IN september, after the storm, she said her grandfather was in a nursing home. So not during the storm.
It is possible he died in a nursing home that did not have power and did not take care of him.
But if that is the case, I still don’t understand why, given that she has considerable political clout, and apparently a good supply of money, she didn’t pull her grandfather out of a nursing home that was killing him, and bring him to the United states, where he could have lived FOR FREE for a full year (we gave all refugees from PR 1 year of free housing and meal allowances, apparently).
My guess is he was dying in the nursing home, and he died in the nursing home, and he probably would have anyway — although nobody should doubt that the aftermath of hte storm, with power outages, lack of sewage treatment, and the medical services being decimated by people who left, DID cause the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of people in that country.
But that is a major caveat to attribution to death by hurricane. Much could have been prevented by better infrastructure in the first place.
Yep, I agree - I am only pointing out that she politicized her Grandfather’s death under two distinct claims.
It also appears that statistical counting of ‘deaths that would not have occurred if there was not a storm’ is not new. For instance, out of the ~1500-1800 Katrina deaths, at least 20 were from Firearms and an undisclosed amount listed as “many” were indirect deaths after the storm.
That is true for any big disaster anywhere. Sanitation breaks down, clean water can’t be had, food is short, medicine is delayed or not available, people sleeping outside. Nothing new there.
We will need clear definitions to prevent the commies from changing the scorekeeping rules all the time.
You count either IMMEDIATE deaths in a disaster OR EXCESS deaths for a year or more afterward. Both are valid measures. It’s just that the left has suddenly switched to excess deaths rather than immediate deaths.