Media Coverage of COVID -19

[yorksrob]

The BBC is now reporting that Sweden is now relaxing some of the additional controls which it instigated at the start of the year, which is excellent news.

 

[30907]

Yes that was Duncanp on the support conversation thread. Just looking at the number of daily cases in Bolton for example. On 2nd May there were only 29 cases reported that day. But over the next 16 days cases had surged up to a peak of 284 on 18th May. From then they've been heading down rapidly. On Monday there were just 46 cases! Yet on BBC Breakfast and Good Morning Britain this morning they're going on about a surge in the Indian variant, a surge in cases!! What the.....??? If they did some quick research, they will see there is no longer a surge in the Indian variant and no longer a surge in cases!

For 46 read at least 175 (as of 1600 27th May - the figures by specimen date are incomplete for the previous 4 days, as the official stats emphasise). That is certainly less than the recent peak figure, and is welcome - the outbreak in Bolton certainly seems to have levelled off.

However, the national figure of +20% for both cases and hospitalisations suggests that this is so far the exception (at least in the more-infected areas).

 

[kez19]

The BBC is now reporting that Sweden is now relaxing some of the additional controls which it instigated at the start of the year, which is excellent news.

I didn't see it but at a guess different country = good, UK does something = bad (media in general here)

 

[yorksrob]

I didn't see it but at a guess different country = good, UK does something = bad (media in general here)

I think it's more the fact that Sweden has never had a lockdown, so it's good news that its "steady hand at the tiller" philosophy is still working, and fair play to the BBC, they're reporting it !

 

[kez19]

I think it's more the fact that Sweden has never had a lockdown, so it's good news that its "steady hand at the tiller" philosophy is still working, and fair play to the BBC, they're reporting it !

Don't get me wrong about the good news as I do have family there but its the fact the likes of the BBC can say something good in another country as you rightly say never locked down compared to the UK, but yet can spin this as a positive but as a UK response on its own its negative, regardless of tactic or change in tactic.

If I am right to say but weren't the likes of the BBC critical of Sweden and well slating them off in the first place? (I guess they'll be no backtracking/apology).

 

[yorksrob]

Don't get me wrong about the good news as I do have family there but its the fact the likes of the BBC can say something good in another country as you rightly say never locked down compared to the UK, but yet can spin this as a positive but as a UK response on its own its negative, regardless of tactic or change in tactic.

If I am right to say but weren't the likes of the BBC critical of Sweden and well slating them off in the first place? (I guess they'll be no backtracking/apology).

I think that a lot of people were critical of Sweden. I've said previously and will say again - I believe Sweden's approach will be vindicated in the fullness of time.

To be fair to the BBC, they have reported the positive aspects of the vaccine roll out for example.

 

[kez19]

I think that a lot of people were critical of Sweden. I've said previously and will say again - I believe Sweden's approach will be vindicated in the fullness of time.

To be fair to the BBC, they have reported the positive aspects of the vaccine roll out for example.

hmmm change in tune it seems (BBC), I wonder if the rest will follow suit? As for Sweden I hope so too but you know it won't happen unfortunately.

 

[brad465]

Many of tomorrow's front pages are critical of the Government by portraying the end on June 21st being in doubt because of the Indian variant (by virtue of the variant's name it won't take much for many to point the finger at border problems). Even the Express is presenting a negative headline with Boris' name in it:

 

[Andyh82]

Many of tomorrow's front pages are critical of the Government by portraying the end on June 21st being in doubt because of the Indian variant (by virtue of the variant's name it won't take much for many to point the finger at border problems). Even the Express is presenting a negative headline with Boris' name in it:

Are they?
Only the Daily Mail’s headline is negative, the others are a factual account, they don’t say if they are pro or anti delaying the 21st June

 

[brad465]

Are they?
Only the Daily Mail’s headline is negative, the others are a factual account, they don’t say if they are pro or anti delaying the 21st June

The Express is more negative than it usually is, the other 3 shown might not criticise the Government directly I'll give you that, but they certainly don't paint them in glory either.

 

[Ted633]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57278879

First thing this morning, headline was "No Data to Suggest 21 June Lockdown Easing Delay" (or something like that)
Obviously that was too positive, so it's been changed to "21 June lockdown easing date not guaranteed"
Even though the article is unchanged, only difference being it's been opened for comments.

