Media Coverage of COVID -19

[Dent]

but you can't just pretend that a lighter government tough wouldn't have had any consequences or costs.

Who was pretending any such thing? That sounds like yet another strawman.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Let's not forget that same of the earliest and worse rates of infections took place in care settings, and that these are often the sources of others. So there are lots of issues to deal with there before we start to deal with others.

Oh absolutely - but I don't have any confidence anything will change in terms of care homes and the like after this. Staff will still be underpaid, overworked and underequipped and we will continue to have the struggle between an elderly person taking up a bed in a hospital and them being discharged either to home or to a care home.

However with regards to interactions with more vulnerable people, this is a matter for those in those groups and their medical carers, family etc.

But it isn't just a matter for those. Because those people interact with other people who interact with other people. Society isn't a collection of neatly isolated groups of people.

We cannot keep asking people to lose jobs or income purely on the basis that other people may be more vulnerable. Because if we go down that road again then pretty much every winter will require full lockdowns, destroying our economy and our ability to care for them. Its a double edged sword.

Then maybe as a country we need to seriously invest and improve in a multitude of areas so we can be more resilient. Things like hospital provision, things like care for the elderly (you could do an entire thread of its own on what we need to do there), things like childcare improvements, things like sick pay / sick leave improvements, etc etc. Of course we won't though and we'll just have the same problems next time another pandemic comes along.

Who was pretending any such thing? That sounds like yet another strawman.

I mean there's people in this thread throwing about the cost of the governments spending in the last year on COVID measures and support and totally ignoring what the cost would have been had we not done much and just let more people get ill. That option would have had a considerable cost too.

 

[Dent]

I mean there's people in this thread throwing about the cost of the governments spending in the last year on COVID measures and support and totally ignoring what the cost would have been had we not done much and just let more people get ill. That option would have had a considerable cost too.

I don't see anyone declaring that they are pretending these costs to be zero, nor "totally ignoring" them. What I have seen, however, is some posters calling out those who have been totally ignoring the cost of restrictions.

"Considerable cost too" does not automatically equal an even greater cost than the cost of the devastating restrictions.

 

[Bantamzen]

Oh absolutely - but I don't have any confidence anything will change in terms of care homes and the like after this. Staff will still be underpaid, overworked and underequipped and we will continue to have the struggle between an elderly person taking up a bed in a hospital and them being discharged either to home or to a care home.

Well this is something that does need changing, part of the problem at the very beginning was hospitals tipping potentially ill people back into care homes. Care for the elderly needs serious reform and needs better joining up with healthcare.

But it isn't just a matter for those. Because those people interact with other people who interact with other people. Society isn't a collection of neatly isolated groups of people.

Actually it really is. We generally form small social groups that have only limited interaction with other groups. And I'm sure if the data was drilled into, you would see infections not spreading through these limited interactions as they would through the tighter social groups.

Then maybe as a country we need to seriously invest and improve in a multitude of areas so we can be more resilient. Things like hospital provision, things like care for the elderly (you could do an entire thread of its own on what we need to do there), things like childcare improvements, things like sick pay / sick leave improvements, etc etc. Of course we won't though and we'll just have the same problems next time another pandemic comes along.

It probably would warrant its own thread, but we need more capacity per capita for sure.

I mean there's people in this thread throwing about the cost of the governments spending in the last year on COVID measures and support and totally ignoring what the cost would have been had we not done much and just let more people get ill. That option would have had a considerable cost too.

Nobody is ignoring it, but there is no real data that can be used, at least in the public domain. Perhaps in time it might get more adequately analysed in the public's view. But right now what we do know is that the cost is potentially several times that of the annual NHS budget, and that is a serious concern.

 

[35B]

Actually it really is. We generally form small social groups that have only limited interaction with other groups. And I'm sure if the data was drilled into, you would see infections not spreading through these limited interactions as they would through the tighter social groups.

Really? I must be imagining the variety of intersecting social circles that my family is in, which include people who have been shielding.

Taking the care home that my wife's godfather is in, those staff all have families, and their own connections; the view of isolating them being necessary to protect their patients then stretches to pull kids out of school, and spouses out of jobs.

 

[Bantamzen]

Really? I must be imagining the variety of intersecting social circles that my family is in, which include people who have been shielding.

Taking the care home that my wife's godfather is in, those staff all have families, and their own connections; the view of isolating them being necessary to protect their patients then stretches to pull kids out of school, and spouses out of jobs.

