This could be in a way linked to the culture of "there is no money in disproving a study". University medical grants are generally not given to disprove other studies, only to create "new findings". If a study is completely flawed, they people who could do a peer review will not get money to do the peer review because it may not be profitable. This is part of a reason why peer-reviewing of studies has failed - peer reviews are dependent upon big business funding, they choose what to fund and not, so funding studies to disprove a theory or study is generally not funded anymore.
This could be in a way linked to the culture of "there is no money in disproving a study". University medical grants are generally not given to disprove other studies, only to create "new findings". If a study is completely flawed, they people who could do a peer review will not get money to do the peer review because it may not be profitable. This is part of a reason why peer-reviewing of studies has failed - peer reviews are dependent upon big business funding, they choose what to fund and not, so funding studies to disprove a theory or study is generally not funded anymore.
I would say that most of the covid reporting I see (aside from reading actual journals and looking at raw statistics) is mostly spun/driven more towards producing fear rather than introducing new information, or even analyzing existing information. Very few places actually talked about preventative measures besides masks or trying to reduce the impact of comorbidities.