Good afternoon, New York Times. Glad you could finally join us.

Just imagine what these numbers are going to look like when aggressive cancers were diagnosed four, five, six months too late and we finally have the data to see the long-term consequences. Because this is what we're seeing with only minimal, early counts.

To the NY Times' great credit, the paper did not simply sneer at the concerns about the unintended effects of the shutdown. This article is basically consistent with its coverage.

At least on the opinion side. It's nice to see the news side finally do a deep dive like this.

On one side, a newspaper that had some grasp of the situation. On the other, replacing the quest for data with mocking the dead:

*sigh.* 1) I supported the lockdown, and wrote an article explaining why in the magazine I edit, which also included other articles supporting the lockdown. 2) I said nothing about 'Dems' in my thread. Or any political party or affiliation. And I praised the NYT.

3) I also wrote a whole thread *yesterday* saying that even in hindsight you could've left most of the lockdown in place while minimizing certain effects. The data on health effects is being *consistently* interpreted. But you think science wears a red hat, so you lash out. cmon.