This NYT story on the administration's COVID fiasco reads like a gang attack on Deborah Birx. Political officials who made bad decisions looking for a scapegoat, backed by quotes from doctors and scientists who think she didn't stand up enough to Trump. /1 nyti.ms/30odYB3
The article is full of claims attributed to Birx, saying in April that the numbers were heading in the right direction. Maybe that's because ... they were? "Mitigation was working." “All metros are stabilizing.” The US "was on the same trajectory as Italy." That was all true. /2
But the article says Birx "failed to account for a vital variable: how Mr. Trump’s rush to [reopen] would help undercut the social distancing," etc.
Wait, what? We're holding the mitigation-advocating scientist responsible for the president who trampled her recommendations? /3
"Unlike Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx is a strong believer in models," says NYT. "Fauci has cautioned that ... real-world outcomes depend on how people respond to calls for changes in behavior."
This distinction is bogus. Birx has said EXACTLY the same thing about models and behavior. /4
As the article notes, Birx focused on a "constant stream of updated data." Data, not models. In early June, officials realized the virus was "spreading with invisible ferocity during the weeks in May when states were opening up." How? By "digging into new data from Dr. Birx." /5
The administration certainly botched COVID. And you can argue that Birx should rebut Trump more in public or in private. But in this article, other officials are trying to blame her for Trump's malpractice and theirs. And the evidence they're peddling doesn't make the case. /END
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.