Do you think this makes sense?: The New York Times has long been branded as our smartest newspaper.
Its reporters went to the finest schools. We all know these things.
This morning, on the paper's front page, three reporters tackle the current state of nationwide coronavirus deaths. The opening paragraph says this:
"The daily number of deaths from the coronavirus has risen recently in some of the nation’s most populous states, leaving behind grieving families and signaling a possible end to months of declining death totals nationally."Signaling a possible end to months of declining death totals nationally? At present, the 7-day average for daily deaths nationwide stands exactly where it was three weeks ago, on June 20.
The decline is over, at least at this point. It shouldn't be too hard to see that.
We marveled at the difficulty the Times was having with this point, starting in its headlines. Then, we reached this passage:
"Some officials have attributed the drop in deaths over the last few months to improvements in treatment for the virus. Doctors have more tools today than they did in the spring, including the use of remdesivir, an anti-viral drug that has been shown to shorten hospital stays though not reduce fatalities."In that first sentence, the reporters say the drop in deaths may have come from improvements in treatment. Then, they seem to cite one, and only one, of these tools:
It's remdesivir, an anti-viral drug that doesn't reduce fatalities!
This is front-page work in our smartest newspaper concerning the biggest health topic in the past hundred years. Can you see why credentialed experts keep telling us that we should tell you that it's all anthropology now?
Full disclosure: We suspect that the editor did it.