The Times's headline and story here are examples of what I see as frustratingly bad and non-actionable reporting of high-risk, but uncertain, events.

Dorian is a current major (category 5, 137 kt, 252 kph, 157 mph 1 minute sustained winds) hurricane. The damage is in fact easy to predict: it will be devastating wherever it makes landfall, as is presently being evidenced in the Bahamas. The storm will all but certainly persist for several days -- longer if it remains over warm waters, which feed it, less so if it heads inland.

The uncertainty lies over where it will make landfall on the US mainland. The storm track is determined by steering winds and pressure systems, and can change suddenly as conditions change. The early projected tracks called for the storm to cross the Florida peninsula, possibly heading into the Gulf of Mexico. The current projected path is well to the north. The actual track history has not changed much from the early predition yet, though it likely will.

The condition is not unlike that presented by a lunatic madman with a large cache of explosives. Clearly dangerous, but wildly unpredictable.

From the point of view of decisionmakers -- national, state, local, and city governments, as well as businesses and residents in the area -- the questions each should be asking is:

* What can be done?

* What actions maximise future capabilities?

* What is the likely affected zone of impacts?

* How can rescue, recovery, and repair capabilities be staged where needed but also out of harm's way?

* Which people and properties are at greatest risk and might further impede quick-response activities, and which are more adaptive?

Committments of actions, materials, manpower, and transport capacity are limited and dictate future possible actions. As an example, ordering mass evacuations along the entire Atlantic seaboard from Palm Beach to Norfolk would commit fuel and highway capacity, and likely be unnecessary. Strategic evacuations, especially of the infirm and elderly, could be useful and effective. Knowing who and where those pesons are helps emergency and rescue services as well as planners. That's information which can be gathered well in advance of any particular storm threat.

Knowing specific damage mechanisms helps. Hurricanes present wind, rain, and storm surge. Flying debris, structural damage, especially to weak points (windows, roofs, signage, outdoor furnishings) are most likely. Flooding may be by rising ocean waters or flooding waterways and lakes. Onshore floods may carry debries and contaminants. Salt and fresh water damage in different ways.

Distance from shore, armouring of strucures, safe retreat zones, removal or securing of properties, planning of mass evacuation routes and locations, provisioning vehicles for group evacuations (busses and trains are far more effective people movers than private cars, though availability is limited).

An immediate response to any threatening situation is hightened vigelance. Be aware of the threat, potential near safe zones, risks, and opportunities. Those are all actionable options.

A preparedness mindset shows awareness that threats may occur. This involves steps that can be taken well in advance of risks, to reduce them.

Moving further from shore, rising structures to allow for flooding, building protective barriers, where effective (or knowing where, say, due to permeable geology, dikes and berms are ineffective as water will simply seep up through the ground), pre-stocking storm shutters or coverings, and being prepared for structural damage, all help. When taken well in advance of any given threat emergence, these increase potential responses and options.

The risks aren't impossible to predict. It's that the predictions have a large range of uncertainty. That itself is a prediction.

There's a quote concerning seamanship I've found useful:

The Art of ship handling involves the effective use of forces under control to overcome the effect of forces not under control.
-- Charles H. Cotter

That is the crux of all engineering and management domains.

The Times could and should have done far better.