Agenda driven media ignores the facts in reports on coronavirus

Jack Hellner:

Panic rarely results in effective decision-making.

A Stanford Professor of Medicine and epidemiology says that the government is overreacting, the statistics are wrong and he believes that the economy should be open or else we are intentionally crushing the economy without good cause. So, why is he virtually ignored by almost all media outlets while they bring on people like Bill Gates, a non-scientist, endlessly? Why don't governors in Illinois and Michigan use scientists like him as their source along with fear mongers, especially when previous predictions of doom and gloom are so wrong? Could it be that this Stanford professor just doesn't fit in with the agenda?

“A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data.” More specifically, Dr. Ioannidis contends that there isn’t enough data about COVID-19 to implement drastic governmental and societal responses that crush the global economy and might put it into a depression. His argument is that there are assumptions being made about COVID-19 that are incorrect or shouldn’t be made at this point.  

When CDC and WHO said that the mortality rate was estimated to be over 3% it was repeated widely to scare the public. When Dr. Fauci said that the rate was ten times the normal flu, it was widely reported while the actual rate of 1% was downplayed. Now that it is clear that the mortality rate is very close to the regular flu (though the contagiousness is far greater), the media and governors who are keeping the economy closed essentially bury it. A rate close to the flu certainly doesn't fit the fear agenda and would show that the shutdowns were clearly an overreaction.

Why don't we see reports about how well states that didn't shut down completely vs states that did?  The answer is that it doesn't fit the agenda.

Why do we see the new dire predictions from WHO and CDC for this fall and winter while we don't see how bad previous predictions were? How could the original predictions have been well over 90% off if they were based on scientific data?

The answer is that it doesn't fit the agenda to scare the public and to keep the public in submission and under severe restrictions. It is the same reason we don't see reports in media outlets about how wrong previous doom and gloom predictions on climate change have been. The truth doesn't fit the agenda.

Drs Fauci and Birx say it is OK to keep schools open, Doesn't that show that there was never any scientific reason to close the schools in the first place because there were no scientific studies showing a significant risk of COVID 19 spreading among students.

Why do we never see Democrats at media outlets complaining about Pelosi and Schumer delaying bills to help the public and loading the bills with unrelated pork? Is it because there are none that disagree or is it because that just doesn't fit the agenda? After all, whenever a Republican disagrees with anything Trump does, they get endless coverage to trash Trump.

...

The media has an anti-Republican bias that gets worse under the pressure of a pandemic.  If it was a Democrat administration doing the same thing as Trump, they would be all for it and supporting the moves.  They would also be critical of the false narratives being pushed by opponents of the President.