Media Coverage of COVID -19

[bramling]

It is probably unofficial, but I cannot escape the conclusion that this country has media censorship (or at the very least obvious bias) going full tilt over this Covid episode.
Has anyone else noticed that you rarely hear anyone on the media stating they think this lockdown and social distancing is all an overreaction and an unwarranted infringement of people's liberty which is probably doing more harm than good anyway ? Whether you agree with that statement or not is not the point, the fact is that many people do think that but their views are not heard.
The requirement for face masks in shops was the most obvious example. When it was announced the BBC had a load of vox pops on their news channels, all said they thought it a good idea and/or had no real problem with it. Nobody said they were really not happy about it and did not want to do it. Again, it doesn't matter if you agree with that or not, but the fact is many people (at least half the people I know) think that, but it is not reported.
Every time they have an "expert" on I'm screaming at the radio "ask them some difficult questions" (like why the death rate kept dropping right through the winding down of the lockdown), but they never do. Every thing they say is just accepted as indisputable fact despite the fact they've been wrong many times in their pessimistic forecasts. In fact I sent the BBC PM programme a list of questions to ask and not only did they not reply they never even acknowledged my E mail despite me asking for a read receipt.
When the death rate (for all causes dropped below the long term average in June it should have been lead item on the news, but it was hardly mentioned !
I've seen on some forums people stating provable facts (with links to the evidence ! ) in posts but the posts being deleted "for not taking the threat of this virus as seriously as we should be doing".
There was a slight relaxation of all this a month or two back (Matthew Parris, he's a big critic of this lockdown policy was on the radio) but since then we've reverted to full throttle censorship or, at the absolute least, bias.
It's worrying but the do say the first casualty of war is the truth.

Not sure it's censorship, just a function of our increasingly useless media. Whatever one's views on what should or shouldn't be being done, there really should have been some sharp scrutiny, especially towards the politicians, to expose the rationale behind their decisions.

The whole thing is a shower, we have a government who is completely clueless on detail ,an opposition who seem to be simply going through the motions (though to give a modicum of defence to Starmer being leader of the opposition is an incredibly difficult tightrope at this moment), and a media who just don't seem able to cut through.

Much as I despise her for other reasons, Sturgeon has at least demonstrated accountability through this, and has taken the trouble to explain the rationale behind her decisions. The Scottish news conferences do seem to have been slightly more effective in achieving that.

 

[Cowley]

Well the last few posts are pretty much on topic...
Rather than me trying to unpick all the ones that weren’t from the ones that were let’s try and keep the vaccine discussion this thread:

What if herd immunity can't be reached with a vaccine, as too many refuse to have it?

The elephant in the room is whether we'd be able to reach such a critical mass. Sadly a significant proportion of people seem to be radically anti-vax, and would refuse any vaccine. When you add to that number those people who cannot receive the vaccine for medical reasons, there's a serious...

www.railforums.co.uk

Thanks everyone.

 

[LAX54]

There was an excellent leader in the Sun last week warning about the perils of over reaction. Well placed, as that's the news source of a lot of Karens. Also today on the BBC website, there is an article explaining why the infection figures are probably not going up in real terms.

So should we, or should we always have... just reported those that were hospitalised, and were seriously ill, and not every Tom, Dick and Harry that just had symptoms or a mild case, like flu ?
Should we now protect the elderly and those that have conditions that could possibly make it worse, whilst the rest of the Country, resumes, before there is nothing left to resume ?

 

[DB]

Should we now protect the elderly and those that have conditions that could possibly make it worse, whilst the rest of the Country, resumes, before there is nothing left to resume ?

Yes!

 

[adc82140]

So should we, or should we always have... just reported those that were hospitalised, and were seriously ill, and not every Tom, Dick and Harry that just had symptoms or a mild case, like flu ?
Should we now protect the elderly and those that have conditions that could possibly make it worse, whilst the rest of the Country, resumes, before there is nothing left to resume ?

