With a vaccine still a year to 18 months away, and various treatments for COVID-19 in early-stage testing (in New York City, some patients are being given Trump-approved hydroxycloroquine, a medication typically used to treat lupus and malaria), it's still unclear when exactly the world can expect a broadly effective treatment to liberate humanity from its fear of potentially lethal infection.

Much, including the virus's exact mortality rate on a global scale, remains undetermined when it comes to the coronavirus. Most research comes with an asterisk next to it noting that it is 'preliminary' or has not been 'peer-reviewed'. We are all learning about this new virus as we go, and yet, as deaths continue to accelerate in the US and the UK, some readers are desperate for good news about the treatment options, even if there isn't really any good news to share.

But doesn't mean the press can't utilize certain tricks of the trade to try and amplify the apparent importance of what are, in reality, relatively minor developments.

That's what Bloomberg did on Saturday in a story about the race for a vaccine, and another quoting findings from a 'preliminary' study that has little to no actual merit.

The lead scientist on a team working to develop a vaccine in the UK told the British press that her team might have a vaccine ready by September, roughly a 6 months to a year faster than initially believed.