 

[brad465]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57278879

First thing this morning, headline was "No Data to Suggest 21 June Lockdown Easing Delay" (or something like that)
Obviously that was too positive, so it's been changed to "21 June lockdown easing date not guaranteed"
Even though the article is unchanged, only difference being it's been opened for comments.

Gaslighting at work, something the media have enabled the government to do, usually when one minister says one thing and the next day another minister or scientist says the complete opposite on the same subject.

 

[kez19]

Gaslighting at work, something the media have enabled the government to do, usually when one minister says one thing and the next day another minister or scientist says the complete opposite on the same subject.

Quite simply that’s what I find the media are ever doing is gaslighting, how long before their very own gaslighting backfires? I think that day is coming

 

[102 fan]

BBC News - Covid-19: UK in early stages of third wave - scientist

Covid-19: UK in early stages of third wave - scientist

A scientist advising the government says there has been exponential growth in the number of new cases.

www.bbc.co.uk

'There are signs the UK is in the early stages of a third wave of coronavirus infections, a scientist advising the government has said.'

'Prof Ravi Gupta, from the University of Cambridge, said although new cases were "relatively low" the Indian variant had caused "exponential growth". '

'He said ending Covid restrictions in England on 21 June should be postponed'

Either the vaccine works or it doesn't!

 

[Bantamzen]

BBC News - Covid-19: UK in early stages of third wave - scientist

Covid-19: UK in early stages of third wave - scientist

A scientist advising the government says there has been exponential growth in the number of new cases.

www.bbc.co.uk

'There are signs the UK is in the early stages of a third wave of coronavirus infections, a scientist advising the government has said.'

'Prof Ravi Gupta, from the University of Cambridge, said although new cases were "relatively low" the Indian variant had caused "exponential growth". '

'He said ending Covid restrictions in England on 21 June should be postponed'

Either the vaccine works or it doesn't!

Not quite, it both works and doesn't. It works enough to justify it being offered to billions to prevent serious illness, but doesn't work enough to prevent outbreaks of "experts" hunting down media attention.

 

[Richardr]

Either the vaccine works or it doesn't!

Not at all.

The vaccine works in most but not all cases. Latest figures from Public Health England are that the efficiency against this new variant after two doses are around 60% for the AZ vaccine and around 88% for the Pfizer vaccine.

Now these are early numbers, and the vaccines also reduced severity in those who picked up the virus - see BMJ - but no vaccine is 100% efficient.

 

[Cdd89]

In which case, the only sensible question to ask is this: is our current level of vaccination sufficient to ensure that the NHS will not be overloaded?

“No avoidable deaths” is a test that will never meet requirements for proportionality. We already know for example that we can restrict our way into almost no flu deaths; I hope (but based on the past year, am not completely confident) that society would not accept this as proportionate.

 

[Richard Scott]

In which case, the only sensible question to ask is this: is our current level of vaccination sufficient to ensure that the NHS will not be overloaded?

“No avoidable deaths” is a test that will never meet requirements for proportionality. We already know for example that we can restrict our way into almost no flu deaths; I hope (but based on the past year, am not completely confident) that society would not accept this as proportionate.

Think issue now is some people seem to forget that everyone eventually dies of something so if one thing is avoided then something else will kill them and in cases of old and frail that will not be too long in terms of time.

 

[35B]

Think issue now is some people seem to forget that everyone eventually dies of something so if one thing is avoided then something else will kill them and in cases of old and frail that will not be too long in terms of time.

And others forget that there are outcome measures other than whether a patient lives or dies. Meanwhile, this is happening part way through a rollout of the vaccine, at precisely the point where all epidemiologists were concerned about how the trade off between vaccination protection and relaxation of social controls would balance off.

For all that some of the usual suspects are at work, there are reasonable questions to ask about the trade-off of risk and reward, where the zero Covid brigade are no more and no less a bunch of Covidiots as the open everything immediately brigade - neither analysis leaves any room for doubt or judgement.

 

[Bantamzen]

And others forget that there are outcome measures other than whether a patient lives or dies. Meanwhile, this is happening part way through a rollout of the vaccine, at precisely the point where all epidemiologists were concerned about how the trade off between vaccination protection and relaxation of social controls would balance off.

