Propagating Falsehoods for Persistence: Media Continues to Deceive Audience by Endorsing Masks and COVID-19 Restrictions Excessively
In a recent article published in The Atlantic, the author claims a shift in perspective, coining the term "pandemic revisionism." However, the piece has sparked controversy due to several questionable claims and the absence of supporting evidence.
The article suggests that Sweden, which did not impose strict lockdowns, masks mandates, or school closures, is not a promising counterexample to COVID-19 restrictions. Contrary to the claim, Sweden actually had higher excess mortality in 2020 compared to its neighbouring countries.
Moreover, the author's assertion that lifting restrictions would have led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people remains unsubstantiated. The writer also fails to acknowledge the higher case rates at a statewide level in states with mask mandates and restrictions, despite their implementation of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs).
The article further states that public health officials, including Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins, have been accused of stifling dissent regarding COVID policies. This is followed by the claim that the Biden administration threatened social media companies if they didn't censor anyone who spoke out against COVID vaccination policies.
Decades of planning documents prepared by agencies like the CDC and the United Kingdom’s Health Security Agency that examined the evidence for pandemic restrictions were reportedly thrown out when officials panicked and caved to media pressure.
Critics have accused the author of using incorrect cherry-picked information to make false claims and of being blinded by political ideology, unable to admit they were wrong. For instance, Anthony Fauci made claims that areas following his advice would without question do better if they mandated masks and shut everything down. However, states like New York and New Jersey had far worse age-adjusted COVID mortality rates than Florida, where a different approach was taken.
The author's failure to provide evidence to support the claim that the return of "public health measures" is justified has further fuelled the controversy surrounding the article. Additionally, the identity of the article's author remains unclear in the provided search results.
State-level analyses find no pre-vaccine difference in COVID deaths, but they do estimate that the most restrictive states experienced about 30 percent fewer infections than the least restrictive ones. However, the article does not mention the deaths of tens of thousands of people from COVID-19 restrictions.
In conclusion, the article in The Atlantic, while presenting the concept of "pandemic revisionism," has been met with criticism for its lack of evidence and questionable claims. The controversy underscores the importance of fact-checking and evidence-based reporting in journalism.
