N.Y. Times Correction on Article About Coronavirus in Children

Appended to the article (paragraph breaks added):

Correction: Oct. 7, 2021

An earlier version of this article incorrectly described actions taken by regulators in Sweden and Denmark. They have halted use of the Moderna vaccine in children; they have not begun offering single doses.

The article also misstated the number of Covid hospitalizations in U.S. children. It is more than 63,000 from August 2020 to October 2021, not 900,000 since the beginning of the pandemic.

In addition, the article misstated the timing of an F.D.A. meeting on authorization of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for children. It is later this month, not next week.

Comments

[Greta]

I don't think "misstated" really begins to cover it.

[perlhaqr]

It was only off by a factor of 14...

[mulched]

Well, that's embarrassing.

[Michael P]

An earlier version of the article stated that Mrs. Lincoln enjoyed the show, rather than quoting the query whether she did.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Seems like their Coronavirus reporting used to be better.

[Scooter]

Probably when "Orange Man Bad, Bad Orange Man" was still in the White House.

[James Pollock]

You need to get over your emotional reaction to thinking about the Trump Presidency. It's affecting your judgment.

[Scooter]

You need to learn to read for content, poster.

[James Pollock]

So's your mother.

[Bob from Ohio]

They fired their lead science reporter back in February.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/business/media/donald-mcneil-andy-mills-leave-nyt.html

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Board of Corrections at the Volokh Conspiracy seem intensely interested in corrections involving mainstream publications such as the New York Times, yet conspicuously ignores continual errors associated with the Volokh Conspiracy's haphazard feature, "Today In Supreme Court History."

To improve operation, perhaps this blog could transfer some personnel from its Board of Censors to its Board of Corrections?

To be charitable, however, today's special honorary Noble Prize for achievement in identifying published error is awarded to Prof. Eugene Volokh. Maybe Prof. Barnett could find a right-wing donor to pay $50,000 to Prof. Volokh in connection with this honor.

[Currentsitguy]

Seems de rigeur from the Ministry of Truth in the age of make it up as you go if it serves the preferred political narrative.

Frankly I'm surprised they didn't double down. After all, didn't Biden say there were 200 million dead already?

Don't forget the NYT were the ones who reported the term "Fake but accurate" during the Killian Document Scam.

[Tom for equal rights]

Their is a lot of intentional misreporting on Covid, especially regarding the effects on children
excessive hospitalizations, death, permanent damage, etc.

Children get infected and then infect the older generations, etc, etc.
Most of what is being promoted is intentional false scary stories.

Dont get me wrong - covid is bad, but in the case of children, the reality is it is rarely a problem, the vast majority are asymptomatic, which means they are also very low risk of transmitting to others and the best thing is that the actual infection creates strong immunity without the risk of serious bad effects.
Quite frankly, we should be encouraging the development of the young's natural immune system instead of intentionally retarding the development of the natural immune system.

[Currentsitguy]

Something I said elsewhere but I think it is relevant:

"I think over the past decade or two we have lost sight over the need for people to have a healthy, strong immune system and that for people to have that we MUST be regularly exposed to things that aren't exactly good for us.

I first began to notice probably 15 or 20 years ago the overuse and constant marketing of antibacterial products. You'd see them everywhere, at the entrance to stores, restaurants, in bathrooms, people's homes, etc.

"Kills 99% of all germs!!!" the ads proclaim, and people just eat that up without thinking about the fact that all you are doing is artificially selecting the 1% that is resistant, creating stronger and stronger strains. Much the same has been done with the overuse of antibiotics and the emergence of various MRSA pathogens.

Somewhere along the line a belief emerged that it is somehow normal and healthy to never be exposed to anything, to never get sick when in reality what we are creating is a world of immunocompromised people, just ripe for anything new that comes along to take them out.

What is going on now with the COVID panic is just a logical extension of that. Somewhere along the progression of this the goal posts moved from "Flatten the curve so as to not overwhelm the healthcare system" to "We cannot allow anyone to get this"

This is unrealistic and will harm us as a species as we move forward.

It may sound cold and analytical but is not only perfectly normal, but actually necessary for some people to actually not survive the pathogens that infect them. This is how we strengthen as a species. If you are of European or Asian descent, the simple fact is you are here today because your distant ancestors survived the Black Death and passed the genetic code for that resistance down through the centuries to you. The Native Americans you see today are the descendants of those who survived the diseases brought by European settlers.

