• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Study: Puerto Rico death toll 4,600 higher post-Maria

dcsports said:
You should be able to search for it.

Essentially, they took a very small sample, surveying households, and extrapolated it out. They didn't actually visit anyone, or review records. Plus they attributed a couple of deaths directly to the storm, and a much larger amount of deaths in the sample to decreased availability of medical services following the storm -- without establishing that this was the cause. Other estimates have been in the neighborhood of 1000. The PR government asked another university to conduct an actual study.
Click to expand...

sorry dc, you made a claim that the Harvard study " has been thoroughly debunked" and now tell me to search for it. That only debunks your credibility. Your "nuh uh" and falsehoods further debunk it. Here's the study if you want to try to post something factual instead of making stuff up.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1803972?query=featured_home&
 
dcsports said:
Here's the link to the politifact article on it.

They surveyed 3300 households, and found 3 deaths from the hurricane and 12 that family members (not officials or people treating the patients) attributed to interruptions in services. Based on those 15 deaths they came up with 4645 deaths -- 5000 adjusting for single person households. As a note, they also included, based on possible error with the sample, a range of 800-8000.

No one appears to buy the amount, and Puerto Rico arranged with George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health to do a study of the actual amount.

Fact-checking the death toll estimates from Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico | PolitiFact
Click to expand...

DC, you've already debunked your credibility, no need to continue. The good news is you are now admitting your statement that "They didn't actually visit anyone" was false. If its not too much to ask, did you make up that statement or get it from a conservative source? Anyhoo, your link doesn't debunk the study either. Its simply trying to add context.
 
Vern said:
sorry dc, you made a claim that the Harvard study " has been thoroughly debunked" and now tell me to search for it. That only debunks your credibility. Your "nuh uh" and falsehoods further debunk it. Here's the study if you want to try to post something factual instead of making stuff up.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1803972?query=featured_home&
Click to expand...

It's old news. You can search and do you own homework.

But if it makes you feel better, I did provide you with a link to one source. And yes, the Harvard survey has been thoroughly debunked and criticized. Even at face value, the range they give makes it useless.
 
dcsports said:
It's old news. You can search and do you own homework.

But if it makes you feel better, I did provide you with a link to one source. And yes, the Harvard survey has been thoroughly debunked and criticized. Even at face value, the range they give makes it useless.
Click to expand...

and there it is, the classic conservative dodge of "you back up my point". DC, I realize "you back up my point" makes perfect sense to you but you have to understand, you're a conservative. When you want to believe something it always makes sense. Now, you made a point, you repeated your point but you didn't in any way back up your point. The link you posted only added context it thinks wasn't in every article about the study.

And DC, don't think I didn't notice you're trying to "massage" your point when you now say " thoroughly debunked and criticized". Your point is "thoroughly debunked" and you have in no way backed that up. Help me understand why your obedience to conservative narratives is more important than your integrity.
 
I could have knocked out their power grid with a good weed whacker. The way they maintained things it's no secret why they were without so long.

There is good reason people go to any number of other places for Caribbean vacations instead of PR. Places like communist Cuba and the DR garner more visits per year, Cancun outshines it by double at least.
 
Last edited:
Vern said:
and there it is, the classic conservative dodge of "you back up my point". DC, I realize "you back up my point" makes perfect sense to you but you have to understand, you're a conservative. When you want to believe something it always makes sense. Now, you made a point, you repeated your point but you didn't in any way back up your point. The link you posted only added context it thinks wasn't in every article about the study.

And DC, don't think I didn't notice you're trying to "massage" your point when you now say " thoroughly debunked and criticized". Your point is "thoroughly debunked" and you have in no way backed that up. Help me understand why your obedience to conservative narratives is more important than your integrity.
Click to expand...

Pointing out that "you back up my point" is hardly a dodge, but it's also not something I did in this case. What I did was point out that you didn't look for information yourself, or the link that I provided, before responding. And yes, it points to the issues with the study.

Obviously, you are very invested in supporting this study, which used poor methods to come to a bad conclusion. Not sure why you've decided to unleash your fury on me for pointing that out. If you think they did good work, just say why.
 
dcsports said:
Pointing out that "you back up my point" is hardly a dodge, but it's also not something I did in this case. What I did was point out that you didn't look for information yourself, or the link that I provided, before responding. And yes, it points to the issues with the study.