Yes and yes. I have yet to see evidence of any reported spikes (Anglesey, that farm in the Cotswolds, Leicester) have caused any concerning increase in hospital admissions. Too early to say for Lancashire, but it'll be the same.

 

[Justin Smith]

Would rather prepare for the worst though no? Better people do that and are at least aware rather than being blase and underpaying like at the beginning. What could be described as a second wave is occurring in parts of Europe, so wouldn't call it just "hype".

If it's a no cost option "to prepare for the worst" yes.
But it is VERY far from being a no cost option, either socially * and economically.

* personally all this lockdown and social distancing is depressing me, esp the face covering mandate. I know quite few others who are suffering from depression (mild or otherwise) at the moment, and it's far more likely to be the so called cure, than the disease. But you never hear about it on the media. If you hear about any rise in depression it is implied it's the virus depressing people, when in many (most ? ) cases it isn't the actual virus.

 

[carlberry]

Yes and yes. I have yet to see evidence of any reported spikes (Anglesey, that farm in the Cotswolds, Leicester) have caused any concerning increase in hospital admissions. Too early to say for Lancashire, but it'll be the same.

If the spike is responded to properly then it wont cause vast new numbers, that's the point of responding to it. The alternative is to select the next area that reports an issue (Aberdeen today for example) and just ignore it. At what point in this experiment do you admit to people that it's going on (as it's going to be seriously hard to cope with the feedback if you announce it - 'We have identified a spike in Milton Keynes however we're going to ignore it because we've never liked those concrete cows'.) and what's an acceptable time for the experiment to run for?

 

[adc82140]

I'm not saying don't deal with the spikes as they crop up, but the figures show that in places like Leicester the numbers were falling before any measures were taken. Preston is an interesting one. They've issued a "be careful" notice without actually any restrictions, and not kept everyone in the dark and sprung restrictions on with an hour's notice like they did in Manchester. I wonder if this approach will work.

 

[talldave]

I'm disappointed that the BBC and others just appear to have become an extended government press office. Where are the challenging questions? Reporters appear spineless.

 

[CW2]

I don't want to be cut off from the rest of the world for some indeterminate (possibly permanent) length of time, particularly for a virus which only kills 1 in 200 of those who actually catch it. Remember an unknown number of people (possibly even a majority) are not susceptible to it anyway, e.g. couples where one gets it and the other doesn't.
The world has gone mad, I really think all this is the biggest over reaction in the history of the world and history will vindicate my stance. Right from the beginning I'd have put the shoe on the other foot, protected and isolated the vulnerable (esp care homes and hospitals), and everyone else just get on with it, but, critically, all at ones own choice.
We'll see who is right.

The problem with that is that if everybody is allowed to exercise their free will then any given individual may be utterly unaffected but might cause death or serious impairment to another person, perhaps unknowingly or unwittingly. Witness recent outbreaks centered around pubs, where people have been flouting the distancing advice and "just getting on with it" at their own choice. There comes a point where individual free will comes second to collective responsibility. In other words, we need somebody to tell us what to do for our own safety and the safety of others. I don't like the consequences, but I understand the reasoning.

 

[Bantamzen]

The problem with that is that if everybody is allowed to exercise their free will then any given individual may be utterly unaffected but might cause death or serious impairment to another person, perhaps unknowingly or unwittingly. Witness recent outbreaks centered around pubs, where people have been flouting the distancing advice and "just getting on with it" at their own choice. There comes a point where individual free will comes second to collective responsibility. In other words, we need somebody to tell us what to do for our own safety and the safety of others. I don't like the consequences, but I understand the reasoning.

No, "we" don't. Please don't speak for everyone when you are not in a position to do so.

 

[MikeWM]

If it's a no cost option "to prepare for the worst" yes.
But it is VERY far from being a no cost option, either socially * and economically.

* personally all this lockdown and social distancing is depressing me, esp the face covering mandate. I know quite few others who are suffering from depression (mild or otherwise) at the moment, and it's far more likely to be the so called cure, than the disease. But you never hear about it on the media. If you hear about any rise in depression it is implied it's the virus depressing people, when in many (most ? ) cases it isn't the actual virus.

