Hacker News Reader

> Going by the metro region with a population of 2.2 million, and assuming the heat-related deaths were underreported by half (round up to 100) that’s .0045%

That is deaths per pop, not rate of deaths. Assuming people live to 80 on average, you'd expect 1/80 to die each year. So multiply that number by 80 to translate it to per death instead of per pop, and you get around 0.36% of deaths that year in Portland was due to that heatwave. 0.36% line up really well to the reported 0.4% figure from the article.

Nice catch, that does line up well

Statistically, the heat wave you mention killed 150 people, not 72 [1]

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/08/11/climate/death... - see graphic

110F isn’t very hot by global standards. Of course, northern costal cities like Portland are going to be below global averages.

Heck, it hardly makes news when Silicon Valley breaks 100F these days.

It is around the temperatures the article is talking about.

It's very hard to compare ~110 F in a very dry region compared to ~110 F in a wet region. 110 F at 70% humidity is a heat index of 160 F, close to unsurvivable. The highest recorded heat index was 178 F in Saudi Arabia, with an actual temperature of 108 F.

Another thing to consider is heat waves are much worse in regions without reliable or universal air conditioning. This could explain the much higher death tolls in South America compared to North America.