If you actually read the NYT article, it's really hard to come out of it thinking "1.7 million people will die". This is because of a few reasons: 1. They have

If you actually read the NYT article, it's really hard to come out of it thinking "1.7 million people will die". This is because of a few reasons: 1. They have a good, responsible title. 2. They bury the 1.7 million number a bit so you're forced to at least understand some of it. 3. They talk about how and why the estimates will change over time: >“When people change their behavior," said Lauren Gardner, an associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering who models epidemics, “those model parameters are no longer applicable,” so short-term forecasts are likely to be more accurate. “There is a lot of room for improvement if we act appropriately.” I see no reason why this article shouldn't have been posted in its current form. Of course, as you get further away from good sources of news, you're going to get less responsible reporting. NYT is an example of very high quality reporting. CNN at the time probably had a breaking news line item on TV of "1.7 million could die". This would be irresponsible. Fox News at the time probably had a breaking news line item on TV of "It's just the flu". This would be irresponsible. And that's certainly a problem.