As you’ve all probably noticed, the NYTs includes in their updates (of the rates of infection) a list of how the virus was contracted. Early on in their reporting, at the top of the list was “unknown” and then the various known causes in order of frequency. You can see that list here: https://www.nytimes.com/intera...avirus-us-cases.html

At some point, they flipped the order and put unknown at the very bottom of the list. Which means, for the last week or so at least, that you have click for more to see the number of infections with unknown causes/routes. Today that number is 23,411. (Whereas the other causes/routes are around 200 cases or less for each category.)

I have been thinking that this number (unknown) should be at the top of the list and stay there. By obscuring it, I think it contributes to the idea that we can somehow avoid infection by avoiding certain people or circumstances — when in fact, as the unknown number should make clear, the only way to avoid infection right now is to avoid other people. Full stop.

It’s a small thing, but any thing that makes people take the risk more seriously is all to the good.

Maybe I should write to the NYTs...

quote:

Maybe I should write to the NYTs...

I think you should.