I'm sure others have posted the same thing, but I think it bears repeating.
The funniest thing to me about the "data and metrics" that Reynolds uses is how arbitrary the point system is. You need 10 points out of 12 for a shelter in place order to be issued. Here's a (admittedly ridiculous) hypothetical situation: Everyone dies in the state except those in long-term care facilities. Since there wasn't an outbreak in those, you'd only reach 9 of the required 10 points for a shelter in place order to be issued.
I'm all for following the data, but when there are known issues with the data, as well as relatively arbitrary metrics, it doesn't make any sense to solely make decisions, especially those that potentially make a life or death difference, upon flawed data.
The funniest thing to me about the "data and metrics" that Reynolds uses is how arbitrary the point system is. You need 10 points out of 12 for a shelter in place order to be issued. Here's a (admittedly ridiculous) hypothetical situation: Everyone dies in the state except those in long-term care facilities. Since there wasn't an outbreak in those, you'd only reach 9 of the required 10 points for a shelter in place order to be issued.
I'm all for following the data, but when there are known issues with the data, as well as relatively arbitrary metrics, it doesn't make any sense to solely make decisions, especially those that potentially make a life or death difference, upon flawed data.