Summary:
- The article argues that the New York Times engaged in COVID-19 alarmism by emphasizing the worst-case scenarios and downplaying less severe outcomes.
- It suggests the Times' coverage was driven by a desire to maintain high readership and engagement during the pandemic, rather than providing balanced and objective reporting.
- The article criticizes the Times for using sensationalized language, cherry-picking data, and failing to contextualize the pandemic's impact in comparison to other health threats.