HARVARD STUDY

Harvard Study

In a column titled "The excesses of the Harvard Mortality Study" demographer Raul Figueroa raises his opinion on the study conducted by Harvard University (UH) using the survey methodology. It is interesting how the use of the word "excesses" in the title has given the false impression that the study is wrong, when in fact the author himself says otherwise.

In addition, the author points out two (2) "problems" which those that criticize the study fanatically use to object to their results. On one hand this raises that "[t] he main problem of the study is that they can obtain estimates of excess of more accurate deaths with data from the demographic register." The fact that there is a reliable source of data to compare the statistical estimates of the study is not really a problem, indeed, it is a great advantage. This aspect should be used by the Government to provide official statistics as they are available so that the scientists who conducted the study somehow "calibrate" their statistical model to be used in future occasions, God forbid, once again a natural disaster like an earthquake or a massive tsunami that causes land liquefaction, collapse of buildings and landslides that cover entire communities. A win-win situation for both parties and a channel of communication and exchange of opinion opened without the need for the government to invest a penny.

The other problem that the author points out is not even a problem of the study as it refers to the fact "that many people are interpreting the Harvard study estimate as a real fact." The estimated 4,645 is merely the arithmetic average of the estimated range of deaths. Surely this figure is used because it is the easiest to explain, surely there will be other figures with different percentages of error or standard deviations, or medium or average and other statistical parameters more difficult to understand that could be used as the result of the study. Scientists cannot control how the results of their studies are used, and I understand that for whom only this number is a problem it is for a minority of fanatics who blindly believe what their political leader tells them. I do not think anyone else believes that were exactly 4,645 the dead, but the figure reflects and confirms that indeed they were more than the 16 and 64 that have been used as official figures.

The governor has justified his estimates by saying that this was the resukt of the protocol that they used. Then, would it not have been advisable to accept that the protocol failed and that they would wait for the results of the study of the George Washington University to then establish an agreement so that using both studies it can be design a new protocol to estimate the deaths that would be caused by different scenarios of natural phenomena by municipality or region that are affected?  Foe example, a landslide in the mountains of the center of the island, a massive tsunami in the cotyj coast, a catastrophic earthquake in the metropolitan zone of San Juan, a category 5 hurricane that affects Vieques, Cuelbra and the East coast?

There still time to recapacitate and accept that we were never prepared, as noboby never could, to face the impact of a natural phenomenon with such destructive force.