From isolating from your cat, to masking for monkeypox, to insisting parents are “eager” to vaccinate their kids, the New York Times remains COVID-crazy, over two years into the pandemic. Case in point: A June 10 tweet from Times science reporter Emily Anthes, based on her story of a veterinarian who “probably got COVID-19” from a cat:
NEW: A veterinarian probably got Covid-19 after an infected cat, which likely got the virus from its owners, sneezed in her face. The risk of catching the virus from cats remains low, but it’s a reminder to isolate from your pets when sick.
Anthes’ take is sufficiently wacky to (almost) make you miss the crazed COVID stylings of Apoorva Mandavilli, who is moving on from COVID alarmism to monkeypox alarmism.
No matter what virus she’s covering, Mandavilli can’t quit masks. (Notoriously, she wrote a news story favoring masks even over vaccination.)
Even after those ubiquitous cloth and medical masks have been shown to be almost useless for actually halting the spread of COVID, she now insists monkeypox is airborne, so bring out the masks again. Showing that the paper’s respect for the Centers for Disease Control is selective, Mandavilli dismissed CDC opinion when it’s not sufficiently mask-centric, as shown by this headline: “C.D.C. Dismisses Airborne Transmission of Monkeypox. Some Experts Disagree.”
And what did a March health story on a “new wave of Covid-19” offer as a solution? You guessed it:
As the map shifts to yellow and eventually orange in your area, it’s time to take extra precautions, including donning masks in public spaces and rethinking large indoor gatherings where you don’t know the vaccination status of others….Even if you’re not wearing a mask now, check your mask supply and make sure you have plenty of high-quality medical-style masks on hand.….Dr. Marr said she knows people are tired of masks, but wearing one is only a minor inconvenience and is a proven way to lower your risk….
Proven? When? How?
A June 12 story on a mediocre COVID vaccine for children must have only surveyed the COVID-obsessed Times newsroom when it claimed
Parents are so eager to have a coronavirus vaccine for their youngest children that some have said they would accept even low rates of effectiveness, as long as the vaccines were safe.
Yet three days later the paper reported:
According to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey published last month, just 18 percent of parents with children under the age of 5 said they were eager to vaccinate their children right away.
So why did the Times say parents were “eager”?
