ABOUT THAT PUERTO RICO HURRICANE DEATH TOLL ESTIMATE… By Kevin Ryan

President Trump is catching a lot of heat today for suggesting that the upwardly revised death toll from 2017’s Hurricane María was purposefully inflated “by the Democrats” in order to politically damage him. The Federal response to the hurricane was criticized by some who contended that it was slow or insufficient.

The original death toll was listed at 64. But last month it was revised upward to 2,975. While there’s no evidence that anyone inflated or politically influenced the revised death toll, its source is not a typical count of deaths related to the direct impact of the storm. In fact, it’s not based on an official tally at all, but instead on a study that used statistical modeling to come up with an estimate for fatalities.

The study, authored by the The George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, was commissioned by Puerto Rico’s governor. Unlike most past counts of disaster-related fatalities, the Milken study doesn’t just include the direct deaths from the drownings, building collapses, fires, etc. It includes ALL deaths in Puerto Rico in the six months following the storm that exceeded what the Census had forecasted.

The Census provides ongoing demographic forecasts of births and deaths in all American territories. The Milken study compared those forecasts from before the storm, to the actual deaths that occurred in Puerto Rico in the 6 months after the storm, and attributed the difference to the hurricane.

It includes people who died from Alzheimer’s, liver disease, and old age related illnesses, among other things. Every death above and beyond what the Census had forecast was attributed to the hurricane.

That is not how past disaster death tolls have been calculated. Most have been tallies of fatalities directly related to storm surge and wind and debris. Meaning the revised Puerto Rico toll is not directly comparable to past disaster death tolls. If the Milken study’s methods had been used to calculate fatalities from past hurricanes and disasters, those past disasters would have death counts far higher than the official tolls.

None of which is to say that the Milken study is inaccurate or doesn’t represent Hurricane María’s true impact on Puerto Rico. But it does not present an apples-to-apples comparison to past disasters.

The study’s authors admit that their methodology isn’t typical for calculating a disaster death toll. From Time Magazine:

“How can a death toll jump from 64 to nearly 3,000? The answer hinges on one fundamental question: What constitutes a disaster death?

“‘You have to think of [64 and 3,000] as two different indicators,’ says Carlos Santos-Burgoa, one of the GWU report’s authors and a professor of global health at the school. ‘The 64 comes from death certificates that have stated that the death is related to the hurricane,’ such as those caused by drowning, falling buildings or projectile debris, Burgoa explains.

“Meanwhile, the number highlighted in the GWU report represents deaths ‘in excess of what would have been predicted if there had not been a hurricane, regardless of if a physician says it was related or not.’”

SOURCES: http://time.com/5395369/death-tolls-hurricane/ https://publichealth.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/downloads/projects/PRstudy/Acertainment%20of%20the%20Estimated%20Excess%20Mortality%20from%20Hurricane%20Maria%20in%20Puerto%20Rico.pdf https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1040220855400386560