This is why I say for those who have a very high likelihood of survival and recovery without long term debilitating problems, it is crucial that they contract and recover from this. That resistance needs to be passed on in the claustrum taken in by newborns via their mother's milk.

Every death is a tragedy to the people who love them, there is no denying that and anyone who attempts to minimize that or poo poo it is a psychopathic lowlife; but death is a part of life and human existence, and we must make our peace with that fact.

Sometimes it almost seems as if people think that since this is the 21st Century that by now we should have moved beyond death from communicable disease; and that any death from such is the result of a lack of hygiene or cleanliness, or some other moral failing when in reality 1000 years from now, if we haven't managed to wipe ourselves out through nuclear war or some other stupidity, people will still be dying from some bug they picked up.

The bottom line is there is no law, threat, public education campaign, or restriction that is going to catch or convince everyone to comply with any public health order. A percentage will die, most will not, humanity will move forward."

[Tom for equal rights]

Thanks for the reality based comment

people seem to forget that the 1918 spanish flu is still with us - along with a lot of other nasty viruses. But our immune systems have developed to survive.

The pro maskers, pro lockdowns, pro - ineffective vaxers are looking at short term temporary solutions while ignoring the long term solution. They dont realize it, but they are basically advocating for the evolution of the human specie to the point of only being able to survive in a sterile environment.

[James Pollock]

"people seem to forget that the 1918 spanish flu is still with us – along with a lot of other nasty viruses. But our immune systems have developed to survive."

So are Ebola viruses still around. Want some? Just to juice up your immune system, of course.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Currentsitguy, your bottom line is off, given that employer mandates are currently doing wonders to get previously vaccine-hesitant folks to sign up for vaccination.

Other than that, great straddle. Don't congratulate yourself so much on your analytical serious thinking, and concentrate more on whether your utilitarianism actually works if you think it through.

I do agree with the part about too much emphasis on anti-bacterial everything. There are interesting studies to show that much of what you say about that in a general way is true in a general way. Also, unjustified systematic overdosing of livestock with antibiotics is probably a huge threat to public health.

One thing you did not mention, however. You only want a strong immune system up to a point. After that, you desperately need a well regulated immune system, which means one which doesn't get too strong, and then turn on you. Some of your advice about getting exposed to stuff undoubtedly does encourage that bad outcome.

There are autoimmune-provoking diseases like Lyme disease, for instance, which you only get if you expose yourself to ticks. Some unlucky post-Lyme victims find themselves with lifelong auto-immune symptoms. Ankylosing spondylitis is an autoimmune disease which you almost certainly need a particular genetic trait to contract. Almost everyone with the disease tests positive for the trait. But the trait is apparently benign by itself. Most people who have the trait do not get AS. Some unknown environmental exposure factor seems to trigger AS, but only in victims who are genetically susceptible. After that, for the rest of their lives, they will be subject to auto-immune attacks on various parts of their body, including connective tissue generally, joints, bowels, and eyes. The disease does not seem to much affect fertility or mortality, so the natural-selection principle you suggest doesn't logically seem to confer much if any general advantage against contracting the disease. If the provoking factor were discovered, obviously less exposure, not more exposure, would prove better.

It is worth pointing out that one theory about the way Covid19 inflicts severe disease and death is that it provokes over-active immune responses, which in turn do damage to the victim, and sometimes kill the victim.

The worst feature of your comment is the heedless way it suggests humanity ought to surrender passively to pandemic diseases far more lethal than Covid19. Advice would be unwise to live with poor public health practices, just to assure humanity carries genetic resistance to cholera. Suggesting otherwise would be pretty equivocal utilitarianism.

[Don Nico]

SL,
The "cytokine storm" is not a theory. It is a medical observation.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Don, thanks for the correction. It still seems at least somewhat theoretical to me, because my excellent rheumatologist explains that no one yet knows how to reckon if I get Covid whether my own particular autoimmune condition and treatment put me at higher risk, lower risk, or unchanged risk—that despite the fact that I take regular biologic infusions to suppress an over-active immune system.

