List Entire Thread

Damning analysis of Trump's pandemic response suggested 40% of US COVID-19 deaths could have been avoided

They shared a link on Lancet

his report by the Lancet Commission on Public Policy and Health in the Trump Era assesses the repercussions of President Donald Trump's health-related policies and examines the failures and social schisms that enabled his election. Trump exploited low and middle-income white people's anger over their deteriorating life prospects to mobilise racial animus and xenophobia and enlist their support for policies that benefit high-income people and corporations and threaten health. His signature legislative achievement, a trillion-dollar tax cut for corporations and high-income individuals, opened a budget hole that he used to justify cutting food subsidies and health care. His appeals to racism, nativism, and religious bigotry have emboldened white nationalists and vigilantes, and encouraged police violence and, at the end of his term in office, insurrection. He chose judges for US courts who are dismissive of affirmative action and reproductive, labour, civil, and voting rights; ordered the mass detention of immigrants in hazardous conditions; and promulgated regulations that reduce access to abortion and contraception in the USA and globally. Although his effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act failed, he weakened its coverage and increased the number of uninsured people by 2·3 million, even before the mass dislocation of the COVID-19 pandemic, and has accelerated the privatisation of government health programmes. Trump's hostility to environmental regulations has already worsened pollution—resulting in more than 22 000 extra deaths in 2019 alone—hastened global warming, and despoiled national monuments and lands sacred to Native people. Disdain for science and cuts to global health programmes and public health agencies have impeded the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, causing tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, and imperil advances against HIV and other diseases. And Trump's bellicose trade, defence, and foreign policies have led to economic disruption and threaten an upswing in armed conflict.

The Lancet

Factual Reporting: Very High - Credible - Reliable

PRO-SCIENCE

These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence-based through the use of credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased, and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer-reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias but adhere to scientific principles. See all Pro-Science sources.

Overall, we rate The Lancet Pro-Science and Very-High in factual reporting.

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: PRO-SCIENCE
Factual Reporting: VERY-HIGH
Country: United Kingdom
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTY FREE
Media Type: Journal
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

History

Founded in 1823, The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is among the world’s oldest and best-known general medical journals. According to the Journa l Citation Reports, the journal has a 2018 impact factor of 59.102, ranking it second after The New England Journal of Medicine in the category “Medicine, General & Internal.”

The current editor is Richard Horton.

Funded by / Ownership

The Lancet is owned and published by Elsevier, a Dutch information and analytics company and one of the world’s foremost providers of scientific, technical, and medical information. It was established in 1880 as a publishing company. Revenue is generated through subscriptions to both print and online journals and advertising and fees for access to individual studies.

Analysis / Bias

In review, The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, editorials, book reviews, correspondence, news features, and case reports. All research studies are peer-reviewed. The Lancet also publishes 17 speciality journals. Further, The Lancet is frequently sourced in significant publications such as the New York Times, Reuters, and numerous fact-checkers.

In the past, The Lancet has published studies that required retraction. For example, The Lancet was criticized after it published a paper in 1998 in which the authors suggested a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. This study was appropriately retracted in 2010.

Failed Fact Checks

None in the Last 5 years. IFCN fact-checkers frequently use the Lancet.

Overall, we rate The Lancet Pro-Science and Very-High in factual reporting. (D. Van Zandt 5/22/2020) Updated (07/17/2022)

Source: https://www.thelancet.com/

Last Updated on July 17, 2022 by Media Bias Fact Check