Media Coverage of COVID -19

[talldave]

Probably also forgotten that many of that 300,000 have got over the virus and no longer going to pass it on anyway.

Yes. Meanwhile others who have it asymptomatically could be passing it on. So the numbers are difficult to estimate but for sure we can exclude dead people from the supermarket risk equation!

 

[Huntergreed]

Probably also forgotten that many of that 300,000 have got over the virus and no longer going to pass it on anyway.

It does seem silly that someone who tested positive and has just come out of self-isolation has to wear one, they’re guaranteed not to be spreading it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It does seem silly that someone who tested positive and has just come out of self-isolation has to wear one, they’re guaranteed not to be spreading it.

They're not unless they've retested.

 

[DB]

At least there's some realism out there in medialand:

The Coronavirus Is Never Going Away

No matter what happens now, the virus will continue to circulate around the world.

www.theatlantic.com

If there was ever a time when this coronavirus could be contained, it has probably passed. One outcome is now looking almost certain: This virus is never going away.

 

[DB]

And yet more related good news... Not.

UK to plunge into deepest slump on record with worst GDP drop of G7

Official measure to be declared this week as coronavirus lockdown shrinks GDP by 21% in second quarter

www.theguardian.com

Britain’s economy will be officially declared in recession this week for the first time since the 2008 financial crisis, as the coronavirus outbreak plunges the country into the deepest slump on record.

Not sure I quite agree with that paragraph though - it's not the coronavirus outbreak itself which has done the damage, but the over-reaction to it by the government

 

[Westcountryman]

Latest reported Trumpism. 'The 1917 pandemic probably ended World War 2' ???????

 

[Jamiescott1]

Now its 10pm and I'm flicking through newspaper websites. I may be wrong but I assume the mail and the sun are the 2 biggest newspaper websites in the uk.

The 2nd story in the sun is about uk coronavirus deaths being their lowest since before lockdown (the main story is about a fight on a train)

The 2nd story in the mail is about covid infections being their highest for 7 weeks (the main story is about megan)

2 main papers 2 different spins on coronavirus figures

 

[HSTEd]

Now its 10pm and I'm flicking through newspaper websites. I may be wrong but I assume the mail and the sun are the 2 biggest newspaper websites in the uk.

Fairly sure its the Mail and the Grauniad now.

 

[jtuk]

In terms of largest website, it's sort by the amount of paywalling/harvesting of data in ascending order. Grauniad has got worse in respect of the latter of late

 

[duncanp]

This is anothe example of misleading reporting.

The headline is 9 in 10 pubs not following COVID-19 rules

No doubt all the lockdown enthusiasts will call for an immediate and indefinite closure of all pubs.

However, if you read the articles, it says 90% of pubs in one suburb of Greater Manchester,which the survey conveniently forgets to name. It doesn't say how many pubs were involved in the survey, nor does it say to what extent each individual pub broke the rules.

The smaller the number of pubs in the survey, the less reliance can be placed on the results, and it is quite wrong to extrapolate this and say that 90% of pubs throughout the UK are not following the rules.

It would be manifestly unfair to punish the majority of pubs, restaurants and cafes which, in my experience, are following the rules, because of the actions of a small minority, especially as the pubs are not responsible for the abject failure of the Track and Trace system. (Remember the app that was trialled on the Isle of Wight? - that seems to have died a death)

It is worth pointing out that pubs collecting details for Track and Trace is not mandatory in England, nor is table service. It is yet another case of local authorities interpreting "Guidance" and "advice" as the law.

However, if the government is willing to pay me, I am quite happy to go several pubs in my area of the country and test whether each one is following the rules.

UK’s official death toll reduced by 5,377 following review of figures

www.telegraph.co.uk

Nine in ten pubs are not following coronavirus guidance by maintaining social distancing between their customers and collecting their contact details, an investigation has claimed.

