Hacker News Reader

She was told to turn an 18% to a 10% so more counties would appear ready to reopen, according to the article linked within this one.

I may need some help understanding how that's a "differing opinion" about how to clean up data.

View on HN

To me that doesn't pass the smell test. In my state, they've just changed the thresholds. "New science is showing XYZ so in response counties can now eat at restaurants if their shits under 20"

Changing a threshold is not changing the underlying data. One is attempting to be rational and iterate through policy, and the other is lying.

Edit: Just to be explicit, yes I'm calling out the false equivalence as a logical fallacy.

Right no shit. What I'm arguing is that people take the path of least resistance and it would have been far easier to announce a policy change than cook the books. I am saying that if opening up was the only reason, I do not believe that's the path they would take. Of course I'm just basing this off of my own feels.

Making a policy change has consequences. “De Santis made a terrible policy change, X people are now dead” is a very different headline than “after the data suggested Florida open up, X people are now dead”.

I don’t know if there is a conspiracy, but your argument regarding motivation is definitely not thorough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com