3 ms·
Source is pretty partisan, as are the sources cited in the article. I was hoping for better, more rigorous reporting. Quick skim - https://brownstone.org/tag/p
by fn-mote 5y ago
Source is pretty partisan, as are the sources cited in the article. I was hoping for better, more rigorous reporting.
Quick skim - https://brownstone.org/tag/public-health/ https://brownstone.org/tag/public-health/
- wellthisishn 5y agoWhat exactly do you see that is false or unrighteous in your "quick skim"?
- EdwardDiego 5y agoThey said "partisan", not false or unrighteous? A partisan viewpoint is pretty explicitly stated: > The motive force of Brownstone Institute is the global crisis created by policy responses to the Covid-19 pandemic of 2020. That trauma revealed a fundamental misunderstanding alive in all countries around the world today, a willingness on the part of the public and officials to relinquish freedom and fundamental human rights in the name of managing a public health crisis, which was not in fact managed well in most countries. The consequences were devastating and will live in infamy.
- drewcoo 5y agoWhy mention that it's partisan except to disparage? For what specific reason beyond partisanship should we dismiss this? Pointing out others' partisanship without making actual arguments seems awfully partisan, too. Partisan but empty.
- pessimizer 5y agoThere's no reporting, it's a blockquote from the NYT, who was doing reporting, and surrounding, completely unrelated text advocating for Libertarianism and against lockdowns.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago> Source is pretty partisan, as are the sources cited in the article. Sure, the New York Times is a highly partisan source, but it's one that tends to back the CDC blindly, not one that's known for campaigning against the CDC.