Obviously, you are very invested in supporting this study, which used poor methods to come to a bad conclusion. Not sure why you've decided to unleash your fury on me for pointing that out. If you think they did good work, just say why.
Click to expand...

ah, more falsehhoods. You probably believe what you're posting but it's still just crap. "you back up my point" is the laziest of the classic conservative dodges. You posted it twice and now amazingly deny it. Here, read your own words

dcsports said:
You should be able to search for it.
Click to expand...


So that's one falsehood (in your latest post, you have more in previous posts). The second one is claiming I didn't read your link. I read it. I even explained to you what it was trying to do. So what's in the link you posted that "thoroughly debunks" the Harvard study. Its your claim and this is a debate forum so please explain it.
 
Vern said:
ah, more falsehhoods. You probably believe what you're posting but it's still just crap. "you back up my point" is the laziest of the classic conservative dodges. You posted it twice and now amazingly deny it. Here, read your own words...
Click to expand...

I think you are confused. Again, I never claimed that you backed up my point. Not once, not twice. I suggested you do some basic research on the topic. I even pointed you to a factcheck article and summarized it for you. If you choose to believe the study's dramatic conclusion, you can.


Vern said:
So that's one falsehood (in your latest post, you have more in previous posts). The second one is claiming I didn't read your link. I read it. I even explained to you what it was trying to do. So what's in the link you posted that "thoroughly debunks" the Harvard study. Its your claim and this is a debate forum so please explain it.
Click to expand...

Didn't see any explanation. But OK. Glad you read it. Feel free to tell us why the Harvard study is so credible despite the fact it has issues at face value, has an error range of 800-8000, all other estimates disagree, PR is commissioning a more thorough study, etc.
 
Last edited:
dcsports said:
I think you are confused. Again, I never claimed that you backed up my point. Not once, not twice. I suggested you do some basic research on the topic. I even pointed you to a factcheck article and summarized it for you. If you choose to believe the study's dramatic conclusion, you can.
Click to expand...

DC, I cant tell if your grammar is bad or you are just unable to grasp a simple point (I'm guessing the latter). I've repeatedly asked you to back up your own point. You're telling me to do it. And now it looks like you're posting that I'm claiming you've claimed I backed up your point. No, I'm asking you to back up your own point. Now just to be clear, you've twice told me to back up your point. That's not how debate works. It works that way to you because you want to believe things that have no basis in fact. So instead of admitting you cant back up your point, you do the classic conservative dodge of "look it up yourself" ie "you back up my claim".

Didn't see any explanation. But OK. Glad you read it. Feel free to tell us why the Harvard study is so credible despite the fact it has issues at face value, has an error range of 800-8000, all other estimates disagree, PR is commissioning a more thorough study, etc.
Click to expand...

the concept of debate continues to befuddle you. I asked you what in your link backs up your point. the politifact link wants to make sure you understand that the Harvard study gave a range, not an error, a range. That's called adding context. So what you need to do is cut and paste what you think debunks the study. Again, that is your point, you back it up.

once we get that we can discuss the string of falsehoods you posted to cling to your narrative.
 
Vern said:
DC, I cant tell if your grammar is bad or you are just unable to grasp a simple point (I'm guessing the latter). I've repeatedly asked you to back up your own point. You're telling me to do it. And now it looks like you're posting that I'm claiming you've claimed I backed up your point. No, I'm asking you to back up your own point. Now just to be clear, you've twice told me to back up your point. That's not how debate works. It works that way to you because you want to believe things that have no basis in fact. So instead of admitting you cant back up your point, you do the classic conservative dodge of "look it up yourself" ie "you back up my claim".



the concept of debate continues to befuddle you. I asked you what in your link backs up your point. the politifact link wants to make sure you understand that the Harvard study gave a range, not an error, a range. That's called adding context. So what you need to do is cut and paste what you think debunks the study. Again, that is your point, you back it up.

once we get that we can discuss the string of falsehoods you posted to cling to your narrative.
Click to expand...