[Absaroka]

"It still seems at least somewhat theoretical to me"

FWIW, when I searched for 'cytokine storm covid' I got a full first page of papers saying cytokine storms are a big deal in covid, and all the urls ended in 'nih.gov'. They dated to the first months of the epidemic, so I tried 'cytokine storm covid 2021' to see if things had changed, and got a another full page of nih.gov papers saying cytokine storms are a big deal.

For one example, here's one titled "Cytokine Storm: The Primary Determinant for the Pathophysiological Evolution of COVID-19 Deterioration".

[Tom for equal rights]

Stephen Lathrop
October.8.2021 at 1:17 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
Currentsitguy, your bottom line is off, given that employer mandates are currently doing wonders to get previously vaccine-hesitant folks to sign up for vaccination."

Except vaccines that are only 50% effective after 3-6 months arent really a vaccine and are not a long term solution. . Since august, I personally know about 30-35 fully vaccinated individuals that have caught covid. I know of no one who previously caught covid that became reinfected.

[James Pollock]

"Except vaccines that are only 50% effective after 3-6 months arent really a vaccine and are not a long term solution."

So don't get the new malaria vaccine. I'm sure the net on your bed will be just as effective.

[Currentsitguy]

I am well aware of the problems posed by autoimmune disease. I suffer from one, Type 1 Diabetes. My wife has another: Achalasia. I would not be surprised if you've never heard of it, it's ridiculously rare. Basically your immune system attacks your esophagus and particularly your esophageal sphincter, eventually rendering you unable to swallow so much as a sip of water without surgical intervention. My father in law has yet another, Crohn's Disease.

That is actually the reason we are VERY hesitant to take any sort of MRNA based biologic. Considering our immune systems are already in overdrive, and have demonstrated their willingness to take our own bodies on, without long term studies focusing on the effects on those with autoimmune disorders, I am very hesitant to cause what is called "autoimmune flare". The last thing I need is to immunize against something I have already had and recovered from only to find out down the road I now have Lupus, RA, or some other new debilitating disorder all due to the blind rush to get something, ANYTHING to market, long term consequences be damned.

[James Pollock]

You'll want to avoid ingesting an hydrogen hydroxide. It's known to cause a wide variety of harmful effects. It is present in detectable quantities in nearly 100% of cancer patients, and can cause death if inhaled.

[Tom for equal rights]

Eugene - thanks for the Mute button

some commenators are incapable of providing any meaningful and constructive dialoge

[James Pollock]

"some commenators are incapable of providing any meaningful and constructive dialoge"

Agreed as to your qualifications.

[Currentsitguy]

Like I said, get back to me after long term studies are conducted. Until then they can stick their vaccine so far up their collective asses they'd need a dentist for extraction, and I say this as a holder of a full Yellow Card for decades.

[Currentsitguy]

Stephen, to address your point about employer mandates, considering the abysmal jobs numbers that have come out today when the end of emergency pandemic assistance was widely predicted to result in a big upswing, I'd say a sizable part of the workforce has chosen (assuming most do not have huge savings or investments to fall back on) to find other means to earn a living that is off the books and therefore outside of the reach of any mandate.

Personally my wife and I are self employed consultants, 99 44/100% of our work is done over the phone or internet; so no mandate is really going to affect us.

[James Pollock]

Not everybody has a workable meth recipe.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Don’t congratulate yourself so much on your analytical serious thinking

*snort*

[James Pollock]

Don't snort yourself so much on your analytical serious thinking, either.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

One of Isaac Asimov's Foundation / Robot series postulated a planet whose inhabitants had retreated indoors, communicating with each other only by video, never venturing outside. scared to death of personal contact. I have a vague memory that they were scared to death of infections for that very reason, but do not remember by now.

[Currentsitguy]

You are referring to The Naked Sun:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Sun

It's part of Asimov's Robot Series, and is a really good Locked Room Mystery.

FWIW: Foundation is currently streaming on AppleTV. I've seen the 1st 3 so far, and even though they've taken quite a few liberties with the original story, it is reasonably entertaining. Issac's daughter is Executive Producer so it seems as if she is halding their feet to the fire and not letting them stray too far.

