Reacción a "Experiencing successive climate-related disasters is associated with greater mental health deterioration"

Li and Leppold claim that for the first time they have demonstrated statistically that accumulation of two or three natural disasters, especially among the vulnerable, led to more frequent PTSD, anxiety and depression than their occurrence in individual or no disasters. With climate change producing more natural disasters, the authors warn that the mental health of the population will worsen. Their logic, backed by a wealth of statistics seems to be unassailable.  

On the other hand, the study is limited to a small handful of measurable symptoms that are claimed to represent mental health. 

That assumption is questionable. The symptoms do not include a vast array of other psychological symptoms such as grief, anger, guilt, shame, and injustice. They certainly say nothing about psychosomatic consequences of disasters such as heart attacks, strokes, and a great variety of physical symptoms; and they do not represent social symptoms of disasters such as car accidents, divorces, and delinquency.  

Driving down consciously, verbally and mathematically into a few symptoms and extrapolating the world according to them is typical of left brain functioning. But in disasters the right brain, with its vast array of biopsychosocial symptoms, is dominant.   

The left brain measure of the frequency of certain symptoms in recurrent disasters is valid and can be useful.   

But ignoring the whole tapestry of human turmoil when the world rips apart has had, and could have in climate change future, dire consequences.