Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

75% of homes in Florida Keys escape destruction!
Quote | Reply
Why do we not see headlines like this rather than 25% of homes in Florida Keys destroyed?

After the predictions it seems the headlines should highlight how much better off the outcome was than expected.

Is there anyone left in media with a glass half full?
Quote Reply
Re: 75% of homes in Florida Keys escape destruction! [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Moonrocket wrote:
Is there anyone left in media with a glass half full?

No one can sell a glass half full, but they sure can sell a glass half empty!
Quote Reply
Re: 75% of homes in Florida Keys escape destruction! [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You're kidding right?

This is not an example of a glass half full vs. half empty. It's a natural disaster that has caused significant destruction, which is in the public interest to report. Sure, people survived, most without any serious damage at all. But while that's being reported, it's not the story.

After 9/11, should the headlines have been "Greater than 99.9 % of all buildings in NYC still standing?"
Quote Reply
Re: 75% of homes in Florida Keys escape destruction! [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So next time 10 people are killed in a terrorist attack the headlines should read 323 milion people not murdered! And that way we can only focus on people whos lives werent just ruined. How would that suit you?


How much aid can be raised if no one knows the extent of damage? Theres a reason it makss sense to say how many are destroyed and it has nothing to do with optimism or cynicism.




who's smarter than you're? i'm!
Quote Reply
Re: 75% of homes in Florida Keys escape destruction! [AlanShearer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AlanShearer wrote:
You're kidding right?

This is not an example of a glass half full vs. half empty. It's a natural disaster that has caused significant destruction, which is in the public interest to report. Sure, people survived, most without any serious damage at all. But while that's being reported, it's not the story.

After 9/11, should the headlines have been "Greater than 99.9 % of all buildings in NYC still standing?"


Hahahaha same arguments, but you hit post before i did. :)




who's smarter than you're? i'm!
Quote Reply
Re: 75% of homes in Florida Keys escape destruction! [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Another 65% with major damage

you want to call that bullsh!t?!

---------------------------
Busy Spending My Children's Inheritance!
Quote Reply
Re: 75% of homes in Florida Keys escape destruction! [Sweeney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't want to call any of it bullshit. It all sucks.

But I worry the messaging only makes it worse. Justifies even higher insurance rate jumps. Makes it even harder for the people there (and I have relatives and friends in areas that were hit hard) to move forward.

They were saying two days ago it was going to be total destruction and certain death pretty much and while bad it was not nearly as bad as they projected.

Why does bad sell? Does it actually help anyone to make everything as bad as possible?

Should we not visit that the area was more resilient than we expected? That the financial impact of a massive hit was not as bad as expected.

Maybe I'm jaded but who benefits from the super negativity?
Quote Reply
Re: 75% of homes in Florida Keys escape destruction! [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Moonrocket wrote:
I don't want to call any of it bullshit. It all sucks.

But I worry the messaging only makes it worse. Justifies even higher insurance rate jumps. Makes it even harder for the people there (and I have relatives and friends in areas that were hit hard) to move forward.

They were saying two days ago it was going to be total destruction and certain death pretty much and while bad it was not nearly as bad as they projected.

Why does bad sell? Does it actually help anyone to make everything as bad as possible?

Should we not visit that the area was more resilient than we expected? That the financial impact of a massive hit was not as bad as expected.

Maybe I'm jaded but who benefits from the super negativity?


Do you know why death tolls were low?

Do you know how much the economic damage is?




who's smarter than you're? i'm!
Quote Reply
Re: 75% of homes in Florida Keys escape destruction! [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Moonrocket wrote:
I don't want to call any of it bullshit. It all sucks.

But I worry the messaging only makes it worse. Justifies even higher insurance rate jumps. Makes it even harder for the people there (and I have relatives and friends in areas that were hit hard) to move forward.

They were saying two days ago it was going to be total destruction and certain death pretty much and while bad it was not nearly as bad as they projected.

Why does bad sell? Does it actually help anyone to make everything as bad as possible?

Should we not visit that the area was more resilient than we expected? That the financial impact of a massive hit was not as bad as expected.

Maybe I'm jaded but who benefits from the super negativity?

The people who are responsible for saving lives would be my guess.

https://www.miles4matt.run/
Quote Reply
Re: 75% of homes in Florida Keys escape destruction! [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Moonrocket wrote:
Justifies even higher insurance rate jumps.

If you live in a flood plain or an area that is a target for natural disasters on a regular basis, you should be paying higher insurance rates.
Quote Reply
Re: 75% of homes in Florida Keys escape destruction! [veganerd] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
veganerd wrote:
So next time 10 people are killed in a terrorist attack the headlines should read 323 milion people not murdered! And that way we can only focus on people whos lives werent just ruined. How would that suit you?


How much aid can be raised if no one knows the extent of damage? Theres a reason it makss sense to say how many are destroyed and it has nothing to do with optimism or cynicism.