Sky News report that an undercover team found 90 per cent of pubs in a Greater Manchester suburb were not following the rules, which were set out by the Government when lockdown was eased.

Andy Burnham, the city's mayor, said he was "really disappointed" and warned that pubs would need to "get their houses in order".

Experts have already warned pubs create a "perfect storm" for the spread of the virus, and local lockdowns in Preston and Aberdeen have been linked to the re-opening of pubs and bars.

 

[DB]

This is anothe example of misleading reporting.

The headline is 9 in 10 pubs not following COVID-19 rules

No doubt all the lockdown enthusiasts will call for an immediate and indefinite closure of all pubs.

However, if you read the articles, it says 90% of pubs in one suburb of Greater Manchester,which the survey conveniently forgets to name. It doesn't say how many pubs were involved in the survey, nor does it say to what extent each individual pub broke the rules.

The smaller the number of pubs in the survey, the less reliance can be placed on the results, and it is quite wrong to extrapolate this and say that 90% of pubs throughout the UK are not following the rules.

It would be manifestly unfair to punish the majority of pubs, restaurants and cafes which, in my experience, are following the rules, because of the actions of a small minority, especially as the pubs are not responsible for the abject failure of the Track and Trace system. (Remember the app that was trialled on the Isle of Wight? - that seems to have died a death)

It is worth pointing out that pubs collecting details for Track and Trace is not mandatory in England, nor is table service. It is yet another case of local authorities interpreting "Guidance" and "advice" as the law.

However, if the government is willing to pay me, I am quite happy to go several pubs in my area of the country and test whether each one is following the rules.

UK’s official death toll reduced by 5,377 following review of figures

www.telegraph.co.uk

It also needs to be recognised that the size and layout of some pubs, particularly smaller ones, will make it impossible to follow the guidance to the letter.

 

[Scrotnig]

No doubt all the lockdown enthusiasts will call for an immediate and indefinite closure of all pubs.

That's already being called for unfortunately, and it will only get worse when schools go back in England.

Cases are already rising, albeit slowly. If this continues I have no doubt they will shut the pubs again, and that will mean as well as the high street being 'over'', the pub trade will be as well.

This hysteria will leave us with nothing left of society, frankly.

 

[Huntergreed]

That's already being called for unfortunately, and it will only get worse when schools go back in England.

Cases are already rising, albeit slowly. If this continues I have no doubt they will shut the pubs again, and that will mean as well as the high street being 'over'', the pub trade will be as well.

This hysteria will leave us with nothing left of society, frankly.

Personally, I only think they’ll close pubs in local lockdowns. I really can’t see them doing another national closure, unless it gets very bad, in which case schools may have to close as well (personally, I would keep schools open no matter how bad it gets, I think this is just as important)

 

[yorkie]

I wouldn't trust the newspaper's investigation.

Not all measures are mandatory, and not all measures are necessary in combination with each other; it wouldn't surprise me if the journalists were counting any measure not implemented as a breach e.g. if there is no 'one way system' (even though it may not be necessary / possible)

Cases are already rising, albeit slowly...

Not sure about that; if you compare the increase in the number of tests, it's relatively steady. If you then take out the areas of concern, arguably cases must surely be falling elsewhere.

If this continues I have no doubt they will shut the pubs again, and that will mean as well as the high street being 'over'', the pub trade will be as well.

As @Huntergreed says, if this happens it will be in areas under local "lockdowns" only.

This hysteria will leave us with nothing left of society, frankly.

If things get any worse there will be mass protests to prevent that happening.

Only a minority of people want to pursue an elimination strategy at the cost of ruining our society; those unintelligent, misguided people are clearly in the wrong; the vast majority of people can see that and won't let them win.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's already being called for unfortunately, and it will only get worse when schools go back in England.

Cases are already rising, albeit slowly. If this continues I have no doubt they will shut the pubs again, and that will mean as well as the high street being 'over'', the pub trade will be as well.

