Gary Schwitzer is the founder of HealthNewsReview.org and has been its publisher for 14 years. He tweets as @garyschwitzer or as @HealthNewsRevu
I admire much of the great journalism being delivered by the New York Times on COVID-19 pandemic issues.
But I continue to be befuddled many weeks by the decision-making and editorial judgment of the Times’ Well column. We have written several times about how unwell is the Well feature.
Today, one of our former physician-contributors, Adam Cifu, MD – a general Internist and professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, tweeted:
Here is the sort of lay press articles that checks all the boxes to get me to gnash my teeth. Unreviewed, unpublished article. The most surrogate endpoint. A paragraph that nods to the limitations but then goes on with no further acknowledgment of them. https://t.co/jCwiblY2M7
— Adam Cifu (@adamcifu) April 21, 2020
It was published in the New York edition of the paper today, Section D, Page 6, with the headline: “Social Distancing for Runners.”
An earlier version appeared online in a Well column 6 days ago, under the headline: For Runners, Is 15 Feet the New 6 Feet for Social Distancing?
And it’s based on a pre-print – something we wrote about to explain for readers earlier this month.
The online version’s two opening paragraphs actually seem to question the newsworthiness of the article. I’ve highlighted early caveats in the article:
It may be a good idea to give one another more than six feet of space while exercising outside during the current coronavirus pandemic, according to a compelling new study that looked at how air flows around bodies in motion. The study has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal and the results need further confirmation. But they indicate that runners and brisk walkers may create a wake of air behind them that could carry exhaled respiratory droplets for 15 feet or more, meaning that the droplets could reach people walking or jogging well behind them.
The findings, released last week as a brief white paper and accompanying series of animations, have been shared widely on social media and prompted some trepidation among people worried they demonstrate that sharing the outdoors with other exercisers, especially runners, raises infection risk. But the study, which has now been posted in full online, did not look at coronavirus particles specifically or how they are carried in respiratory droplets in real-life conditions. Nor does it prove or even suggest that infection risks rise if you do wind up temporarily strolling behind a panting runner.
But then the third paragraph delivers an editorial judgement:
Still, its calculations make sense. It finds that when we walk or run, the air moves differently around us than when we are still and the best way to maintain a proper social distance in that situation is to avoid slipstreams, the currents of air that follow a moving body.
And so it goes – back and forth – throughout the piece.
In an email, Dr. Cifu wrote to me:
What bothers me most about the article is that it seems truly irresponsible. People right now are struggling. Safe exercise is one way to attempt to save some measure of sanity. This article identifies an unpublished and unreviewed manuscript, I think, because it comes with a video. The point made, that running behind someone might increase your risk of infection is plausible, but there is nothing in the “research” or this article that makes it more than the plausible it was before the research. To prove that we would need a trial (one that would be unethical to do) or at least proof that viable virus exists in high enough density to cause infection in the “slipstream.”
I love reading comments left by readers in response to NYT Well pieces. Some excerpts this time:
As I write this, there have been 544 reader comments left online in response to the NYT Well story. Those posted only offer a glimpse of the wisdom of the crowds.
I have written before that the Well staff would do well to read the reader comments, learn from them, and make adjustments in the future accordingly.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like