You example would be more relvant if it was a terrorist bomb that was supposed to kill thousands that everyone was anticipating and it did not. In my opinion that is news too. As well as what made us more resilient than we expected.
Quote Reply
Re: 75% of homes in Florida Keys escape destruction! [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Moonrocket wrote:
veganerd wrote:
So next time 10 people are killed in a terrorist attack the headlines should read 323 milion people not murdered! And that way we can only focus on people whos lives werent just ruined. How would that suit you?


How much aid can be raised if no one knows the extent of damage? Theres a reason it makss sense to say how many are destroyed and it has nothing to do with optimism or cynicism.

You example would be more relvant if it was a terrorist bomb that was supposed to kill thousands that everyone was anticipating and it did not. In my opinion that is news too. As well as what made us more resilient than we expected.

Being resilient is irrelevant.




who's smarter than you're? i'm!
Quote Reply
Re: 75% of homes in Florida Keys escape destruction! [nhunter344] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
nhunter344 wrote:
Moonrocket wrote:
Justifies even higher insurance rate jumps.

If you live in a flood plain or an area that is a target for natural disasters on a regular basis, you should be paying higher insurance rates.

Yes- but it appears the knowledge we had to date was that a storm like this would destroy south Florida and the destruction was much less than anticipated - so the risk calculation should be less with this proof, right?
Quote Reply
Re: 75% of homes in Florida Keys escape destruction! [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Moonrocket wrote:
nhunter344 wrote:
Moonrocket wrote:
Justifies even higher insurance rate jumps.


If you live in a flood plain or an area that is a target for natural disasters on a regular basis, you should be paying higher insurance rates.


Yes- but it appears the knowledge we had to date was that a storm like this would destroy south Florida and the destruction was much less than anticipated - so the risk calculation should be less with this proof, right?

Actuaries use actual numbers. Not news stories (it's almost in the name).

Premiums reflect risk. If the risk is actually lower, another carrier could easily come in and take business. Many insurers have left Florida altogether, the actual risk and exposure was too great.

We are so fucked.
Quote Reply
Re: 75% of homes in Florida Keys escape destruction! [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No one has ever seen a storm like that.

You're such a Trump ball washer! - Duffy - Feb 8, 17 13:18
Quote Reply
Re: 75% of homes in Florida Keys escape destruction! [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Weather is unpredictable. Who knew?

That said, we now do have pretty sophisticated weather models that did indeed predict fairly accurately that the storm would skim northern Cuba and then turn north. There is also an exponential difference in power as wind speed increases, so a 160mph wind gust does A LOT more damage than a 120mph wind gust. Thankfully the storm weakened over Cuba because it spent so long there. Had it turned sooner and gone through the central Bahamas it may have stayed Cat 5 and done much more damage.

So to summarise:
- The weather predictions were fairly accurate
- People had plenty of time to prepare
- Thankfully the storm dropped in intensity prior to hitting the US
...hence less damage that might have occurred.

Oh yes, and bad news sells better than good news. There's that too.
Quote Reply
Re: 75% of homes in Florida Keys escape destruction! [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
Weather is unpredictable. Who knew?

That said, we now do have pretty sophisticated weather models that did indeed predict fairly accurately that the storm would skim northern Cuba and then turn north. There is also an exponential difference in power as wind speed increases, so a 160mph wind gust does A LOT more damage than a 120mph wind gust. Thankfully the storm weakened over Cuba because it spent so long there. Had it turned sooner and gone through the central Bahamas it may have stayed Cat 5 and done much more damage.

So to summarise:
- The weather predictions were fairly accurate
- People had plenty of time to prepare
- Thankfully the storm dropped in intensity prior to hitting the US
...hence less damage that might have occurred.

Oh yes, and bad news sells better than good news. There's that too.

Its eerily similar to the y2k bug detractors. It wasnt as bad as predicted because of all the massive efforts that went into it because of the gloomy predictions. But people only see it didnt effect them so it was fake news.




who's smarter than you're? i'm!
Quote Reply
Re: 75% of homes in Florida Keys escape destruction! [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Why do we not see headlines like this rather than 25% of homes in Florida Keys destroyed?

But then how would the media be able to justify having an entire week of 24-hour coverage.


You're such a Trump ball washer! - Duffy - Feb 8, 17 13:18
Quote Reply
Re: 75% of homes in Florida Keys escape destruction! [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tonight they are saying 90% of homes in the keys are damaged or destroyed.

http://www.wcvb.com/...ross-the-us/12225634
Quote Reply
Re: 75% of homes in Florida Keys escape destruction! [Moonrocket] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Moonrocket wrote:
nhunter344 wrote:
Moonrocket wrote:
Justifies even higher insurance rate jumps.


If you live in a flood plain or an area that is a target for natural disasters on a regular basis, you should be paying higher insurance rates.


Yes- but it appears the knowledge we had to date was that a storm like this would destroy south Florida and the destruction was much less than anticipated - so the risk calculation should be less with this proof, right?

Do you think that this is going to be the last hurricane to ever hit Florida? IMHO, I suspect we ain't seen nuthin' yet. Maybe not next year, or the year after, etc but.........

I'm not a climate denier BTW.
Quote Reply