[James Pollock]

As noted, you're probably referring to "The Naked Sun", although the "retreating inside" part is also prominent in "The Caves of Steel", though they are not isolated in the enclosed cities. "Caves of Steel" had more influence on the movie version of "Logan's Run" than did the novel that movie is allegedly based on.

[Currentsitguy]

That was the one point he misremembered. The inhabitants of Solaria had no problem with going outside, that just did it alone or when "viewing". In fact a major plot point was the difficulty Elijah Bailey had while being outside with Gladia Delmarre, who enjoyed her long strolls, and the fact that at one point he was deliberately left stranded out in the Solarian open in an attempt to induce psychosis.

[perlhaqr]

Relevant factor being that Lije Bailey was agoraphobic.

[James Pollock]

" The inhabitants of Solaria had no problem with going outside"

Going outside and being near other people being unrelated on Solaria as opposed to on old Earth, with everybody clustered and practically living on top of each other. Baley overcomes agoraphobia and in fact eventually forms a "club" of Earth-folk to venture outside, hoping his son will eventually form a new space colony, since the original wave of space colonists appear to have lost expansionist vigor.
One feature more-or-less exclusive to Asimov's space empire is the lack of aliens. There's just humans and robots from Earth, and the inhabitants of all the other planets trace back to Earth.

Other SF space empires of the time tended to have interesting types of aliens, from the vile corruptness of Eddore to the noble purity of Arisia, various flavors of Martians (H.G. Wells' martial marauders to Heinlein's gentle Elder Race.) Scientific theory of the day assumed that the Solar System had formed from the outside in, so the outer planets were older. This put Mars in planetary old age, and Venus in planetary childhood, so it was common to assume that Venus, under the clouds, was lushly vegetated and filled with Cretaceous reptiles. And other stars, of course, had plenty of Bug-Eyed Monsters just looking for an opportunity to abduct the story protagonists young, attractive love interest.

[Carl_N_Brown]

Underdeveloped immune systems is what killed the Martian invaders in H.G. Wells' "War of the Worlds".

If future human generations don't develop ordinary immunities, we could be looking at a world of boys and girls living in plastic bubbles.

[James Pollock]

War of the Worlds was fiction. What killed the Martian invaders of H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds was Mr. Wells decision that the Martians would lose the war.

[Michael P]

What's the current best set of studies on transmissibility as a function of age, symptom presence, and other relevant factors? Last year, I remember seeing studies that claimed presymptomatic transmission was the modal kind, but they were not very strong on presymptomatic vs asymptomatic cases.

[James Pollock]

The challenge in your question is sorting out presymptomatic transmission from any other kind. One of the things you have to do to publish scientifically is that you have to be able to show how you controlled variables. The only thing you can say for sure is that anyone who got infected got infected from someone who was infected. Exactly who you got it from can be hard to determine if getting it from people who aren't showing symptoms of having it is a possibility. You have to sort out the people who aren't symptomatic because they don't have it rom the people who aren't symptomatic because they have it but aren't showing symptoms.

[Michael P]

Sure, but I was implicitly challenging the earlier comment's assertion that "the vast majority [of children with COVID-19] are asymptomatic, which means they are also very low risk of transmitting to others". Surely someone would not go on the Internet and just... make that kind of claim without having a substantial reason to write that!

[bernard11]

I eagerly await Eugene's checks of Fox News.

Of course, that will be harder, since they don't generally point out their own "errors."

[CommentMonkey]

Right. Because the problem with the internet is there's nowhere to go to find any criticism of Fox News.

[James Pollock]

Criticism of Fox News actual news content, or Fox News opinion content?

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
Fox News despite its blather is not considered the unbiased gray lady of journalism. NYT prides itself (too much) as the sole occupant of the seventh heaven of journalism

[IPLawyer]

Isn't incumbent upon anyone else to do journalism better than the NYT? Otherwise, what's the point of what you are saying? They still are the sole occupant of the seventh heaven of journalism... it doesn't mean they are impervious to mistake. And yet, no one does better. Typical for the amount of insight you bring with your comments.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Typical for the amount of insight you bring with your comments."

No need to insult him. It does nothing to further your point.

But insults are typical for the amount of insight you bring with your comments.

[IPLawyer]

Bob, I've never seen you post anything insightful ever. This wasn't it either.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Bob, I’ve never seen you post anything insightful ever."

