How the New York Times Lies about SARS-CoV-2 Transmission: Part 3

Summary of Key Points

• A June 5 article titled “W.H.O. Finally Endorses Masks to Prevent Coronavirus Transmission” by New York Times reporter Apoorva Mandavilli characterized the science as having demonstrated the effectiveness of masks to prevent SARS-CoV-2 in the community setting while criticizing the WHO for belatedly and reluctantly endorsing policies recommending their universal use by members of the public.
• To support that characterization, the Times claimed that, until June 5, the WHO had “opposed” the use of masks by the public. In fact, the WHO had since January advised anyone with symptoms to wear a medical mask as source control, meaning to prevent the wearer from spreading the virus to others. In that earlier guidance, the WHO had also accurately noted that there was no evidence that masks protect healthy wearers against infection in the community setting, and there were potential negative consequences of widespread mask use that must also be taken into consideration.
• The Times also implied, given the political context, that the WHO had endorsed the universal use of masks by the public on June 5. In fact, the WHO observed that such policies are not evidence-based and advised that they be worn specifically in circumstances where there is community spread of the virus and prolonged close contact with others is unavoidable.
• The Times also claimed that the WHO maintained that evidence was lacking that masks were useful for preventing transmission. But that, too, is false. On the contrary, the WHO’s guidance was premised on studies demonstrating the effectiveness of certain types of masks in certain settings. Again, what the WHO rather said was that there was a lack of evidence to support was “the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting”.
• The Times further characterized the WHO’s consideration of the potential harms of mask wearing as though focused the trivialities of inconvenience and discomfort. But the Times was cherry-picking from the WHO’s list of potential harms, which consisted of legitimate concerns expressed in the scientific literature, including the potential for an increased risk of infection when not used properly.
• In a further attempt to discredit the WHO’s guidance on masks, the Times characterized the WHO as having dismissed the finding of a WHO-funded study by recommending the use of N95 respirators for health care workers only in the context of aerosol-generating medical procedures rather than for all health care workers and without offering supply considerations as a rationale for not doing so. In fact, the WHO also suggested that N95 respirators could be used outside of that context if there is a sufficient supply.
• Furthermore, the WHO accurately observed some of the study’s limitations, rightly noting that it did not unequivocally demonstrate N95 superiority outside of the context of aerosol-generating procedures, as falsely claimed by the Times. In fact, numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have failed to identify any decreased risk to health care workers wearing N95 respirators as compared to surgical masks, and as the WHO also rightly noted, there were potential negative consequences to consider in making its recommendation.
• While relying on the WHO-funded study to try to discredit the WHO’s mask guidance, and having already claimed that airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 had been proven, the Times chose not to relay the study’s observation to readers that this risk remained theoretical.
• The Times also declined to inform its readers that the study, a systematic review and meta-analysis of available evidence, was relevant only for the use of masks as personal protective equipment (PPE), not as source control. Most studies were relevant for the health care setting and related to other coronaviruses. None of the few studies related to non-health-care settings were related to transmission of SARS-CoV-2. None of the studies related to the use of the types of cloth masks members of the public have been told to wear instead of masks that are considered PPE.
• Even though the Times had previously claimed that studies had shown that asymptomatic spreaders account for a large proportion of viral transmission, it did not inform readers that the reason the WHO had updated its guidance was because of emerging evidence of symptomless transmission. This otherwise curious omission can be explained by the fact that the WHO also detailed the limitations of the evidence and emphasized that asymptomatic individuals were much less likely to spread the virus to others.

Introduction

Throughout the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the New York Times has served to manufacture consent for extreme “lockdown” policies that have caused immense harm. To that end, the Times has contributed to the mass fear and panic by pushing the narrative that the community spread of the virus is driven largely by asymptomatic individuals including through the airborne route. However, to support the narrative, the Times has consistently misrepresented the science.

Among the extreme lockdown measures implemented by many states are executive orders mandating the universal use of cloth face coverings in public spaces, sometimes under threat of penalty for non-compliance, regardless of individual circumstances. The apparent rationale for these orders is the belief that “silent spreaders” who aren’t coughing or sneezing nevertheless drive a large proportion of transmission even by just breathing around others.

For example, here in Michigan, the state government has been ordering people to wear a mask to protect themselves from the virus and says that mask use has been required in “any indoor public space”, as well as outdoors if six feet of distancing isn’t possible, “especially” because “people without symptoms may be spreading the virus” by “breathing, speaking, or singing”.[1]

On June 5, the New York Times published an article titled “W.H.O. Finally Endorses Masks to Prevent Coronavirus Transmission”, written by award-winning reporter Apoorva Mandavilli. It characterized the World Health Organization (WHO) as having endorsed government recommendations for universal mask use in the community setting, if not their mandated use. The article also characterized such policies as being firmly grounded in scientific evidence.[2]

However, the article was yet another example of how the Times lies to its readers in ways that serve to manufacture consent for extreme lockdown measures—including executive mask-wearing orders.

In part one of this series, we saw how the same Times reporter, in her March 17 article “How Long Will Coronavirus Live on Surfaces or in the Air Around You?”, characterized the science as having demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne transmissible, with the question remaining of how long infectious aerosols can pose a risk to others by remaining in the air. Since the WHO maintained that airborne transmissibility had not been proven, the Times characterized the organization as having stubbornly refused to acknowledge the science. In truth, as demonstrated by examining her own cited sources and as rightly observed by the WHO, the question remained whether the virus is airborne.[3]

In part two, we saw how Mandavilli, in her March 31 article “Infected but Feeling Fine: The Unwitting Coronavirus Spreaders”, characterized the science as having firmly established that a fifth or more of community spread is driven by people without symptoms. Yet, the Times not only failed to produce even a single study to support that claim, but it also grossly mischaracterized its own sources, such as claiming that one study indicated that “unwitting spreaders” represent a fifth or more of transmission events when in fact its authors explicitly stated that there remained no clear evidence of asymptomatic transmission.[4]

The June 5 article on masks followed the same pattern of deceptive reporting. Once again, since information from the WHO did not accord well with the propaganda narrative the Times was trying to tell, it was necessary to attempt to discredit the WHO or to otherwise mischaracterize its position to suit the narrative.

The gist of the article was that the WHO had finally, albeit reluctantly, caught up with the science by endorsing government recommendations for everyone to wear masks. In doing so, the truth that the Times obfuscated was that the WHO, to the contrary, had rightly observed that policies of universal masking by the general public—much less their mandated use—are not evidence-based.

What the WHO instead had endorsed were policy recommendations for individuals wear a mask based on numerous variables that by necessity would require every individual to make that decision for themselves—as opposed to the decision being dictated to them by government bureaucrats. But that distinction was lost entirely on readers due to the deceptive nature of the Times’ reporting.

Since the WHO’s updated guidance on masks also contradicted Mandavilli’s prior claim that studies had demonstrated the airborne transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2, she also resorted to outright lying to readers about the new guidance and, in doing so, deceiving Times readers further about the science on mask effectiveness.