I've consistently said from the very start in March that I was a lot more concerned about the reaction than to the virus itself. It has been wildly disproportionate all along. At least early on I disagreed strongly with the actions taken but had some understanding of why they were being taken. But the last couple of months have taken us into an ever more ridiculous state of affairs, and it continues (mostly) to get worse.

I agree about your mental health point too. I'm definitely on more of an emotional rollercoaster than I would normally be. Having suffered from depression in the past, I know I'm not there and I don't feel myself slipping there (yet) - but it is taking its toll somewhat. I'm certainly taking less interest in things I used to enjoy (a classic sign of depression) - but that is because they are no longer as enjoyable due to the silly measures that have been put in place everywhere.

 

[MikeWM]

The problem with that is that if everybody is allowed to exercise their free will then any given individual may be utterly unaffected but might cause death or serious impairment to another person, perhaps unknowingly or unwittingly.

That's called 'existence'. It has been that way since the dawn of time and will be that way forever.

I will not take moral responsibility for entirely unforseeable and unlikely consequences of my actions (or inactions). Living life in a normal way as a healthy individual is not a moral hazard.

If we followed this principle, no-one would ever get behind the wheel of a car again. Because even though you haven't been diagnosed and have no reason to believe you may have it, you *might* have epilepsy, and you *might* have an epileptic fit, and you *might* drive into a group of grannies on a day trip.

 

[CW2]

That's called 'existence'. It has been that way since the dawn of time and will be that way forever.

I will not take moral responsibility for entirely unforseeable and unlikely consequences of my actions (or inactions). Living life in a normal way as a healthy individual is not a moral hazard.

If we followed this principle, no-one would ever get behind the wheel of a car again. Because even though you haven't been diagnosed and have no reason to believe you may have it, you *might* have epilepsy, and you *might* have an epileptic fit, and you *might* drive into a group of grannies on a day trip.

It's not "unforeseeable" though, is it? You know what the consequences of your (in)action might be, yet chose to assert that your right to do as you wish trumps this. Your epilepsy analogy is flawed, because people usually know whether or not they have been diagnosed with epilepsy. It's more like having unprotected sex when you know you might be infected with an STD. You may have no symptoms, but you could be a carrier and pass it on. Your right to "live life in a normal way" may affect the ability of others to do the same, either now or in future. So you (and I, and everybody) DO have a moral responsibility to modify (y)our behaviour.

 

[bramling]

I've consistently said from the very start in March that I was a lot more concerned about the reaction than to the virus itself. It has been wildly disproportionate all along. At least early on I disagreed strongly with the actions taken but had some understanding of why they were being taken. But the last couple of months have taken us into an ever more ridiculous state of affairs, and it continues (mostly) to get worse.

I agree about your mental health point too. I'm definitely on more of an emotional rollercoaster than I would normally be. Having suffered from depression in the past, I know I'm not there and I don't feel myself slipping there (yet) - but it is taking its toll somewhat. I'm certainly taking less interest in things I used to enjoy (a classic sign of depression) - but that is because they are no longer as enjoyable due to the silly measures that have been put in place everywhere.

Agreed.

The reaction in this country has bordered on hysterical at times, yet at the same time we've managed to be worse affected than we perhaps could have been in virtually every aspect of this.

To begin with we had wall-to-wall media coverage throughout January and February, yet there was little media scrutiny of the government's response at that point. Surely it shouldn't have taken much imagination to realise that we area almost certain to import a shed load of cases from Italy and Spain, yet there was very much an "it won't happen here" mentality. Whilst we might not have been able to jam the brakes on by then, we could perhaps have slowed things sufficiently to keep things below a level where full lockdown was necessary.

Then in the space of a couple of weeks we went from complacency to hysteria, again with the media only too happy to show us things like empty supermarket shelves, which further fuelled things.