This hysteria will leave us with nothing left of society, frankly.

Or maybe, just maybe, people could take it seriously, actually abide by the rules and guidance set out, and then cases might just stop going up?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Only a minority of people want to pursue an elimination strategy at the cost of ruining our society; those unintelligent, misguided people are clearly in the wrong; the vast majority of people can see that and won't let them win.

Sorry, @yorkie, but I think that has gone too far. You have the right to suggest I am wrong, misguided, in a minority etc in advocating a NZ style policy of elimination, but suggesting it is because of a lack of intelligence is wrong, I'm afraid. My advocacy of such a policy is because I strongly prioritise a lack of restrictions in normal daily life over the downsides of closed borders and occasional lockdowns, but I don't think just "letting it fly" is realistic (though if the trend of deaths continues down, evidencing an evolution of the virus to be less dangerous, that view may change).

 

[yorkie]

I'm not suggesting that.

Sorry, @yorkie, but I think that has gone too far. You have the right to suggest I am wrong, misguided, in a minority etc in advocating a NZ style policy of elimination, but suggesting it is because of a lack of intelligence is wrong, I'm afraid.

I'm a bit confused as earlier in this thread you said:

Once we reach herd immunity the caseload will decline (and it won't be off a cliff, it will be a curve in the right direction). As it isn't declining, I don't see how one can conclude that. When cases start declining, we can remove lockdown measures - it's as simple as that, really!

That doesn't sound like the views of someone who is trying to eliminate the virus. My understanding is that you advocate the "hammer and dance" strategy, which is to try to contain/restrict the spread of, but not actually eliminate, the virus.

New Zealand may (or may not, time will tell) be able to eliminate the virus, but I stand by my view that anyone who is intelligent, having looked at the evidence, would not consider elimination a viable aim in countries such as the UK. Things may change in the future, but right now, it's an absurd suggestion, which I think is driven by absurd reporting by the media.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That doesn't sound like the views of someone who is trying to eliminate the virus. My understanding is that you advocate the "hammer and dance" strategy, which is to try to contain, but not eliminate, the virus.

I have slightly mixed views. I do still retain the view that we should "close" borders (i.e. reinstate quarantine and require it to be in a Government facility to ensure compliance) because that will make it easier to solve our domestic problem first. I would like to eliminate it, as that would allow an interim phase with few if any restrictions other than foreign travel which I maintain for most people is not that important, and for business travel and goods can be worked around. However I'm also open to the idea, given that we are presently taking the "hammer and dance" strategy, that that strategy could (but has not yet) lead to herd immunity. We will know that has happened if cases start heading down, and if we release further restrictions continues to do so, and if that did happen my view on what we should do would change. I also still think we are "tiding over" for a vaccine unless something happens which proves one impossible.

New Zealand may (or may not, time will tell) be able to eliminate the virus, but I stand by my view that anyone who is intelligent, having looked at the evidence, would not consider elimination a viable aim in countries such as the UK.

I would agree it would not be viable in any non-island nation (e.g. Scotland alone) but with regard to island nations like NZ and the UK I respectfully disagree.

 

[DB]

I would agree it would not be viable in any non-island nation (e.g. Scotland alone) but with regard to island nations like NZ and the UK I respectfully disagree.

An island nation which is 1000 miles from its nearest neighbour, then even more to any other countries, is hardly the same as one 20 miles from its nearest neighbour, and with lots of other countries within the range of most seagoing boats.

Not that I think it's workable long term in the case of New Zealand, but it is even less so here.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

I would agree it would not be viable in any non-island nation (e.g. Scotland alone) but with regard to island nations like NZ and the UK I respectfully disagree.

I'm sorry but it's not viable in any nation. You cannot just keep locking down cities because single-figure cases keep popping up. That's called "background noise" - and living with the virus.

