The Continuing Bizarre Decline in Science Reporting at the New York Times

&gt; <i>It’s not even a remotely plausible figure given our lived experience of this pandemic.</i><p>Just a nitpick, but I&#x27;d be <i>really</i> careful to generalize like this. The lived experiences of the pandemic are radically different between people. For some, it is very personal and immediate - if they have close friend or relatives who are affected or if they work in a profession, where they frequently whitness infections.<p>Others may be lucky and may not have experienced the actual pandemic at all, only the effects of the countermeasures.<p>All that makes it hard for a random person to instantly dismiss most figures like the one in the article as implausible, if you&#x27;re not specifically keeping track of the development or are working in the field. I think this is one of the reasons why covid misinformation can grab a hold so easily.

I don&#x27;t get it, the Times made an error when it came to a figure in one article and that is, according to the title, a continuing bizarre decline in science reporting?<p>We could talk about science reporting at the times if we knew how many errors they make in say a thousand science articles compared to a decade ago, or if they&#x27;re slower to correct them, or correct them less frequently or whatever else.<p>Up next, the bizarre decline in the quality of blogposting, one guy on substack made a mistake they didn&#x27;t correct

Why are we getting our science news from the liberal arts majors on the other side of campus? The problem is they really do not understand science. They believe everything is concrete and don’t understand the nuances.

Good article. People are being mislead constantly by people we&#x27;ve given our trust to and it&#x27;s unfortunate.

There is a general decline at the New York Times. It&#x27;s certainly not limited to Science, that just may be the easiest place to spot shoddy reporting.

Sophistry is going to be the undoing of civilized society.

The numerical mistake Gruber points out is definitely a howler, but I’m not sure characterizing all and any opposition to COVID boosters as “nonsensical” is fair. The WHO itself says:<p>&gt;<i>In a period of continued global vaccine supply shortage equity considerations at country, regional and global level remain an essential consideration to assure vaccination of high priority groups in every country. Improving coverage of the primary vaccination series should be prioritized over booster vaccination.</i><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.who.int&#x2F;news&#x2F;item&#x2F;04-10-2021-interim-statement-on-booster-doses-for-covid-19-vaccination" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.who.int&#x2F;news&#x2F;item&#x2F;04-10-2021-interim-statement-o...</a>