For all that some of the usual suspects are at work, there are reasonable questions to ask about the trade-off of risk and reward, where the zero Covid brigade are no more and no less a bunch of Covidiots as the open everything immediately brigade - neither analysis leaves any room for doubt or judgement.

And there are also essential questions to ask about the continuing impact of restrictions, particularly for those people impacted by financial worries and of course how the government is going to pay for all of this. Experts will always want more time, but as leaders of the hospitality have been saying jobs, and by proxy people's wellbeing are also at risk.

Not everyone can afford to hide indoors forever.

 

[Jonny]

And there are also essential questions to ask about the continuing impact of restrictions, particularly for those people impacted by financial worries and of course how the government is going to pay for all of this. Experts will always want more time, but as leaders of the hospitality have been saying jobs, and by proxy people's wellbeing are also at risk.

Not everyone can afford to hide indoors forever.

Also this announcement - the pause on evictions is about to end (in about 3 hours from when this is posted), at least in England. So we are still making a bit of progress...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-53860154

How are eviction rules for renters and landlords changing?

A ban on evictions introduced during lockdown comes to an end in England on 1 June.
(article continues)

I suspect if it was more dire, then this might not have been allowed.

 

[35B]

And there are also essential questions to ask about the continuing impact of restrictions, particularly for those people impacted by financial worries and of course how the government is going to pay for all of this. Experts will always want more time, but as leaders of the hospitality have been saying jobs, and by proxy people's wellbeing are also at risk.

Not everyone can afford to hide indoors forever.

Indeed those questions do matter - as do the trade-offs that are inherent in reopening while the pandemic is still capable of doing real damage.

 

[DustyBin]

Indeed those questions do matter - as do the trade-offs that are inherent in reopening while the pandemic is still capable of doing real damage.

I think this is where you and I fundamentally disagree. Is the pandemic actually still capable of doing “real damage”? I don’t think it is. What is it that makes you believe otherwise?

 

[Andyh82]

I think between now and the 14th June we are basically going to have the same story at the top of the headlines every day, I remember in the first lockdown after a few weeks, the media were demanding an end, but then later complained about the unlocking coming too soon!

No doubt every day we will have a politician doing interviews, they will be asked about the 21st June, they won’t give a confirmed answer (as they clearly won’t at this stage) and the headlines will be “Government fails to rule out roadmap being delayed”

 

[Class 33]

I think between now and the 14th June we are basically going to have the same story at the top of the headlines every day, I remember in the first lockdown after a few weeks, the media were demanding an end, but then later complained about the unlocking coming too soon!

No doubt every day we will have a politician doing interviews, they will be asked about the 21st June, they won’t give a confirmed answer (as they clearly won’t at this stage) and the headlines will be “Government fails to rule out roadmap being delayed”

It's looking likely this will be the case. No doubt there will be the same old nonsense on there again tomorrow. I'm just absolutely sick of this. Time for me to avoid the internet and TV news again, apart from the ITV Local News which is more tolerable.

What gets me is why the media has such a one-sided approach to this. Why practically every day do they air/publish all these "Lockdown easing must be delayed, says top expert" type reports? Why is there little or no reports such as "Lockdown easing on 21st June must NOT be delayed, warns top economy advisor"??

 

[brad465]

I think between now and the 14th June we are basically going to have the same story at the top of the headlines every day, I remember in the first lockdown after a few weeks, the media were demanding an end, but then later complained about the unlocking coming too soon!

No doubt every day we will have a politician doing interviews, they will be asked about the 21st June, they won’t give a confirmed answer (as they clearly won’t at this stage) and the headlines will be “Government fails to rule out roadmap being delayed”

It's looking likely this will be the case. No doubt there will be the same old nonsense on there again tomorrow. I'm just absolutely sick of this. Time for me to avoid the internet and TV news again, apart from the ITV Local News which is more tolerable.

What gets me is why the media has such a one-sided approach to this. Why practically every day do they air/publish all these "Lockdown easing must be delayed, says top expert" type reports? Why is there little or no reports such as "Lockdown easing on 21st June must NOT be delayed, warns top economy advisor"??

Given what we've all been through, June 21st almost feels too good to be true, to the point that I have long been expecting scientists to effectively be acting in desperation to stop everything being relaxed. I think it will also be a gaslighting opportunity as there'll certainly be contradicting points of view each day, and/or one day being one view quickly followed by the opposite view the following day..

