Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As myself and others have posted before, the numbers coming out of Florida are suspiciously low.
Now we've learned that the architect and manager of Florida's COVID data portal -- which was praised by the Trump administration -- has been reassigned because she wouldn't fudge the numbers to hide the problems caused by early reopening.
But over the last few weeks, it "crashed and went offline, data disappeared with no explanation and access to the underlying data sheets became difficult.
Well, we can't have people walking around and thinking that government employees should concern themselves with "facts" and "data" if the truth makes the governor look bad. When push comes to shove they need to consider who they serve - the public, or the politicians?
Now Minitrue has to rectify her plusungood thoughtcrime.
True but based on a few articles I'm reading this was quite a popular service. The server issues before she was removed could be indication it was being overwhelmed. I'm speculating but she was probably told to scale it back and work with the resources allocated to her.
OP, if you knew the numbers were too low then why do you post a story about someone that allegedly refused to lower them.
After her removal shouldn't we be able to spot an obvious decrease? The news source doesn't mention that so I have to think they at least went and looked and didn't spot that.
If not, then the numbers weren't lowered (because she didn't do it) yet you knew they were too low?
Do you have an explanation for this?
So which is it?
a) The numbers are accurate and she's lying or embellishing.
b) She's telling the truth but the numbers were never changed.
c) She's telling the truth, the numbers were changed after she left but the change is not noticeable.
d) She's telling the truth, the numbers noticeably changed but the reporter and their bosses were too stupid to spot it and thus kissed a potential pulitzer goodbye.
With that said, OP can you point us to the change if you pick option D? (Please refer to the date she stopped doing the work too)
Both sides actively push their narrative to the extent that we are in a post truth world.
Just look to see whose story matches the data.
Should be easy to spot, like someone claiming that their car crashed because their passenger grabbed and turned the wheel yet you have video showing it going in a straight line....or suddenly veering.
Now if her story was that the data was suppressed all along and they fired her when she discovered the truth...then we would be unable to tell from the data. But that wasn't the story.
What we have so far is the OP saying they knew the numbers were low and then not proving it (actually the opposite) by putting up a news article about a gal who said that the numbers were right but that they were told to lower them but refused.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
