3

3 comments

[–] Kannibal 1 points (+1|-0)

Yale Press Release

https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/yale-study-finds-twice-as-many-undocumented-immigrants-as-previous-estimates

The Number of Undocumented Immigrants in the United States: Estimates Based on Demographic Modeling with Data from 1990 to 2016

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201193

Demographic modeling?

Isn't that the same technique that was used to estimate the the total number of dead in Puerto Rico from Hurricane Maria was over 3,000?

I thought that was BS science because the President says the reports of the number of dead being that high were fake news.

[–] [Deleted] 0 points (+0|-0)

Haha I didn't see that. Yes fake news.

Did you read that link I posted the other day? I thought it was interesting given that Cato isn't a big fan of the President

https://www.cato.org/blog/about-1100-puerto-rican-deaths-maria-not-2795-or-4645

[–] Kannibal 0 points (+0|-0) Edited

however - - -

I came across this comment on that other site

Edit: Oh boy did I fuck up. I didn't read the actual study out of George Washington University (The Hill didn't link to it) and just took Trump at his word that the study included non-excess deaths (for example, as Trump described, deaths that could be attributed to "old age." So I proposed that we could "compare deaths following the hurricane to deaths at another comparable time sans-hurricane, to approximate what deaths would have happened anyway in a counterfactual Puerto Rico where the hurricane never hit but people still died of old age" not knowing that this is exactly what the study did.

From the study:

We implemented the project as three studies, each with specific yet complementary methodologies. Our excess mortality study analyzed past mortality patterns (mortality registration and populationcensus data from 2010 to 2017) in order to predictthe expected mortality if Hurricane María had not occurred (predicted mortality) and compare this figure to the actual deaths that occurred (observed mortality).

So I really fucked up to describe Trump's critique of the methodology as "ultimately wrong, but in good-faith." Anybody who read even just the first page of the study (titled "methodology") would see that Trump was bullshitting idiots like me who didn't actually read the study.

I fucked up. My apologies.

in any case, still more than the count of a few dozen that they president prefers