Guaging the success of the relief efforts.

[Stu Pidasso]

25000 to 100000 were predicted to die Link.

If the death toll comes in considerably less than that, is it right to say the relief efforts in the wake of Katrina were a resounding success?

Stu

[sam h]

That model appears to assume that nobody is evacuated before the hurricane. So using its death-toll predictions as a benchmark for assessinng relief efforts in the wake of Katrina is fundamentally flawed.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
That model appears to assume that nobody is evacuated before the hurricane. So using its death-toll predictions as a benchmark for assessinng relief efforts in the wake of Katrina is fundamentally flawed.


[/ QUOTE ]

The article speaks about the people who could not evacuate being housed at the Superdome.

Amid this maelstrom, the estimated 200,000 or more people left behind in an evacuation will be struggling to survive. Some will be housed at the Superdome, the designated shelter in New Orleans for people too sick or infirm to leave the city. Others will end up in last-minute emergency refuges that will offer minimal safety. But many will simply be on their own, in homes or looking for high ground

It doesn't say wether the evacuation was before or after the hurricane. However, it is quite clear they were taking into consideration existing plans should a major hurricane strike New Orleans. I believe those plans provided for a mandatory evacuation of the city before the hurricane(which makes sense).

If you can provide a better link that clearly shows what the predicted death toll would be given a mandatory evacuation, I'd be really interested in seeing it.

On another note. The article implies that FEMA basically ignored New Orleans until a Bush came into office. Only recently did FEMA begin to respond to the lobbying of Louisiana emergency management officials.

Stu

[sam h]

My bad. I just saw the part about "hundreds of thousands" of people being trapped in the city higher up in the article.

The model still seems to be estimating a higher number of non-evacuees than estimates for this crisis. They also build a Category 5 hurricane into their model, as well as other assumptions about the impact that may not have been mirrored during Katrina.

I don't know of any other models that were more accurate. But the point is that if you are going to use the model's predictions to judge current efforts you are making two assumptions that are very hard to justify: (a) that the model is somehow "accurate" in its own predictions and (b) that the paramters of the model match what actually happened in terms of the impact of the storm on the city.

It is an interesting idea as far as judging the relief effort, but I don't think it really works.

Wouldn't it mean more that the preventive/pre-storm efforts were a success?

[cadillac1234]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't it mean more that the preventive/pre-storm efforts were a success?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow nothing like making lemonaid out of lemons...

Government incompetence should have led to 100K deaths not just 10K

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't it mean more that the preventive/pre-storm efforts were a success?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow nothing like making lemonaid out of lemons...

Government incompetence should have led to 100K deaths not just 10K

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, no. The OP said that ultimate body count may be significantly less than projected. His hypothesis seemed to be that the relief effort was more of a success than it is being given credit for. In my opinion, if there is any "credit" to be given, it would be to the pre-storm preparation, most specifically the decision to evacuate the entire city. Post-storm relief would seem to have less of an effect on the number of dead than pre-storm preparation.