What do you do about those who would be losing pay each month if a few cases popped up? Because I'm not prepared, as the taxpayer, to be paying for people's wages when businesses are shut down because of four cases of a virus, which has a >99% survival rate.

 

[AdamWW]

I'm sorry but it's not viable in any nation. You cannot just keep locking down cities because single-figure cases keep popping up. That's called "background noise" - and living with the virus.

The problem is that unless there widespread immunity or restrictions in a country, the evidence is pretty clear that coronavirus doesn't do "background noise". A very small number of infections rapidly become a much larger one.

 

[DB]

The problem is that unless there widespread immunity or restrictions in a country, the evidence is pretty clear that coronavirus doesn't do "background noise". A very small number of infections rapidly become a much larger one.

That's how pandemics work - and that's why it needs to be allowed to spread through the healthy population.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

The problem is that unless there widespread immunity or restrictions in a country, the evidence is pretty clear that coronavirus doesn't do "background noise". A very small number of infections rapidly become a much larger one.

Again - an issue with the elimination strategy. If there were an even proportion of cases/100k people, for example, it wouldn't be as big an issue.

 

[AdamWW]

Again - an issue with the elimination strategy. If there were an even proportion of cases/100k people, for example, it wouldn't be as big an issue.

Yes agreed.

But if you are going for elimination, describing 4 cases as just "background noise" is not accurate.

 

[MikeWM]

Graph from today's Guardian. Compare the (total lack of) impact of the 'Hong Kong' flu on there at the end of the 60s, which was pretty comparable to this in terms of numbers and demographics affected.

Absolutely catastrophic.

 

[Richard Scott]

The problem is that unless there widespread immunity or restrictions in a country, the evidence is pretty clear that coronavirus doesn't do "background noise". A very small number of infections rapidly become a much larger one.

So what, we've found out it's not the worst virus we've encountered. We're at the stage now where we are going to have to learn to live with it as other medical issues are going untreated because they're not this virus. I'm sorry but as I've said before we need to get a grip. Most cases now appear amongst young, healthy individuals and before we start shouting granny killers then it's up to granny whether or not she sees them. I, for one, am fed up with still having restrictions, including masks, for the kinds of numbers we have. If they do rise, then good, we'll get it over and done with quicker. Had enough of hysterical media and facebookers dictating what the country thinks. The news highlighted one case in a Madrid player - why? Who cares, it's one case and not even in this country. If that's all they can come up with then the virus really is fading into the background.

 

[duncanp]

What the government needs to do is look at the age and geographical distribution of the new cases.

As hospitalisation rates vary so much by age, you can then predict how many people are going to end up in hospital in each area of the country.

You can then use existing data to predict how many of these will end up on a ventilator, and of those on a ventilator how many you expect to die.

The other thing the government needs to do is consider how many of the cases diagnosed are active and potentially infectious. It is quite ridiculous that some who tests positive for COVID-19 will be recorded as a COVID-19 death if they fall under a bus six months later. There should be a cut off point whereby if someone tests positive, then after a fixed number of days later they are no longer infectious, and do not need to self isolate.

The government can then manage the situation better, as can then predict the effect of the rise in cases on the NHS. The government's objective is not to avoid a second peak, but avoid a second peak which overwhelms the NHS.

 

[AdamWW]

There should be a cut off point whereby if someone tests positive, then after a fixed number of days later they are no longer infectious, and do not need to self isolate.

There is. If you get a positive test you aren't asked to spend the rest of your life at home.

 

[Scrotnig]

There is. If you get a positive test you aren't asked to spend the rest of your life at home.

The way some people carry on you wouldn't think that.

 

[Richard Scott]

Notice the media have now caught on to the fact we're now in recession and that we have a huge backlog of medical issues. Perhaps they're over-reaction to this virus caused some of the reactions we've had leaving us in this position. Obviously they won't admit that but they're now wondering what the Government is going to do about it. Typical, I'm sure the media is responsible for a number of issues in this country.