Read on Twitter
Good dogged reporting here from the local Iowa press, but also note....
If you need a pseudo-science checklist to tell you to throw maximal effort at blunting a lethal global pandemic, then you're inherently unfit for whatever government job you hold. https://twitter.com/bcrodriguez/status/1245751831915122690
If you need a pseudo-science checklist to tell you to throw maximal effort at blunting a lethal global pandemic, then you're inherently unfit for whatever government job you hold. https://twitter.com/bcrodriguez/status/1245751831915122690
As to specifics of the criteria included in the governor's checklist, note also that it is not the data that matters, but the thresholds and points assigned, which are clearly arbitrary.
Did someone 'think' about those numbers?
Sure - but they weren't determined by science.
Did someone 'think' about those numbers?
Sure - but they weren't determined by science.
Were I a cynical type, I might even point out that this seems more like a public-relations/damage-control checklist, wherein high-visibility targets like care centers warrant more points because they will generate more press, while scattered anonymous deaths would go unnoticed.
Someone slip the Iowa governor's 12-point checklist to @NateSilver538 and the number nuts @FiveThirtyEight. https://twitter.com/LauraRBelin/status/1245759048093442048
