> For someone to buck the orders, it takes a lot of courage and be able to stand up under pressure.

But it doesn’t mean she’s right, it just means she feels strongly about it.

Or maybe she just overreacted and didn't understand the nature of the epidemiologist's data change?

Maybe its the morality of society in general or maybe its the Trump effect but I think we have been too quick to assign hero status and moral uprightness to people at the slightest opportunity. I'm not calling this woman a liar but as long as I can imagine a plausible scenario that provides an alternative explanation to whatever has been claimed especially considering that I dont know this person personally, I think I for one will not be so hasty with the canonization.

> I think we owe these people who are willing to call out problems as they see it a more charitable hearing.

In general, whistleblowers should be attended to, due consideration should be given to what they are risking.

But if you're going to do it, you need to build up a case and make it carefully and dispassionately, and above all maintain your professionalism. This reads more like a divorce proceeding.

If you're going to be dispassionate, you'll never whistle blow - nobody weighing the pros/cons dispassionately would consider ruining their career to expose one of the millions of shit companies a worthwhile endeavour.

> But if you're going to do it, you need to build up a case and make it carefully and dispassionately, and above all maintain your professionalism.

Last time I checked, the whistleblower wasn't raving or cursing on the way out.

It sounds like you're just generally uncomfortable with questioning authority.

Wrong number.

Problem is "someone who is willing to take a stand on moral principles" looks the same as "someone who was caught with their hand in the cookie jar and claims to be a victim".

Do you think that's relevant to this particular situation though? What did she do that counts as getting her hand caught in the cookie jar?

One big problem is the timing of all of this. In a typical government job, you could stab a co-worker to death, and management will sit around for three months mulling what to do about it.

In this case, it sounds like they told her to make a change, she said she disagreed but made the change anyway. And then they fired her? For what? This just doesn't ring true.

The coverup idea doesn't make much sense either. Apparently the "deleted" data was minor detail that would be published in a day or two anyway. Is it even material? Would anyone even be looking at it, aside from this scandal? Also sounds off.

My guess is that (right or wrong), she was already on someone's shitlist, and this was the last straw. The "my successors will be liars" thing certainly wouldn't make me want to work with her.

There will be an investigation, as there should be. I suspect there's little or no fire.

I actually agree with the beginning part of your comment, but then it makes much more sense to me that she was fired for political reasons. Pissing someone off or making them look bad is one of the few ways I see a fast firing happening in government these days.

One thing to add to that is that: Yes, it may be political, but it may be a very localized political situation (like a coworker or a PM or just this person's boss). The media/news/articles/discussion appear to be portraying this event in such a way as to portray the local governor/state-government in a bad light and as somehow responsible. See all the talk about the governor in this thread, the orders about nursing homes, etc.