[ikura]

This is a shoddy article that serves only to undermine efforts to deal effectively with Covid, in return for some clicks and eyeballs.

Firstly, the entire premise of the article is not grounded in fact, it's based on multiple in-conclusive statements and reports. Just read the language in the first few sentences - "almost certainly", "appears to be partly based on", "seems to be an exaggeration". But the article then proceeds as if that were fact.

It then tries to reach unsupported conclusions that feed into a convenient narrative at the expense of an inconvenient reality.

That outdoor transmission may have been low is inseparable from the fact that the general population HAVE been distancing, cleaning, masking and other responses. So to conclude that since "<10% is too big of an estimate" masks should not be required for any outdoor activity is gross.

It signs off by concluding that Britain's drop in death rate since January is based on Britain being locked down indoors and carefree outdoors completely ignores the fact that vaccinations have been ramping up.

If you have a genuine conclusion then you don't need weasel words and misleading logic to tell your story.

[pessimizer]

They aren't using weasel words, they're trying to guess the sources of statements which were released unsourced (which they shouldn't have to do.)

[ikura]

Seems like a rather strong conclusion to be based on guesswork. “CDC didn’t cite their sources for this figure and I don’t believe it” isn’t as catchy a headline though of course.