I explained my point. Thanks. You should feel free to do some research yourself if you'd like to discuss the topic. Obviously, you'd rather throw insults. Good luck with that.
 
dcsports said:
I explained my point. Thanks. You should feel free to do some research yourself if you'd like to discuss the topic. Obviously, you'd rather throw insults. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

No DC, you whined at the study. And you posted numerous falsehoods making your whiny point. The study is exactly what the study is. You telling me exactly what the study says but calling their range an "error range" is as false as when you said " They didn't actually visit anyone, or review records." Technically that's two falsehoods. Me calling out your falsehoods and pointing out "nuh uh" debunks nothing is not throwing insults. Its simply stating the facts.

and DC, you don't address my points. Here's the latest point you didn't address (its what constitutes debate). Please explain, was your grammar bad or were making a delusional point when you said "Again, I never claimed that you backed up my point. Not once, not twice"?
 
Vern said:
No DC, you whined at the study. And you posted numerous falsehoods making your whiny point. The study is exactly what the study is. You telling me exactly what the study says but calling their range an "error range" is as false as when you said " They didn't actually visit anyone, or review records." Technically that's two falsehoods. Me calling out your falsehoods and pointing out "nuh uh" debunks nothing is not throwing insults. Its simply stating the facts.

and DC, you don't address my points. Here's the latest point you didn't address (its what constitutes debate). Please explain, was your grammar bad or were making a delusional point when you said "Again, I never claimed that you backed up my point. Not once, not twice"?
Click to expand...

A debate would start with you pointing to specific "falsehoods" and explaining/supporting why it's false. Or in this case, explaining why you feel the study is accurate. In this case you're just continuously lobbing insults / throwing poo, which is likely why no one is engaging you in conversation. Feel free to keep doing that, but don't expect others to play along.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Those who intend on sticking around the island best look into reforming their government, because good government does matter.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The lefties down there have no idea how to run government. They are all takers and all have the gimmee mentality. Then they expect Trump to be all giving.
 
Moderate Right said:
Exactly. The lefties down there have no idea how to run government. They are all takers and all have the gimmee mentality. Then they expect Trump to be all giving.
Click to expand...

They dont care about having good government because they have themselves as victims, taking care of them is someone elses job. When they dont get taken care of to the standards they expect then they start accusing others of neglecting them.

This is where Victim Culture has deposited us.
 
dcsports said:
A debate would start with you pointing to specific "falsehoods" and explaining/supporting why it's false. Or in this case, explaining why you feel the study is accurate. In this case you're just continuously lobbing insults / throwing poo, which is likely why no one is engaging you in conversation. Feel free to keep doing that, but don't expect others to play along.
Click to expand...

DC, I've clearly stated some of your falsehoods. Don't think you're the first conservative (or conservative like poster) to not see a clear and straightforward statement. So lets review, you posted this

dcsports said:
They didn't actually visit anyone, or review records.
Click to expand...

Vern said:
The good news is you are now admitting your statement that "They didn't actually visit anyone" was false. If its not too much to ask, did you make up that statement or get it from a conservative source? Anyhoo, your link doesn't debunk the study either. Its simply trying to add context.
Click to expand...

I posted that after you posted the politifact link and stated "They surveyed 3300 households." I reiterated your falsehood

Vern said:
You telling me exactly what the study says but calling their range an "error range" is as false as when you said " They didn't actually visit anyone, or review records." Technically that's two falsehoods. Me calling out your falsehoods and pointing out "nuh uh" debunks nothing is not throwing insults. Its simply stating the facts. ?
Click to expand...

Your politifact link tells you they "visited" homes as does the actual study link I posted. Here's one of the researchers telling you they went to people's homes.

"The difference is that we went out and we had boots on the ground and we did the interviews," said Domingo Marqués, an associate professor of clinical psychology at Carlos Albizu University in Puerto Rico, who was among the report's authors.
"Statistically, it's like having interviewed the whole island," he said.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/29/us/puerto-rico-hurricane-maria-death-toll/index.html

so that's one falsehood and now its confirmed. Please don't post "nuh uh". And fyi, you've yet to post anything to show that the study is "thoroughly debunked". You've only proven you really really really want to believe it was debunked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom