In the absence of peer reviewed data, which takes at the very least 3 months, rendering it obsolete for a pandemic, the Tech is much better than say the NYT or the Atlantic. It largely does not misconstrue or report bad science. Here is a link to a talk by the scientist quoted in the Tech at UCSF's medical grand rounds. It starts at minute 38. It supports with more detailed evidence what I have been saying and in the timeframe we need it, a talk in front of a knowledgeable audience from respected scientists is about as good as we have. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew2MEF4XX8w.

MIT journal is written by some of the top scientists in the world. Its not peer reviewed but it at least deserves consideration and respect.

But like a lot of intelligent ideas now days...if it doesn't fit someone's narrative it's immediately discredited and discarded.

Only the experts who agree with the narrative are to be taken seriously.

It's become a real problem to discredit ideas that disagree with ones narrative even if they're from expert sources.

Then maybe just quote the person who wrote the article. You are missing the point: If you want to appeal to an authority in science, it's a high bar. I read the MIT Technology Review. I like it. I respect it for what it is. But, it's simply not good enough in a science discussion to say "MIT Technology Review says X". The bar is higher. It's not a function of politics or existing narratives or anything of that nature.