3 ms·

"...people are dying earlier than they would have if the storm hadn’t hit their community” Which is a fundamentally different statistic. I get why they are try

by skeeter2020 2y ago

"...people are dying earlier than they would have if the storm hadn’t hit their community” Which is a fundamentally different statistic. I get why they are trying to draw attention to the impact, and it's important, but when you go this far off the deep end you do your cause huge damage. When the "official" number is 10,000 and yours is a wide range of 3.6 to 5.2 MILLION, I will dismiss you out of hand with only a brief review at the methodology. "The researchers estimate 25% of infant deaths and 15% of deaths among people aged 1 to 44 in the U.S. are related to tropical cyclones." It's a weird stretch to go from the highly believable long-term economic impact of a storm, to the reasonable uneven burden across socioeconomic groups, to estimating 1 in 4 infants die related to a tropical storm. That word, "related" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. here's a map that shows the rough distribution of tropical storms: https://geography4u.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Distribution-of-tropical-cyclones.png https://geography4u.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Distribut... somehow a country where the majority of the population does not experience direct impact of tropical storms, still loses more people to them than any other cause?

alwa 2y ago
> “more than all deaths nationwide from motor vehicle accidents, infectious diseases, or battle deaths in wars during the same period.” The researchers put big numbers on the indirect impact but they were precise about what they meant. But then the journalist (or maybe college PR department?) grabbed the biggest total they could find, turned around, and compared that total-life-course indirect count to acute direct causes of mortality… sigh. Where are those EA types when we need them, with their fast-and-loose treatment of “quality-adjusted life years”?
FrustratedMonky 2y ago
"10,000 and yours is a wide range of 3.6 to 5.2 MILLION, I will dismiss you out of hand" Except the article did NOT say that. You are taking a miss-reading and spreading your own misinformation. It said "7,000 to 11,000 excess deaths" Per Storm. Across ALL storms from 1930 , 3.6-5.2 Million. For Impact. Maybe to also reach, since you are ok with reaching, what if one of the reasons the South East, AL, Miss, Florida, GA are 3rd world dumps, is because of constant bombardment of storms and it has had an economic impact.
- alwa 2y ago
  Your correction is incorrect; the gp commenter cited TFA correctly. Perhaps it’s worth a closer read: > All told, they estimate tropical storms since 1930 have contributed to between 3.6 million and 5.2 million deaths in the U.S. – more than all deaths nationwide from motor vehicle accidents, infectious diseases, or battle deaths in wars during the same period. Official government statistics put the total death toll from these storms at about 10,000 people. I’d gently suggest that it doesn’t add much to your argument to refer to entire regions of the richest nation in history as “3rd world dumps.” Things are far from evenly-distributed, but the problems facing the Southeast US are mainly pretty different from those facing most of what you’re referring to as the “3rd world.” It’s not really a very reasonable characterization, and it comes off as antagonistic and unsympathetic.
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    I know. Have you been to Mississippi? Perhaps a study indicating that maybe repeat storms is a factor, would help understand why they have a difficult time, and what to solve for. That would help explain why the richest country in the world could have pockets of complete backward destitution.
- tourmalinetaco 2y ago
  > Florida > 3rd world Florida has more than double my state’s GDP. If we counted each state on the global scale then FL would be more than the Netherlands. And that’s ignoring the fact that 3rd world is an inaccurate misused term to begin with.
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    Not sure having Northern Retiree's bring in capital is a great business plan for other states or countries. Florida has nice weather and beaches, not some great Silver City on a Hill.
xnx 2y ago
I wish it was more common in public discussion to speak in terms of Quality-adjust life years (QALYs) or other relevant metrics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year
- kyleee 2y ago
  And micro-morts to compare risk across various activities

alwa 2y ago

> “more than all deaths nationwide from motor vehicle accidents, infectious diseases, or battle deaths in wars during the same period.” The researchers put big numbers on the indirect impact but they were precise about what they meant. But then the journalist (or maybe college PR department?) grabbed the biggest total they could find, turned around, and compared that total-life-course indirect count to acute direct causes of mortality… sigh. Where are those EA types when we need them, with their fast-and-loose treatment of “quality-adjusted life years”?

FrustratedMonky 2y ago

"10,000 and yours is a wide range of 3.6 to 5.2 MILLION, I will dismiss you out of hand" Except the article did NOT say that. You are taking a miss-reading and spreading your own misinformation. It said "7,000 to 11,000 excess deaths" Per Storm. Across ALL storms from 1930 , 3.6-5.2 Million. For Impact. Maybe to also reach, since you are ok with reaching, what if one of the reasons the South East, AL, Miss, Florida, GA are 3rd world dumps, is because of constant bombardment of storms and it has had an economic impact.

alwa 2y ago
Your correction is incorrect; the gp commenter cited TFA correctly. Perhaps it’s worth a closer read: > All told, they estimate tropical storms since 1930 have contributed to between 3.6 million and 5.2 million deaths in the U.S. – more than all deaths nationwide from motor vehicle accidents, infectious diseases, or battle deaths in wars during the same period. Official government statistics put the total death toll from these storms at about 10,000 people. I’d gently suggest that it doesn’t add much to your argument to refer to entire regions of the richest nation in history as “3rd world dumps.” Things are far from evenly-distributed, but the problems facing the Southeast US are mainly pretty different from those facing most of what you’re referring to as the “3rd world.” It’s not really a very reasonable characterization, and it comes off as antagonistic and unsympathetic.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  I know. Have you been to Mississippi? Perhaps a study indicating that maybe repeat storms is a factor, would help understand why they have a difficult time, and what to solve for. That would help explain why the richest country in the world could have pockets of complete backward destitution.
tourmalinetaco 2y ago
> Florida > 3rd world Florida has more than double my state’s GDP. If we counted each state on the global scale then FL would be more than the Netherlands. And that’s ignoring the fact that 3rd world is an inaccurate misused term to begin with.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  Not sure having Northern Retiree's bring in capital is a great business plan for other states or countries. Florida has nice weather and beaches, not some great Silver City on a Hill.

xnx 2y ago

I wish it was more common in public discussion to speak in terms of Quality-adjust life years (QALYs) or other relevant metrics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year

kyleee 2y ago
And micro-morts to compare risk across various activities