy that led to 200 people's deaths” but I don’t see any data at all on power outage related deaths. “X led to y” means x caused y. So the title says they contribute 200 deaths to power outage. But then they don’t back that up. And to be clear because everyone’s always looking for a fight: I wouldn’t be surprised if the number is lower or higher. But they fail to back up the title. They falsely equate one statistic with another.