The worldwide coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted people's lives and livelihoods on the micro level and entire countries and economies on the macro level. Tens of millions of people have been infected, and hundreds of thousands have died. Sadly, as of early September in the United States, it is getting worse, not better. For all of the disruption, however, the path forward is illumined by science. Science identified and rapidly sequenced the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. Science identified its mode of transmission and informed public health measures that, if widely embraced, promise to limit its spread. Science has shown that a new antiviral drug and an old corticosteroid can improve outcomes among severely ill adults. Science holds the promise of developing a vaccine that ultimately may end the pandemic; and yet, in 2017, more than 4 of 5 persons in the United States could not name a living scientist. 1 (Of the 19% who could name one, 2% said Anthony Fauci-a percentage that is sure to be higher now!) The scientific method of making observations, testing hypotheses, generating data, and generating new understanding often becomes foreign to us when we leave our school science classes. It is perhaps not surprising, then, that the rapid pace with which recommendations have been made and subsequently changed in recent months often leaves us all tired, confused, and frustrated. The important work of Dumitriu et al 2 provides a good example of how careful observations can improve our understanding of what was previously unknown and can help inform treatment recommendations. The authors report birth hospital and postdischarge outcomes through 2 to 3 weeks of age among 101 neonates born in New York City, New York, to 100 mothers with COVID-19. All the newborns underwent testing at least once by nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction testing at 0 to 2 days after birth; 2 infants (2.0%; 95% CI, 0.2%-7.0%) had indeterminate test results, which indicated that they were infected but at very low viral copy numbers. Notably, 1 of these 2 infants had roomed-in with the mother without infection prevention efforts, because the mother's illness was not recognized until after delivery. Neither of these neonates developed signs of disease. Taken together with other reports of 1% to 2% of neonates born to SARS-CoV-2-positive women being infected, 3-5 this large case series suggests a relatively low likelihood of perinatal transmission from infected mother to newborn. To determine the risk of postnatal transmission of virus from an infected mother (or potentially, another household member), infants in the study were evaluated in outpatient clinics in the first 1 to 3 weeks