All I read was the article (which is rare in itself given the source). Knowing what I know about the entirety of this fiasco, it seemed clear to me what they were saying. I have no doubt there are a bunch of people on social media asking what they mean. They likely haven't gone beyond social media to get their information. Stands to reason they'd be confused. None of this is to say that I can't see how one would take it the way you and others did. I can. Sources matter.
I went straight to the
NYC Health tweet, and the text of the tweet, laid raw, is completely equivocal. There's no stretching required to read this particular text multiple ways -- it was not crafted with rhetorical precision:
Omicron subvariant XBB.1.5 now accounts for 73% of all sequenced COVID-19 cases in NYC. XBB.1.5 is the most transmissible form of COVID-19 that we know of to date and may be more likely to infect people who have been vaccinated or already had COVID-19.
NYC Health left the "
more likely" hanging out there with no "
than", likely assuming (somehow) that the general public didn't need to have the "
more likely THAN" part explained.
... may be more likely to infect people who have been vaccinated or already had COVID-19 than previous recent variants. (though this is super-clunky and should be recast)
... may be more likely to infect people who have been vaccinated or already had COVID-19 than people who have never been vaccinated.
All that said, the NY Post knew exactly what they were doing with that headline. I'd never believe there was doubt in the editorial room what NYC Health actually meant.