Insults are typical for the amount of insight you bring with your comments.

[IPLawyer]

Indeed, I bring insults and insights. I appreciate you recognizing that, but there's no need to keep repeating it at this point as we all clearly agree.

[James Pollock]

If you are insulted by having someone point out your mistakes, consider making fewer mistakes publicly.

[Don Nico]

Of course the stalker has a retort

[Kyle T]

"And yet, no one does better."

You are joking, right? They have fallen to the level of the Epoch Times and Salon. When the managing editor says fairness be damned, attack the right and encourages opinion in news pieces, it is no longer the paper of record. Like the Epoch Times and Salon, they may be wrong, but they are never in doubt.

[IPLawyer]

I didn't see you list a newspaper that does a better job...

[James Pollock]

Who needs a newspaper when you can get your news from Twitter.

[Don Nico]

I see that IPL is a typical shit-posting stalker.

[James Pollock]

By which you mean "he's right", presumably.

[IPLawyer]

Imagine thinking I responded with my comment to that post for any other reason other than what was expressed in the comments. You post plenty, plenty of which I don't and can't take issue to it. That you wrote something exceedingly stupid this time doesn't make me into a stalker despite however much you may cry about it.

[bernard11]

NYT prides itself (too much) as the sole occupant of the seventh heaven of journalism

The NYT, being run by humans, is prone to error. Here, we have a case where they erred and issued a correction.

So what is the criticism? That they should have been more careful to begin with? OK. That's true. But given that they weren't, wasn't issuing the correction the right thing to do?

Yet EV seems - maybe I 'm reading too much into the post, but I don't think so - to regard the whole business as some sort of major misconduct.

At the same time, he never comments on the various deliberate lies and misrepresentations coming from right-wing media. My own guess is that this is because he is sympathetic to their cause, and is unwilling to hold them to any standard whatsoever.

He's entitled, of course, but others, including me, are entitled to draw conclusions from that.

[Absaroka]

"maybe I ‘m reading too much into the post,"

You are surely finding more in EV's comment than I can. He posted seven words:

"Appended to the article (paragraph breaks added)"

My sense is that this was noteworthy because:
-the 63/900k isn't a minor typo type of error[1]. If they had just mistakenly added a zero or something, fine, but it seems like some more fundamental misunderstanding
-it seems like a pretty innumerate error. It's like reporting that the average household income is $500k. That's not a mistake that you'd expect a reporter well versed in economic matters to make; this wasn't one a good science reporter should make.
-the Sweden/Denmark error also wasn't getting some small detail wrong; they missed the facts completely

This is sad because until recently the quality of NYT science reporting was quite good. It was the reason we subscribed. Unfortunately, the quality has recently declined a lot.

[1]Unlike getting the meeting date wrong

[Sarcastr0]

You just explicitly made the generalization that bernard11 suggested may be implied on Prof. Volokh's post.

Journalists being innumerate is a well known problem, and is neither new nor partisan.

[Absaroka]

"You just explicitly made the generalization that bernard11 suggested may be implied on Prof. Volokh’s post."

?? I'm not following

"Journalists being innumerate is a well known problem, and is neither new nor partisan."

It's a new problem for science journalism at the NYT. I didn't expect great science reporting from the local paper. We subscribed to the Times so we could get that. But they aren't supplying it anymore.

[James Pollock]

When it comes to legendary innumeracy, the journalists have a way to go before they reach the levels of lawyers, much less of politicians.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

BUTWHATABOUT???!!!!!!

[Bob from Ohio]

"I eagerly await Eugene’s checks of Fox News."

He reads the Times, we know from past posts, do you know if he watches the news shows on Fox News?

Oh yes, nice whataboutism.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" do you know if he watches the news shows on Fox News? "

To reach the desired level of polemicism, I have assumed, he takes them intravenously.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Of course, that will be harder, since they don’t generally point out their own “errors.”"

Sure they do. But they don't make as many.

[James Pollock]

'Sure they do. But they don’t make as many."

Ah, where would be without a faith-based argument?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Once again, corrections are markers of high quality journalism. Commenters are self-deluded who suppose gotcha-style attacks on NYT corrections point up the superiority of other media.

