Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Get your bunkers ready!

brandymac27

By brandymac27
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Cooked Crack

Cooked Crack

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

35% of this country, including a few "friendly" members of this forum ride with Trump.

Yep. Miss me with that people like the policies excuse. Nevermind the policy includes separating families. They never suggest removing Trump or primaring Trump. They just accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGreatBuzz

TheGreatBuzz

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, HooHog said:

If you still stand with this POS, you need to examine your life.

I think everyone here knows I am no Trump sympathizer but I kind of agree here.  The way they are reporting the deaths from secondary causes and grouping them as part of hurricane deaths doesn't seem right.  NOTE***This does not in any way mean those deaths are not sad, unnecessary, and highlight what a **** show this administration is. 

 

Honest question: Does the number of deaths from 9/11 include the people that died after the fact from cancer or whatnot from exposure to the debris, etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PleaseBlitz

PleaseBlitz

Posted
Posted
Quote

Then, a long time later, they started to report really large numbers, like 3000...

 

Just FYI, the "they" in this tweet means noted liberal outfit, the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University and the "a long time later" means "after they conducted a comprehensive study."

 

https://prstudy.publichealth.gwu.edu/sites/prstudy.publichealth.gwu.edu/files/reports/Acertainment of the Estimated Excess Mortality from Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Evil Genius

The Evil Genius

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Honest question: Does the number of deaths from 9/11 include the people that died after the fact from cancer or whatnot from exposure to the debris, etc?

 

It should. But in regards to PR, if the US dragged it's feet in response (like the Trump admin did) and 2000-5000+ more people died because of it..it's kind of hard to escape the blame. Moreover, the douchebag in Chief just made another story (and another tragedy) about him again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo the kKklown

Bozo the kKklown

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Honest question: Does the number of deaths from 9/11 include the people that died after the fact from cancer or whatnot from exposure to the debris, etc?

No.

 

But that's not how we count death totals from hurricanes. 1800 people didn't die from Katrina during the storm. The deaths were from the weeks that followed. @PleaseBlitz posted the study if you want to check out how they tabulated the total.

 

And to be honest, the after-effects of 9/11 should have been counted as many first responders were not able to get health insurance and life insurance claims afterward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Honest question: Does the number of deaths from 9/11 include the people that died after the fact from cancer or whatnot from exposure to the debris, etc?

 

I'll pick a different hypothetical. 

 

Suppose that, in the month following 9/11, the number of suicides, nationwide, went up by 10%. Just to make up numbers, say it went from 100 to 110. 

 

Is it reasonable to count that as 10 people killed by 9/11?  

 

Note, I haven't picked 10 individual people. I can't say WHICH of those 110 people were due to 9/11. And NONE of them were there. 

 

But there were more suicides than there were, a year earlier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cooked Crack

Cooked Crack

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'm doing the math in my head but the 2,977 number seems to be only the people killed directly and doesn't include those who died indirectly. Am I wrong (definitely possibly)?

The numbers keeps being updated. The 2977 is the most recent.

 

https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/the-toll-from-911-grows-again/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGreatBuzz

TheGreatBuzz

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I'll pick a different hypothetical. 

 

Suppose that, in the month following 9/11, the number of suicides, nationwide, went up by 10%. Just to make up numbers, say it went from 100 to 110. 

 

Is it reasonable to count that as 10 people killed by 9/11?  

 

Note, I haven't picked 10 individual people. I can't say WHICH of those 110 people were due to 9/11. And NONE of them were there. 

 

But there were more suicides than there were, a year earlier. 

I would say absolutely not.   MAYBE you could count those as indirect deaths but I feel like even that is pushing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DogofWar1

DogofWar1

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I think everyone here knows I am no Trump sympathizer but I kind of agree here.  The way they are reporting the deaths from secondary causes and grouping them as part of hurricane deaths doesn't seem right.  NOTE***This does not in any way mean those deaths are not sad, unnecessary, and highlight what a **** show this administration is. 

 

Honest question: Does the number of deaths from 9/11 include the people that died after the fact from cancer or whatnot from exposure to the debris, etc?

 

The study was looking at deaths above baseline.  It was a pretty robust non-partisan study, and everyone from Speaker Ryan on down accepted the numbers as accurate (though I imagine some positions may now shift).

 

The 2,977 deaths figure from 9/11 does not include people who died after the fact.  As of ~2016, the number of post exposure deaths was about 1,000, and was likely to exceed the 2,977 number itself within 5 years.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/11/9-11-illnesses-death-toll

 

 

Ultimately, I can understand not wanting to include certain after-event deaths, but generally I try to look at cases where "but for" the event the death wouldn't have happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PleaseBlitz

PleaseBlitz

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Maybe the better way to frame it would be people killed directly (like within 24 hours) and indirectly (like from our ****ty response).

 

From the second page of the study:

 

Quote

Our excess mortality study analyzed past mortality patterns (mortality registration and population census data from 2010 to 2017) in order to predict the expected mortality if Hurricane María had not occurred (predicted mortality) and compare this figure to the actual deaths that occurred (observed mortality).The difference between those two numbers is the estimate of excess mortality due to the hurricane. 

 

The bold is in the original study, I did not add it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedskinsFan44

RedskinsFan44

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Maybe the better way to frame it would be people killed directly (like within 24 hours) and indirectly (like from our ****ty response).

So even by this metric Trump under reports the final number of 64. As you said the 3k final number of deaths attributable to the storm is a different metric, one that can be related to the effectiveness of the response. Trump claimed the response to the disaster in Puerto Rico was great, people pointed to the study indicating it wasnt, Trump makes an ass of himself on twitter, we argue about whether 3000 deaths should be the number instead of was the job done an "A+".

 

add: Or was it all a conspiracy by the Dems to undermine his presidency, which many people say is the best ever.

 

add2: Point being deaths attributable to hurricane post storm is a better metric of the response than deaths during impact. Certainly infrastructure was a factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hersh

Hersh

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Honest question: Does the number of deaths from 9/11 include the people that died after the fact from cancer or whatnot from exposure to the debris, etc?

 

I think this is a great question and whatever the number is should be the number recognized every September 11th. We should also include the death of Americans killed in the days after that were killed because they were Muslim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Riggo-toni

Riggo-toni

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 We should also include the death of Americans killed in the days after that were killed because they were Muslim. 

Sadly, more Sikhs were targets of hate crimes than Muslims after 9/11, because American racists are too ****ing stupid to be able to tell the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LadySkinsFan

LadySkinsFan

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Honest question: Does the number of deaths from 9/11 include the people that died after the fact from cancer or whatnot from exposure to the debris, etc?

 

 

Honest answer: Yes, if the deaths were caused by the aftereffects a the attacks or in the midst of the attacks then those folks might still be alive, not dead or suffering from the attacks. The woman called the Dust Lady/Woman from 9/11 just died from cancer believed to have been caused by debris in the air. She was pretty young still, but suffered, first from living in that experience then from cancer that she might not otherwise have had. So I consider her a casualty too all these years later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...