Actually yes, really. A very good many people spend the majority of their interactions with just a few people in their immediate families, friends and colleagues. And even then many don't interact that much outside of their households. Its why we have care homes in the first place, and why families that live in larger, multi-generational households became an area of concern.

 

[35B]

Actually yes, really. A very good many people spend the majority of their interactions with just a few people in their immediate families, friends and colleagues. And even then many don't interact that much outside of their households. Its why we have care homes in the first place, and why families that live in larger, multi-generational households became an area of concern.

I must be confused, because you seem to be contradicting yourself - it looks like you're arguing that those families in multi-generational households simultaneously have limited social circles, and yet are a wider concern. I don't see how that can be - surely the risk in those households is precisely that their social circles do intersect outside the house, and therefore bring the virus into the household where it can infect those who are more vulnerable to it.

 

[WelshBluebird]

A very good many people spend the majority of their interactions with just a few people in their immediate families, friends and colleagues.

But the point is that each single person who is a part of those families / friends / colleagues groups also have their own families, friends and colleagues and they their own etc etc. It only takes a few of those jumps to potentially capture a lot of people in that group.

As an example, I live with my partner. She works in a kitchen in close proximity to about 5 other people. Each of those 5 people live with other people. Those other people work somewhere too etc etc. I go to the pub with a a handful of friends from time to time. Those friends though have other friends that I don't know who they do things with, they also work and have their own families etc. Before long just my two person household has potential contact with a large number of people in total. And that is before you start considering people who look after relatives or are vulnerable themselves.

 

[Bantamzen]

I must be confused, because you seem to be contradicting yourself - it looks like you're arguing that those families in multi-generational households simultaneously have limited social circles, and yet are a wider concern. I don't see how that can be - surely the risk in those households is precisely that their social circles do intersect outside the house, and therefore bring the virus into the household where it can infect those who are more vulnerable to it.

No, I said the were an area of concern, not to me but to the government & experts. I would have that was obvious.

But the point is that each single person who is a part of those families / friends / colleagues groups also have their own families, friends and colleagues and they their own etc etc. It only takes a few of those jumps to potentially capture a lot of people in that group.

As an example, I live with my partner. She works in a kitchen in close proximity to about 5 other people. Each of those 5 people live with other people. Those other people work somewhere too etc etc. I go to the pub with a a handful of friends from time to time. Those friends though have other friends that I don't know who they do things with, they also work and have their own families etc. Before long just my two person household has potential contact with a large number of people in total. And that is before you start considering people who look after relatives or are vulnerable themselves.

Firstly I am not saying there is no spread between social groups, but what I am saying is that spread is most likely within each one. Different social interactions do not carry the same chance of spread, many of your interactions will have almost zero chance of passing a viable dose. And so the virus will spread more easily in households, spreading only more slowly between different ones & more likely where there are longer, potentially close or physical interactions.

So when it comes to the more vulnerable it is up to them, their families and healthcare experts to understand and mitigate for the risk. That is because they are far more likely to catch it from these people than random strangers they may briefly interact with. For example when my step father contracted leukemia and needed treatment, we understood the risks of him having a basically destroyed immune system and adjusted accordingly around him. We did not expect the whole country to do the same, that would not be reasonable.

So care homes need to work more closely with the adjacent healthcare services to best mitigate for spread within the two environments. And the families of those needing additional protection need to also mitigate. Unfortunately it seems that taking this level of responsibility is beyond some, who instead expect governments to intervene and mitigate for them. I don't think that is right, nor is it sustainable. I hope that makes my position clear.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Unfortunately it seems that taking this level of responsibility is beyond some, who instead expect governments to intervene and mitigate for them. I don't think that is right, nor is it sustainable. I hope that makes my position clear.

Your position is clear - I just don't think it is realistic. You seem to think people have total control about their situation and about the circle of people around them - that just isn't true in reality.
Those vulnerable people and their families still need to buy groceries, they still need to potentially go to work, they may still need to have carers or nurses visit (who in turn will have their own social circles etc - and you certainly can't guarantee a visiting carer is taking the same precautions as the close family are).
What I am trying to say is it isn't all within their control. What the immediate circle around that person does is fairly easy to control yes. But once you get outside that you really can't do much.
So taking personal responsibility will only go so far unless the rest of society also does.