One hopes though if this happens in the media more and more people wake up to their behaviour.

 

[yorksrob]

Another frustrating morning listening to Radio 4.

There seems to be a reluctance amongst journalists to ask searching questions from medical and academic professionals. On the Today programme, for example they were interviewing the secretary of the British Thoratic Society, who was giving a pessimistic numerical scenario of the number of people needing treatment based on the number of people not protected after a completed vaccination campaign.

I would have liked to have heard some questioning on the following lines:

• If previous surges in hospitalisation were based on very low or non-existant levels of vaccination, how is it numerically possible that hospitalisations will reach the same levels with such high proportions vaccinated.
• If as implied by the interviewee the virus needs to be "controlled" after the completion of the vaccination programme, i would have liked to have heard some challenge around what sort of controls they thought would be necessary after this time, and for how long. Instead, we got a rather contrite and unquestioning "well you've made your concerns loud and clear"

Obviously, the lack of searching questions on the part of the interviewer was an irritation. What also struck me was that more pro-restriction professionals often cite a "lack of debate" around what needs to be done to control this virus, yet they need to be pinned down on exactly what interventions they envisage and for how long. I suspect that if this debate were fully had amongst the population, the outcome might not be what they are hoping for.

 

[Bantamzen]

Indeed those questions do matter - as do the trade-offs that are inherent in reopening while the pandemic is still capable of doing real damage.

As much damage as restrictions are having on us? I think they are more of a risk at this point.

 

[Andyh82]

It's looking likely this will be the case. No doubt there will be the same old nonsense on there again tomorrow. I'm just absolutely sick of this. Time for me to avoid the internet and TV news again, apart from the ITV Local News which is more tolerable.

What gets me is why the media has such a one-sided approach to this. Why practically every day do they air/publish all these "Lockdown easing must be delayed, says top expert" type reports? Why is there little or no reports such as "Lockdown easing on 21st June must NOT be delayed, warns top economy advisor"??

Those stories will be run the day after the roadmap is delayed

Just like what happened with schools

"A generation of children is being left behind - schools must reopen says childrens expert"
Boris announces school reopen
"Schools unsafe to reopen says headteachers union"

 

[35B]

I think this is where you and I fundamentally disagree. Is the pandemic actually still capable of doing “real damage”? I don’t think it is. What is it that makes you believe otherwise?

It is on the low part of an exponential growth curve, doubling in incidence weekly. A significant proportion of the population is unvaccinated; a far more significant proportion is only part vaccinated, meaning that vaccine protection is limited. For reasons already given on here, Covid trashes hospital capacity to deal with other issues. Put those together, and the assumption that Covid is beaten is a brave one.

As much damage as restrictions are having on us? I think they are more of a risk at this point.

Another frustrating morning listening to Radio 4.

There seems to be a reluctance amongst journalists to ask searching questions from medical and academic professionals. On the Today programme, for example they were interviewing the secretary of the British Thoratic Society, who was giving a pessimistic numerical scenario of the number of people needing treatment based on the number of people not protected after a completed vaccination campaign.

I would have liked to have heard some questioning on the following lines:

• If previous surges in hospitalisation were based on very low or non-existant levels of vaccination, how is it numerically possible that hospitalisations will reach the same levels with such high proportions vaccinated.
• If as implied by the interviewee the virus needs to be "controlled" after the completion of the vaccination programme, i would have liked to have heard some challenge around what sort of controls they thought would be necessary after this time, and for how long. Instead, we got a rather contrite and unquestioning "well you've made your concerns loud and clear"

Obviously, the lack of searching questions on the part of the interviewer was an irritation. What also struck me was that more pro-restriction professionals often cite a "lack of debate" around what needs to be done to control this virus, yet they need to be pinned down on exactly what interventions they envisage and for how long. I suspect that if this debate were fully had amongst the population, the outcome might not be what they are hoping for.

I think @yorksrob touches precisely on @Bantamzen's point - these are hard to pin down when discussed in very broad brush terms. The anti-lockdown movement have tended to argue for all of the economic and social harms of Covid, yet those statements have always been incredibly broad brush.

I would like to see a clear articulation of the trade-offs, because understanding whatever policy the government choose around June 21st will be important - wherever on the spectrum of options it lands.