5 ms·

As pointed out below[0], this is a sensationalist headline and should be changed. This is the projection if no measures were taken. Which makes sense: if 56% o

• jader201 7y ago
  > As pointed out below[0], this is a sensationalist headline and should be changed. The title was based on the entirety of the linked content — the letter from the CA governor to the president — which included no context around the numbers being based on no measures being taken.
  • jdminhbg 7y ago
    Understandable, but since there's been clarification, I think that should be reflected in the title.
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    • jader201 7y ago
      I would disagree that the title should be changed, since the linked content does not reflect the additional context you’re referring to. I suppose a more fully-qualified title might append “in letter to the president”. But appending “if no measures are taken” is not accurate, since this article — his letter to the president — doesn’t include this context. Saying the title is sensationalist is equivalent to saying the letter is sensationalist. And if that is the case, the most you could say is a sensationalist title accurately represents a sensationalist letter.
      • jdminhbg 7y ago
        Generally the HN style has been to actively editorialize to tone down sensationalism, even if the linked title or content is sensationalist.
        • sneak 7y ago
          I think GP was suggesting that the letter is itself not sensationalist, and thus neither is the title as it accurately reflects the content linked, and thus it is fine as-is. I agree, it is a reasonable statement and reasonable projection (within an order of magnitude) that reflects the gravity of the situation. A lot of people don’t seem to realize just how big this is about to become.
          • _jahh 7y ago
            i think the measures most places have taken are going to reduce the spread significantly(USA, 2000 instead of 2 million deaths), i pray.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• aazaa 7y ago
  The headline accurately reflects the content of the letter: > ... We project roughly 56 present of our population - 25.5 million people -- will be infected with the virus over an eight week period. There is no qualification to that statement.
  • Retric 7y ago
    That’s a quote out of context. If I ask what’s the worst thing that can happen, the replies are going to seem horrific as predictions.
    • CriticalCathed 7y ago
      Is it? It's a letter intended to persuade President Donald Trump to act in relief of California. I think the statistic is not out of context. There's nothing in that letter that changes the meaning. We have outside knowledge with respect to the letter that changes how we understand that number, but it has been rhetorically used in the letter just as it is quoted in the title. Often times things are sensationalist, or out of context, this is not one of those situations.
    • jader201 7y ago
      The letter — which is what is linked — has no additional context. So I’m not sure how one could say it’s taken out of context. It’s reflective of the actual content of the letter.
• forkexec 7y ago
  In this case, the primary motivation is to light a fire under POTUS'es rear-end with concrete data and matter-of-fact worst-case scenarios. It may only be secondarily clickbaity to increase pressure on POTUS. These are decent and respectable motives to get ahead of a crisis.
• sabujp 7y ago
  > if 56% of the population is going to contract coronavirus in the next eight weeks, then the lockdown is pointless. You're nearly to herd immunity at that point You better lockdown everyone over 60 during those 8 weeks while everyone else gets infected and recovers then, i.e. you need a lockdown
• justnotworthit 7y ago
  You might be assuming that headlines in hn are so that its readers can find the information or knowledge that most benefit thems. You might have also noticed the tenor of the conversation around the virus is different than what one normally comes to hn for.