 

[Yew]

But younger and older people interact - often at home (either living together or for things like childcare, or adults caring for aging relatives etc).
It also isn't a lovely clean break between those who are most affected and those who aren't - the age "barrier" so to speak is more of a slope than a straight line and then you have those younger but also particularly vulnerable. I don't see how you could successfully isolate the vulnerable groups from everyone else to enable everyone else to go about their lives normally - or at least not in a way that wouldn't have also led to a lot of the complaints / consequences from the last year anyway.



I know how much this forum hates models, but in the worst case examples where a complete overrun of hospitals was a possibility, then yes the cost could well have been worse (in £ and in lives lost). People think we have a problem with the backlog of operations and the like hospitals have at the moment - and that is with them having been able to still see people over the last year - imagine if they weren't able to because of COVID? That is the worse case situation. Now by all means we can argue how realistic that scenario would be and how accurate those models are, but you can't just pretend that a lighter government tough wouldn't have had any consequences or costs.

Has any from Imperial model ever under predicted? Quite simply, their modelling shows a clear systemic bias towards doomsday scenarios. Their. 'reasonable' worst case scenarios seem to rely on numbers that are often orders of magnitude out, and I've seen no evidence that they calculate the probability of various scenarios properly; pulling out lots of 95th percentile values does not give you an estimate for the 95th percentile, as the probabilities combine to become much more unlikely.

 

[Class 33]

So ZERO deaths reported today. Decided to check out the news websites. At least Sky News and The Sun have acknowledged there was ZERO deaths. Meanwhile on The Mirror absolutely no mention atall about ZERO deaths reported today. Instead a big headline on there THIRD WAVE THREAT: Everything we know about risk as scientists claim it has already started - and threatens June 21 'Freedom Day' . What an absolute joke!! Dear oh dear oh dear!

 

[Bantamzen]

Your position is clear - I just don't think it is realistic. You seem to think people have total control about their situation and about the circle of people around them - that just isn't true in reality.
Those vulnerable people and their families still need to buy groceries, they still need to potentially go to work, they may still need to have carers or nurses visit (who in turn will have their own social circles etc - and you certainly can't guarantee a visiting carer is taking the same precautions as the close family are).
What I am trying to say is it isn't all within their control. What the immediate circle around that person does is fairly easy to control yes. But once you get outside that you really can't do much.
So taking personal responsibility will only go so far unless the rest of society also does.

I don't think its unrealistic, some vulnerable people can go about a normal life with even just the most basic of mitigations. Others cannot, but then this is true not just because of covid, but because they are vulnerable to a whole range of issues. And this is where these people do have control, they will (or at least people acting for them) understand what the risks are and how they can enable their lives around these risks.

The rest of society cannot mitigate for every individual, it is for the individual to be empowered with the knowledge to understand their circumstances & make their decisions around that knowledge. Society might be able to make some adjustments where reasonable, but that definitely does not involve locking people in their homes, forcing pay cuts on them or even costing their livelihoods, and it definitely does not involve denying them access to essential service or depriving them access to family & friends. Yet all of this was considered reasonable for a time. Never again.

 

[brad465]

I don't believe it, a Government adviser for the vaccine taskforce has come out and has not only said data is looking good, but said this quote that we were all thinking, "If we scamper down a rabbit hole every time we see a new variant we are going to spend a long time huddled away.":

Covid-19: UK's data encouraging, says government adviser

Sir John Bell says balance is needed in the discussion over when to end lockdown restrictions.

www.bbc.co.uk

The UK's latest coronavirus data looks encouraging, a government adviser has said, amid a debate over whether to end restrictions in England on 21 June.
Sir John Bell, part of the government's vaccine taskforce, said there needed to be "balance" to the discussion.
"If we scamper down a rabbit hole every time we see a new variant we are going to spend a long time huddled away."
On Tuesday the UK announced zero Covid deaths for the first time since the pandemic began.
However, there has been concern over a small rise in cases recently linked to the spread of the more transmissible variant first identified in India, now known as Delta.
This has led to some leading scientists to suggest a delay to the last stage of the government's roadmap in England for lifting lockdown, which would remove all legal limits on how many people you can meet.
A final decision on whether restrictions will be relaxed will be reached on 14 June.

 

[35B]

I don't believe it, a Government adviser for the vaccine taskforce has come out and has not only said data is looking good, but said this quote that we were all thinking, "If we scamper down a rabbit hole every time we see a new variant we are going to spend a long time huddled away.":

Covid-19: UK's data encouraging, says government adviser

Sir John Bell says balance is needed in the discussion over when to end lockdown restrictions.

www.bbc.co.uk

Or, in other words, scientists are looking at data and trying to interpret it in the context of what it means out in the real world.

