[three14]

I'm having trouble reconciling the rest of the article with this:

> If a death occurred either on the 18 hottest or the 18 coldest days that each city experienced in a typical year, they linked it to extreme temperatures. Using a statistical model, the researchers compared the risk of dying on very hot and cold days, and this risk with the risk of dying on temperate days. They found that in Latin American metropolises, nearly 6%—almost 1 million—of all deaths between those years happened on days of extreme heat and cold.

So the 36 most extreme days out of 365 only account for 6% of all deaths? Meaning those days are safer than average?

[curiousllama]

The study did model excess deaths, not total deaths.

But to your point (from the study): > The excess death fraction of total deaths was 0.67% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58–0.74%) for heat-related deaths and 5.09% (95% CI 4.64–5.47%) for cold-related deaths. The relative risk of death was 1.057 (95% CI 1.046–1.067%) per 1 °C higher temperature during extreme heat and 1.034 (95% CI 1.028–1.040%) per 1 °C lower temperature during extreme cold.

So of those 1M, it looks like 90%ish were cold-related (though more extreme temps are equally dangerous in both directions).