OK, for those of you who haven't had enough of Rev ranting about journalism, let's turn the page to this story, which is...fishy.https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1001463917145620481 …
-
-
...Except, the excess mortality is only happening over the period from September 20 to Dec. 31, which is about 103 days. So the survey must have found about 53 x 103 / 365 = 15 extra deaths (and 39 total deaths by the same math). 5/
Show this thread -
It would be easy (easier than it is for me, at least) for WaPo to present this reasoning -- or at least link to the fucking paper -- but then they'd have to mention the error bars. And the error bars are going to be pretty big. 6/
Show this thread -
I've lost track of my point and I'm tired and today was generally infuriating, so I'm going to stop, except to note that as usual, WaPo used some rickety numbers to push a particular emotional narrative, because that's what they do. The end. 7/7
Show this thread -
Ah, NPR is slightly more honest. They lead with "near 5,000", but it turns out the 95% confidence interval is [800, 8500]! https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/05/29/615120123/study-puts-puerto-rico-death-toll-at-5-000-from-hurricane-maria-in-2017 …
Show this thread -
Also: "The research team randomly selected 3,299 households in Puerto Rico. Local scientists surveyed them over the course of three weeks in January. People in those homes reported a total of 38 deaths." Rev was right again!
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.