How the New York Times Lies about SARS-CoV-2 Transmission: Part 2

Summary of Key Points

• A March 31 article titled “Infected but Feeling Fine: The Unwitting Coronavirus Spreaders” by New York Times reporter Apoorva Mandavilli characterized studies has having as having demonstrated that a fifth or more of community spread of SARS-CoV-2 is driven by infected people who remain asymptomatic.
• Mandavilli also reiterated the claim she made in a March 17 article that studies had proven the airborne transmissibility of the virus, which, as demonstrated in part one of this series, was untrue.
• Mandavilli further deceived Times readers in her March 31 piece by fallaciously equating the estimated proportion of people who have asymptomatic infections with the proportion of asymptomatic transmission.
• The Times characterized a study in the New England Journal of Medicine as having shown that a “Patient Z” had been an asymptomatic spreader. However, the authors of that study in fact did not claim that this patient had transmitted the virus to anyone else but merely hypothesized that asymptomatic transmission might be possible based on the finding of viral RNA in nasal swabs from the patient. The researchers further noted that the finding of viral RNA using RT-PCR assays is not necessarily indicative of the presence of infectious virus, but once again, as in her March 17 article, to sustain the preferred narrative, Mandavilli declined to relay that critical piece of information to her readers.
• Similarly, Mandavilli characterized a study of cases aboard the cruise ship Diamond Princess as having shown that a fifth or more of transmission is attributable to asymptomatic spread. In fact, the authors of that study only estimated the proportion of symptomatic infection and explicitly stated that there remained “no clear evidence that COVID-19 asymptomatic persons can transmit SARS-CoV-2”.
• Mandavilli also quoted a researcher leading a team out of Hong Kong that estimated, contrary to information from the WHO, that the proportion of presymptomatic transmission is between 20 percent and 40 percent. However, the team’s study that the Times links to in relation to their research did not provide an estimate of either asymptomatic or presymptomatic transmission, and no other information was provided to be able to determine how the team arrived at their estimate of presymptomatic spread. Consequently, the study presented no data contradicting the WHO’s prior statement that asymptomatic infection “does not appear to be a major driver of transmission” or its statement that the virus “is primarily transmitted from symptomatic people”.
• Mandavilli claimed that infected people “are most contagious about one to three days before they begin to show symptoms”. However, the only relevant source cited to support that claim, the New England Journal of Medicine study, presented no data on viral load in patients prior to the onset of their symptoms, and, once again, the Times failed to inform readers that the detection of viral RNA is not necessarily indicative of the presence of viable virus that could be transmitted to others.
• While acknowledging a distinction that epidemiologists recognize between “asymptomatic” and presymptomatic” transmission, Mandavilli nevertheless uses the former synonymously with the latter, characterizing the distinction as practically insignificant and a “semantic debate”.
• To support that point, Mandavilli cited the controversy that arose over another report published in the New England Journal of Medicine about an index patient the authors described as asymptomatic while also noting that she later developed symptoms. However, that is a false characterization of the nature of the controversy. It was not a semantic debate about asymptomatic versus presymptomatic transmission. Rather, the controversy arose because, as a separate investigation had determined, the report authors’ claim that the index patient had no symptoms at the time she transmitted the virus was false.
• An example of the practical significance of the distinction is that rationale behind school closures: since children are more likely to be asymptomatic and asymptomatic individuals are less likely to transmit the virus, school closure policies don’t make much sense in light of the harms they are acknowledged to cause.
• To support the contention that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne transmissible, Mandavilli cited her March 17 article, but this time she included caveats indicating that this remained theoretical, not proven, as she had falsely claimed in her prior report.
• Additionally, Mandavilli claimed that transmission of the virus at a choir practice in Washington state demonstrated that asymptomatic individuals can spread the virus through the airborne route. However, a CDC investigation of that event reported that the index patient did have symptoms. The CDC researchers also hypothesized that airborne transmission might have occurred while noting that there were also plenty of opportunities for droplet or fomite transmission.
• To support the argument that SARS-CoV-2 can be spread via aerosols generated by simply breathing, Mandavilli also cited a study in Nature Medicine finding RNA of common human coronaviruses in breath aerosols. While acknowledging that this study did not examine whether SARS-CoV-2 RNA could also be found in breath aerosols, Mandavilli once again declined to inform Times readers that the detection of viral RNA doesn’t prove the presence of infectious virus, and the study authors explicitly noted that they did not demonstrate virus viability. The Times also did not inform readers of the authors’ conclusion that, even if coronaviruses are airborne transmissible, their results indicated that prolonged close contact would still be necessary for transmission to occur.
• Finally, Mandavilli cited a study in PNAS finding infectious influenza virus in breath aerosols. With the Times having consistently advocated that people comply with the CDC’s recommendation to get an annual flu shot, though, Mandavilli declined to inform readers that study’s finding that vaccinated individuals shed more than six times as much aerosolized virus as infected individuals who did not get a flu shot.
• Similarly, while quoting a coauthor of one of them, the Times also did not inform readers that other studies had found the influenza vaccine to be associated with an increased risk of infection with non-influenza respiratory viruses including common human coronaviruses.

Introduction

In part one of this multi-part exposé on how the New York Times has for months systematically deceived the public about the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, we saw how award-winning reporter Apoorva Mandavilli mischaracterized the science in a March 17 article to persuade readers that the airborne transmissibility of the virus had been proven.

To bolster that message, the headline begged the question by asking “How long Will Coronavirus Live on Surfaces or in the Air Around You?” The rest of the article similarly characterized the science as though the question remaining was how long viable virus can remain in the air once aerosol particles are generated by infected individuals such as through coughing or sneezing. In truth, as revealed by examining Mandavilli’s own cited sources, the question remained whether airborne transmission occurs in the community setting.

Also, to bolster the claim, Mandavilli characterized the cited studies as contradicting the position of the World Health Organization (WHO) that SARS-CoV-2 is not airborne. In truth, the WHO rightly maintained that the airborne transmissibility of the virus remained unproven and that further research was required to determine whether it could be spread via smaller aerosol particles as well as larger respiratory droplets.[1]

(If you have not yet read part one, please click here to do so before continuing because it provides critical context for getting the most out of this installment.)

The deception continued in a Times article by Mandavilli published on March 31 titled “Infected but Feeling Fine: The Unwitting Coronavirus Spreaders”. (The title in the print edition was “Silent Infections Hobbling Battle to Thwart Virus”.) The article summary stated, “The C.D.C. director says new data about people who are infected but symptom-free could lead the agency to recommend broadened use of masks.”

The article’s overall message was that community spread of SARS-CoV-2 is driven largely by infected individuals who have no symptoms, including through airborne transmission.[2]

Once again, however, to propagate that narrative, the Times misrepresented the science, such as by fallaciously equating the proportion of individuals who are asymptomatic with the proportion of transmission that occurs asymptomatically.