I particularly agree with your last bit - I'm the same in that I'm just not doing many of my regular things as they're simply not enjoyable at the moment. It's actually difficult to put a finger on exactly why - we had a day out a couple of weeks ago to visit a disused railway viaduct which was a pleasant day, but again it was a case of picking the place carefully to avoid turning up somewhere likely to be mobbed full of people. This side of things hasn't really been covered much at all, likewise things like the fiasco over exam grades. I can't imagine how I'd be feeling now were I in the position of having received an "estimated" grade which might now have implications for my whole life's career prospects, for example. Again token coverage at best.

 

[DB]

It's not "unforeseeable" though, is it? You know what the consequences of your (in)action might be, yet chose to assert that your right to do as you wish trumps this. Your epilepsy analogy is flawed, because people usually know whether or not they have been diagnosed with epilepsy. It's more like having unprotected sex when you know you might be infected with an STD. You may have no symptoms, but you could be a carrier and pass it on. Your right to "live life in a normal way" may affect the ability of others to do the same, either now or in future. So you (and I, and everybody) DO have a moral responsibility to modify your behaviour.

Have to say I find this sort of attempt to make people feel guilty really tiresome.

It's always been the case that you could pass on an airborne virus to someone, who might be particularly susceptible to it. A driver could have a heart attack and plough into a load of people or another car. Life is full of danger if you want to look for it. It's only the current situation where it's suddenly been decided that no risk is acceptable when it comes to this virus (all other risks to society, health and the economy are absolutely fine though).

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The Telegraph is probably the most mainstream outlet that has a critical line of thought towards the government, which is perhaps surprising given BoJo worked there, and Mrs Gove is one of their writers...

Thought that "Mrs Gove" (otherwise known as Sarah Vine) is a columnist for "The Daily Mail", and before that, "The Times".

 

[CW2]

Have to say I find this sort of attempt to make people feel guilty really tiresome.

It's always been the case that you could pass on an airborne virus to someone, who might be particularly susceptible to it. A driver could have a heart attack and plough into a load of people or another car. Life is full of danger if you want to look for it. It's only the current situation where it's suddenly been decided that no risk is acceptable when it comes to this virus (all other risks to society, health and the economy are absolutely fine though).

No, it's simply that a particularly virulent and deadly virus is reponsible for the deaths of nearly 50,000 people in the UK in the past few months. That makes it a much bigger and more immediate threat than the others you quote. That in no way diminishes the threats from other risks to society, but it is deadly, and it is necessary to control the spread.

 

[Freightmaster]

I don't want to be cut off from the rest of the world for some indeterminate (possibly permanent) length of time, particularly for a virus which only kills 1 in 200 of those who actually catch it.

The 1 in 200 figure is an average, hugely distorted by higher death rates by amongst the over 75s.


Because of this, for the vast majority of the population, the 'infection fatality rate' is *far* lower:

As you can see, as of the end of July, over 75s accounted for 75% of the deaths to date, but less than 9% of the population,
which is why many on this forum have suggested spending more time/money/effort protecting that demographic and those who live
with them while granting a bit more freedom (but still with sensible precautions) to others.

Remember an unknown number of people (possibly even a majority) are not susceptible to it anyway, e.g. couples where one gets it and the other doesn't.

Correct - it's not fully understood yet, but it is thought that many people have an 'innate' immunity to Coronavirus,
irrespective of the viral load that they are exposed to.





MARK

 

[DB]

No, it's simply that a particularly virulent and deadly virus is reponsible for the deaths of nearly 50,000 people in the UK in the past few months. That makes it a much bigger and more immediate threat than the others you quote. That in no way diminishes the threats from other risks to society, but it is deadly, and it is necessary to control the spread.

Look at the stats, and compare them with flu. The reality is that apart from to a well identified group, it's not really that dangerous. Emotive comments such as describing it as a 'deadly virus' are what have led to such a public overreaction.

