A COVID Correction for the Ages Points to a Bigger Agenda – RedState

Over my years of writing at RedState, I’ve seen some hilariously bad corrections from major outlets like The New York Times, but this latest one may take the cake. We are just a few weeks away from this amazing gem.

Behold the ex-gold medalist.

Politics can be a dangerous business. And when it comes to a topic such as COVID-19, where fear begets power, you can bet “errors” will be made in the name of the narrative. This was demonstrated by a Times correction that today, which can only be called epic. Here’s how it read.

Ostensibly the article is news about vaccines being promoted for children aged 12 and under around the globe. The article was filled with false information. It overstated COVID hospitalizations in the United States and misrepresented vaccination policies in Sweden. Obviously, the sheer amount of “mistakes” here is comical for a major newspaper. They don’t have editors. Are they just happy with the perception? What point is it that you depublish the article and accept the loss?

But, it seems that there’s a much bigger plan. It is clear that major media outlets want to present a positive, singular view of vaccinations. To push the message that vaccines are safer than COVID, it is necessary to mass-inflate the number of children admitted to hospital. But we don’t actually have proof of that in regards to children, and certainly, more study is needed before we start injecting eight-year-olds who are not statistically at risk from COVID anyway.

Although the author frames the topic as “one dose vs. twice”, the main discussion should center on the question of whether vaccines are necessary for children. At allThis is. It is well-known that children who have not been vaccinated against COVID or its complications are more resistant than adults. However, the panic is the problem. Recent California vaccination policies for children seem more concerned with making adults happy than they are actually trying to tackle any actual scientifically supported risk.

It is ultimately this agenda that is at work. Although the corrective is humorous, it highlights a much larger problem in science journalism. It has become too data-driven and politically driven.

About Post Author

Follow Us