The widely-shared NYT story Trump admin's meddling with the CDC has really worrying claims unsupported by the science. It should make multiple corrections. No, it is not "normal" or okay to lump everyone under 25 for COVID! Meddling is illegitimate but can't miss the science.

I think this paragraph got a small update (it was worse before iirc) but it is still wrong because, as corrected later, and explained by multiple scientists in the field, the South Korea study did not show that at all. It really should not be reported on like this.

I do not take COVID lightly at all, and have been on the warning side since January but, well, yes. The direct risk to children from is comparable or less to seasonal flu. It's an important point to keep in mind. The direct risk to young kids is really that little.

And what is this sentence doing here? The first day of school has nothing to do with the school risks because nothing has happened by the first day? Who are these people? What are these buildings? Without explanation, this is just misleading and doesn't belong in this article.

Also neither of these are incorrect. School closure *are* a huge mental health risk to children. There really are few known cases of children being primary sources. We can and should be clear about the unknowns and risks but not deny the preponderance of what we do know.

If the CDC was refusing to provide age breakdowns on COVID risks in a discussion about *K-12* school openings, pointlessly lumping in the 18-25 *ADULTS* in there and not separating out 1-5, 5-12 & 12-18, it would be CDC who was terribly in the wrong. This is baffling by the NYT.

This point from a leading researcher on COVID & children is very important. We can't lump 15 and 5 together, let alone everyone under 25. In my opinion, this admin's pandemic response has been catastrophic. But we can report this without being this wrong. https://twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1300807417798823938

We can & we should oppose political meddling. But if a health agency was refusing to provide age breakdowns for *children* on a disease that is *incredibly* sensitive to age-gradations on a discussion about school openings... I find that hard to believe but that's on the agency.

Yep, seems it got a small update, but nowhere enough. Political reporters should work with science reporters. Many people I respect shared this story without comment on how much it got wrong and I want to plead here. We need to keep respecting the science. https://twitter.com/alexanderrusso/status/1310760863641604097

Getting more bizarre. The NYT story got yet another silent update (meanwhile, the incorrect version is front page in the print one) but now makes even less sense. The South Korea study was misreported from day one, objected to immediately by domain experts, and never showed this.

Reporting on illegitimate meddling in science is essential but not this. That S. Korea story was widely misreported—and NYT was one of the few outlets to correct. Saying the misreported version was more widespread indicts the media! This stuff is too important to rush like this.

In case there's any misunderstanding, I think the administrations response to COVID in general has been broadly catastrophic, and a scandal. The pandemic is and remains a huge threat; nothing to take lightly. School risks are complex. But it's important to get things right.

Two reasons. First, my thread is getting linked by people who spread misinformation about the pandemic, blindly defend the administration, and play down the risks. Two, making my own sense of things clear to provide context. https://twitter.com/monkey_pasta/status/1311000305136553984

Here's an example highlighting excellent work by the CDC. I still find the suggestion baffling that the CDC scientists would balk at providing age-distributions, or consider that meddling. Cherry-picking data, yes. Age-distributions aren't cherry-picking. https://twitter.com/SurelyVoter/status/1311020413284089856