 

[CW2]

Look at the stats, and compare them with flu. The reality is that apart from to a well identified group, it's not really that dangerous. Emotive comments such as describing it as a 'deadly virus' are what have led to such a public overreaction.

There is a national campaign for all affected or vulnerable persons to get the flu jab every year. If there wasn't a jab available, flu would be every bit as deadly. Thankfully the flu virus is largely under control. For COVID there is as yet no innoculation, so it remains deadly and virulent.

 

[DB]

There is a national campaign for all affected or vulnerable persons to get the flu jab every year. If there wasn't a jab available, flu would be every bit as deadly. Thankfully the flu virus is largely under control. For COVID there is as yet no innoculation, so it remains deadly and virulent.

There is no single flu virus, and the vaccine doesn't stop there being a lot of deaths. It's far from 'under control' - it's just that the media largely ignores it.

 

[Horizon22]

That's what happens when a nasty virus goes around. Always has, always will. We've never had the incredible hubris before to pretend we can stop that.

Of course was more referring to the "so what" comment as there are obviously consequences. Its whether they are acceptable (and to whom)

 

[CW2]

There is no single flu virus, and the vaccine doesn't stop there being a lot of deaths. It's far from 'under control' - it's just that the media largely ignores it.

There is a vaccine whose components vary from year to year according to the prevailing threat, so there is a single innoculation for each vulnerable person. That innoculation both saves lives and reduces the spread of flu. So it is a measure of control, whose effectiveness varies from year to year.
The Government also takes flu very seriously, and produces a report each year. The number of fatalities in the 2019-2020 season was 7990. See page 54 of this report:
Government annual flu report
So 8,000 ish versus close to 50,000 so far, and still rising. That puts it into perspective.

 

[DB]

There is a vaccine whose components vary from year to year according to the prevailing threat, so there is a single innoculation for each vulnerable person. That innoculation both saves lives and reduces the spread of flu. So it is a measure of control, whose effectiveness varies from year to year.
The Government also takes flu very seriously, and produces a report each year. The number of fatalities in the 2019-2020 season was 7990. See page 54 of this report:
Government annual flu report
So 8,000 ish versus close to 50,000 so far, and still rising. That puts it into perspective.

That was a particularly mild year for flu. Lookback over the previous few years.

 

[CW2]

That was a particularly mild year for flu. Lookback over the previous few years.

Annual average over the past 5 years is around 11,300. I think it still makes the point that the exceptional measures currently in place are there for a purpose. Comparing it with Flu serves no purpose, other than to warn of the worst case scenario of a second wave of COVID coinciding with a bad year for Flu.

 

[DB]

Annual average over the past 5 years is around 11,300. I think it still makes the point that the exceptional measures currently in place are there for a purpose. Comparing it with Flu serves no purpose, other than to warn of the worst case scenario of a second wave of COVID coinciding with a bad year for Flu.

Thought you might average it! 2014/15 was over 28k. So well over half the covid deaths so far, and it barely received a mention in the media. What was that about flu being under control?

It does seem that many people now are unable to accept that things like new viruses will happen periodically, and destroying the economy won't stop it.

 

[jtuk]

Thought you might average it! 2014/15 was over 28k. So well over half the covid deaths so far, and it barely received a mention in the media. What was that about flu being under control?

Of course flu looks bad when we look back to a bad flu season, but when we look at the research showing an inverse relationship between weak flu seasons and Covid deaths we're reminded Covid isn't flu

 

[Richard Scott]

Of course flu looks bad when we look back to a bad flu season, but when we look at the research showing an inverse relationship between weak flu seasons and Covid deaths we're reminded Covid isn't flu

But neither is it smallpox, a grip on reality needed with this virus.

 

[brad465]

Next week the Office for National Statistics will release the Q2 economic data, which will be a massive contraction (maybe not quite of the US' -33% as May saw a partial recovery for us). In theory this should start leading to questions being asked; the media will certainly be reporting it. Failing that the unemployment statistics as the year progresses will, now the furlough scheme is being wound down.