Also, that kind of commentary tends to highlight the commenters' own ignorance about journalistic practice. It thus points toward susceptibility to being duped by less responsible reporting, or outright lies.

[gormadoc]

Often, yes. In this case, however, the idea that 900000 children have been hospitalized due to COVID (that's more than 1% of all US children) is so patently ridiculous to anyone familiar with the numbers at every level that the mistake should never have been made. For comparison, the real number is only 0.08% of all US children.

[James Pollock]

An obvious source of mistake would be counting cases among children, worldwide, which would tend to give you bigger numbers than if you were just limiting yourself to US children.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Once again, corrections are markers of high quality journalism."

Lathrop: You can tell the article's accurate because it has so many corrections appended to it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Watching downscale clingers snipe at The New York Times is entertaining.

Maybe it takes the mind off the indignity of watching the dean apologize for your misconduct?

[James Pollock]

"Lathrop: You can tell the article’s accurate because it has so many corrections appended to it."

Some people live in a world where things are true because you believe them to be true, and/or you repeat them until they are true.
Others live in a world where information does not come from divine inspiration but must be obtained by working. When information must be obtained by working, sometimes the first results are less accurate than ideal. So, when more information becomes available, it gets added to the information store.
In science, this is how we went from the Earth at the center of the universe, to the Sun at the center, to now where we know that neither one is, and the idea of a center of the universe not really being a thing.
A sign of a healthy mind is being able to learn new information without losing yer shit.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So, when more information becomes available, it gets added to the information store."

You think that the best information available when the article was published was that there were 900,000 coronavirus hospitalizations, and then suddenly better information because available so they reduced the number by an order of magnitude?

My money's on sloppy reporting.

[Social Justice is neither]

My money is on deliberate misinformation with the hope the correction will be limited in reach and belief.

[James Pollock]

Take your paranoia medication and check again

[James Pollock]

"You think that the best information available when the article was published was that there were 900,000 coronavirus hospitalizations, and then suddenly better information because available so they reduced the number by an order of magnitude?"

That's how correcting a mistake works, yes.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

An even better marker of high-quality journalism is bothering to get your basic facts straight before printing them so you don't have to issue a bunch of corrections after the fact, and after most people who were going to read the story already have.

[James Pollock]

Ideally, yes, you'd have full, complete information before publishing. In a perfect world, supermodels would be as attracted to me as I am to them. Alas. Such is not the world we live in.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

In a perfect world

Yes, because engaging in even a modicum of actual journalistic effort before rushing ahead with a narrative is only possible in a perfect world.

[James Pollock]

Your brain called. It misses you. Won't you come back?

[Bob from Ohio]

"after most people who were going to read the story already have"

That is why they don't check before they publish.

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. Churchill

[James Pollock]

"That is why they don’t check before they publish.

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

When you assume that everything is part of partisan plot to obscure the truth, it says more about you and your party than about any other partisan of any other party.

[JonFrum]

I understand that in order to get a job at the NYT, you have to be a graduate of an 'elite' university.

Do Harvard and Stanford give rebates?

[James Pollock]

Getting a job in the NFL is much more related to where you went to college than almost any other field of employment.

[Bob from Ohio]

123 colleges have current active NFL players. Do you think grads of 123 colleges write for the NTT?

While Alabama has 53, that is only 1% of each teams active roster or less than 2 per team.

Do you think only 1% of NYT writers went to Havard or Yale.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

???

The active roster limit is 53. (The gameday lineup is 46.) 32 x 53 = 1,696*. The 54 Alabama "alumni" reported to be on current active rosters constitute roughly three percent of that population.

The top 10 schools (top at producing professional football players, not at being schools) reportedly have placed 376 players on active rosters. That approximates 22 percent.

The top 20 schools: 618. Approximately 36 percent.

That seems a relatively strong concentration.

* The number of New York Times journalists is reported to approximate 1,700.

(Anyone who can identify the relationship of that song to football players deserves substantial credit. Pete is in particularly fine form here.)

[James Pollock]

"123 colleges have current active NFL players."

Does that change the fact that being a graduate of, say Alabama or Ohio State's football teams a bigger deal than being on NYU's student newspaper or USC's film school?

[lhfry]

The Gray Lady Winked - a history of the NYT century’s long support for totalitarian regimes of left and right.