This is a shocking lie. Let's be really clear what happened:
The immediate storm damage killed only a few people; the inept relief effort then left thousands more to die. [THREAD]
The immediate storm damage killed only a few people; the inept relief effort then left thousands more to die. [THREAD]
As I have written before, it is *exceedingly rare* to see a major wave of secondary mortality after a natural disaster.
This is because, usually, a robust relief effort comes in to stabilize the population and address urgent needs. 2/ washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-ca…
This is because, usually, a robust relief effort comes in to stabilize the population and address urgent needs. 2/ washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-ca…
Useful comparison is super-typhoon Haiyan (2013), the largest storm ever to make landfall. Notably, like PR, this was an island setting.
6300 were killed by the storm itself, but a huge international relief effort was mounted, and there was no wave of secondary mortality. 3/
6300 were killed by the storm itself, but a huge international relief effort was mounted, and there was no wave of secondary mortality. 3/
Conversely, after Hurricane Katrina, there *was* a significant wave of secondary mortality - death rates were around 50% higher in the months following the storm. You may recall that the federal response there was...not stellar. 4/ ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18388597
So: a wave of secondary mortality is not inevitable, and a strong relief effort can generally prevent it.
This is all the more damning for the Trump administration's response in Puerto Rico. 5/
This is all the more damning for the Trump administration's response in Puerto Rico. 5/
The techniques used in the latest mortality study are highly reputable, and the researchers very credible. These are not, as POTUS asserts, made-up numbers; they are the PR government's *official* death toll. 6/ cnn.com/2018/08/28/hea…
Importantly, most of these deaths were due *not* to immediate storm impact, but occurred in the months that followed. In other words: they were preventable. 7/
Numerous deaths were due to widespread inability to access basic support for chronic diseases - a direct result of a relief effort that failed to address urgent health needs. 8/ cnn.com/2018/03/15/pol…
Others were likely related to the slow pace of housing recovery - which forced people to live exposed to the elements and contributed to respiratory and other health issues. 9/ cnn.com/2018/01/12/us/…
And leaving large swathes of the population to drink contaminated water doesn't do wonders for public health either. 10/ nrdc.org/experts/mekela…
Clean water, health care, safe housing: these are (along with food) the elemental building blocks of natural disaster relief. And they were all poorly served by the federal response in Puerto Rico.
A swifter, more robust response would have saved many of these lives. 11/
A swifter, more robust response would have saved many of these lives. 11/
Why didn't that happen?
FEMA's own review noted a failure of imagination - failing to plan for something as bad as Maria. That's fair, but look - no plan is perfect - responders are quite used to adapting plans based on the reality we find. 12/ washingtonpost.com/national/failu…
FEMA's own review noted a failure of imagination - failing to plan for something as bad as Maria. That's fair, but look - no plan is perfect - responders are quite used to adapting plans based on the reality we find. 12/ washingtonpost.com/national/failu…
That failure to adapt - to super-size the federal relief effort from the very outset - doesn't rest solely with FEMA.
Only one person can order that level of effort: the President. And he failed to do so. The result falls squarely on his shoulders. /end washingtonpost.com/news/postevery…
Only one person can order that level of effort: the President. And he failed to do so. The result falls squarely on his shoulders. /end washingtonpost.com/news/postevery…