 

[wireforever]

Another firm milking the furlough scheme and paying the bosses big bonuses namely JD sports this time.Surely the govt need to deal with this as it is taxpayers money being used for the furlough scheme.Covid has brought to light all the greedy firms/bosses who are only in it for themselves and are unwillingly to reign in their greed during the pandemic

 

[PHILIPE]

Another firm milking the furlough scheme and paying the bosses big bonuses namely JD sports this time.Surely the govt need to deal with this as it is taxpayers money being used for the furlough scheme.Covid has brought to light all the greedy firms/bosses who are only in it for themselves and are unwillingly to reign in their greed during the pandemic

That sounds like the hated Mike Ashley c/o Newcastle FC

 

[WelshBluebird]

Another firm milking the furlough scheme and paying the bosses big bonuses namely JD sports this time.Surely the govt need to deal with this as it is taxpayers money being used for the furlough scheme.Covid has brought to light all the greedy firms/bosses who are only in it for themselves and are unwillingly to reign in their greed during the pandemic

I guess the way you have to look at it is if furlough wasn't an option, what would these companies have done? Reduced their bonuses or made loads of people unemployed? I certainly doubt most of them would have reduced their bonuses, so the best option probably was making sure people didn't end up on the dole. Ans then you can chase after the owners for potential fraud or try to essentially shame them into giving money back now.

 

[Scotrail12]

GB News has started and willing to give anti-lockdown views, finally a TV station that is willing to criticise.

 

[island]

GB News has started and willing to give anti-lockdown views, finally a TV station that is willing to criticise.

I expect they'll get their hands firmly slapped by Ofcom in the not too distant future...

 

[Eyersey468]

I guess the way you have to look at it is if furlough wasn't an option, what would these companies have done? Reduced their bonuses or made loads of people unemployed? I certainly doubt most of them would have reduced their bonuses, so the best option probably was making sure people didn't end up on the dole. Ans then you can chase after the owners for potential fraud or try to essentially shame them into giving money back now.

I suspect quite a few companies at best would have laid some staff off and may well have gone down the insolvency route

 

[Darandio]

Exempt from wearing a mask and want to enjoy the rides at Thorpe Park? The dirty swines must sit at the back out of the way. What a depressing situation.

Customers threaten Thorpe Park with boycott over ride mask rule

Angry customers have threatened to boycott Thorpe Park over its rules about mask-wearing on rides.

www.standard.co.uk

Angry customers have threatened to boycott Thorpe Park over its rules about mask-wearing on rides.
The theme park, in Surrey, does not allow mask exempt guests to ride at the front of rollercoasters.
One mother reacted with fury after visiting the attraction only to find her daughter could not enjoy the rides.

“My 18 year old at Thorpe park today, mask exempt-had to ride at the back of the rides!” she wrote.

She accompanied the post with a sign she says was given to her daughter, asking her to sit at the back.

Another said: “We won’t be going there. I will stick to my local fun fairs where they don’t request such nonsense. I will inform other maskless families I know…Once again, much appreciated.”
One person added: “This is segregation. You should be taken to court. You do not discriminate against people like this for useless masks that don’t work or for anything else. If masks did work you wouldn’t be worried about sitting next to a maskless person. Apologise to these people.”
A spokesperson for Thorpe Park said: “In line with our ride restrictions, all our guests who are mask exempt are required to sit in the row farthest to the back to reduce the risk of air transmission aboard our attractions. If you do wish to discuss further, please pop us a DM.”

 

[VauxhallandI]

Exempt from wearing a mask and want to enjoy the rides at Thorpe Park? The dirty swines must sit at the back out of the way. What a depressing situation.

Customers threaten Thorpe Park with boycott over ride mask rule

Angry customers have threatened to boycott Thorpe Park over its rules about mask-wearing on rides.

www.standard.co.uk

I’d suggest not popping them a DM and continuing the conversation openly so every once can see their behaviour

 

[35B]

Exempt from wearing a mask and want to enjoy the rides at Thorpe Park? The dirty swines must sit at the back out of the way. What a depressing situation.

