Jump to content

Talk:The Federalist (website)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 15:58, 17 July 2024 (Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

COVID 19 "Misinformation" Now Outdated

[edit]

Hi all,


That the Federalist promoted misinformation is today an extremely bold claim. There's now extensive research from prestigious institutions--from people much smarter than you or me-- suggesting that masks were ineffective; vaccines do not prevent transmission; lockdowns were ineffective. Have a look at the science:


Lockdowns ineffective (Johns Hopkins): https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf


Masks ineffective (Oxford): https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/22/opinion/letters/masks-mandates-covid.html


Vaccines Do Not Prevent Transmission (BMJ and several other prestigious journals):

BMJ: https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298

CDC: https://www.stardem.com/news/national/cdc-covid-vaccines-won-t-stop-transmission-fully-vaccinated-can-still-get-spread-delta-strain/article_5f83d0cb-8b0a-535d-bbad-3f571754e5ae.html

The Lancet: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00768-4/fulltext


We thus must be 100% sure that whatever we label as "false information" not "false" based on pseudoscience and hearsay, but on proof that that information is false. But these studies show that we cannot claim anything that the Federalist wrote is "false." There's plenty of evidence from prestigious journals to suggest that the claims they made and positions they took are true.


If you disagree, you're disagreeing with science; Oxford, Johns Hopkins and other elite institutions; the CDC; and prestigious academic journals. Who is Wikipedia to do that? Thesmallfriendlygiant (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or not Who is Jonas Herby (for example)? Also do these sources talk about social distancing (not lockdowns) or that the death rate had been massaged? Does any of this contradict anything we say was misinformation? Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the more obvious problems with your proposal, opinion columns are marked "opinion" for a reason. XeCyranium (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
excellent! When will the article be corrected? 99.120.234.214 (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked the first link and it is "Applied Economics". Why would anybody publish a paper about a medical question in a journal that has no expertise on medicine? Solution: Exactly because it does not have any expertise on it and will not notice the rookie mistakes. And economists have been lying about COVID since March 2020 because the attitude needed during a pandemic is that people do not behave like egoist sociopath assholes - which would contradict economist dogma.
No need to look further into this when the first link is irrelevant crap already. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]