I thought of snopes as an urban legend checker. It's sad how they, like so many, have shifted gears to join some kind of partisan crusade. I don't care if it's true or false, I don't see why every organization now needs to fall over each other to try and show how every covid measure is justified and for our own good. This kind of thing destroys the credibility of people who might actually be in a position to give an informed comment, because it makes the whole thing look like a religion.

Did you read the Snopes article? My read was that they were providing useful context for the working (i.e., non-peer reviewed) paper written by economists (not epidemiologist) who are associated with Johns Hopkins that is being thrown around as evidence that "lockdowns" don't work. Since empirical evidence (referenced by the Snopes article) indicates that lockdowns do work, I'd imagine papers to the contrary can be argued to be in the realm of "urban legends", thus fodder for Snopes.

Yeah, for anything political, Snopes is no longer reliable at all. They're just as likely to be wrong as the articles they're "fact-checking" are.

Can you show some examples? Perhaps even take all of their fact checks for a particular month and review it with the benefit of hindsight?

This is quite amusing. I think it passed the fact check, so obviously they won't fact check it.

Going into the basics, the prime complaint seems to be that making people wear a mask is considered a lockdown. Well, guess what? Masks prevent or don't prevent COVID!

The amount of mental gymnastics to get around the fact that masks were entirely useless the entire time is a work of art itself.

Then they complain they are economists working with data after the fact, rather than epidemiologists who worked with predictive models meant to plan for the worst.

Snopes should stick to hookers and blow.