Customers threaten Thorpe Park with boycott over ride mask rule

Angry customers have threatened to boycott Thorpe Park over its rules about mask-wearing on rides.

www.standard.co.uk

I’d suggest not popping them a DM and continuing the conversation openly so every once can see their behaviour

I did a little googling, and found what looks like the original tweet. What the Standard doesn't mention is the second half of that tweet, which compares this to what happened to Rosa Parks, and then tagged in a range of anti-mask, anti-Covid activists -

My 18 year old daughter was SEGREGATED at the back of the rides at @THORPEPARK as she’s mask exempt- didn’t something similar happen on buses years ago? @TheFreds @garethicke @Josiestweet @BBGRichie @WeWillBeFree82

Judging by that disgraceful comparison (and, yes, there were then people jumping on comparing mask wearing to the yellow star), and the profile of the original tweeter, I'd question whether her daughter is genuinely exempt within the terms of the law, and whether the objective was to sort out what I agree is poor practice by Thorpe Park, or to cause a ruckus. But with friends like her, I'd be running a mile.

 

[kez19]

Exempt from wearing a mask and want to enjoy the rides at Thorpe Park? The dirty swines must sit at the back out of the way. What a depressing situation.

Customers threaten Thorpe Park with boycott over ride mask rule

Angry customers have threatened to boycott Thorpe Park over its rules about mask-wearing on rides.

www.standard.co.uk

Next they’ll tell you sit at the back of a bus/train/queue, who would have seen this coming especially in 2021!

 

[VauxhallandI]

I did a little googling, and found what looks like the original tweet. What the Standard doesn't mention is the second half of that tweet, which compares this to what happened to Rosa Parks, and then tagged in a range of anti-mask, anti-Covid activists -

Judging by that disgraceful comparison (and, yes, there were then people jumping on comparing mask wearing to the yellow star), and the profile of the original tweeter, I'd question whether her daughter is genuinely exempt within the terms of the law, and whether the objective was to sort out what I agree is poor practice by Thorpe Park, or to cause a ruckus. But with friends like her, I'd be running a mile.

It’s a good job we don’t have to rely on whether you think she is exempt or not then.

The staff at the venue didn’t know about her friends on the tweet as it hadn’t happened yet so even at a worse case it was a means to an end to display the behaviour of a private company against humans which by all accounts you are happy with.

 

[Bantamzen]

I did a little googling, and found what looks like the original tweet. What the Standard doesn't mention is the second half of that tweet, which compares this to what happened to Rosa Parks, and then tagged in a range of anti-mask, anti-Covid activists -

Judging by that disgraceful comparison (and, yes, there were then people jumping on comparing mask wearing to the yellow star), and the profile of the original tweeter, I'd question whether her daughter is genuinely exempt within the terms of the law, and whether the objective was to sort out what I agree is poor practice by Thorpe Park, or to cause a ruckus. But with friends like her, I'd be running a mile.

Discrimination is discrimination, if someone is exempt is it right to treat them differently?

 

[island]

It is at staff discretion which row of a roller coaster someone sits in normally, so I think it is quite the stretch to say that assigning exempt riders to the last row is in any way improper.

 

[35B]

It’s a good job we don’t have to rely on whether you think she is exempt or not then.

The staff at the venue didn’t know about her friends on the tweet as it hadn’t happened yet so even at a worse case it was a means to an end to display the behaviour of a private company against humans which by all accounts you are happy with.

I have no idea of the circumstances of said daughter, and whether the claimed exemption was or was not legally justifiable.

The park has a policy about masks, which was clearly signed, and as far as I can tell this was applied. One visitor chose to complain about that. She did so in a particular way, making no reference to any characteristic that might have brought discrimination law into play, which seemed designed to inflame. I also noticed the comparison to Rosa Parks which is simply offensive in its ignorance and mischaracteris

That mode of complaint was entirely consistent with her Twitter profile, and I use the information from what she has put in the public domain to form my judgment.

What is noticeable is that Thorpe Park did not deny entry or otherwise limit an exempt person from what they could do, but solely applied a policy based on their judgement of public safety on the rides. I assume, but can’t be sure, that this is based on the view that the speed of the ride will cause aerosols emitted during screaming to blow backwards - not altogether an illogical position. However, whether I’m right or wrong, that judgment on safety is part of their legal duty, and applies regardless of what you or I think about mask wearing or it’s implementation in that situation.

As for the treatment of individuals, I have rather more sympathy in this instance for the staff facing a Twitter storm than I do the original poster. I also wonder how the 18 year old daughter feels - quite possibly embarrassed and used.

 

[VauxhallandI]

So Thorpe Park Ltd are now empowered to makepublic safety decisions of this form?

Just making up their own science to pander to the ill informed.


WTF