Media Coverage of COVID -19

[kez19]

That BBC quiz needs a fact check.

• It asks what is against the law, not what is against guidance, so the only relevant resource is the legislation
• Thus for Q1, all three are potentially legal (eg sitting on a bench to avoid low mood, or driving a car to keep the battery charged)
• Q2 is incorrect in saying you can “go anywhere you want”, exercise is subject to the test of reasonably necessary
• Q6 has been held by legal experts that protests may be protected regardless of the fact they are no longer explicitly referenced as a reasonable excuse

I can only assume whoever wrote the quiz wasn’t a lawyer. The answer is “It depends” more often than that quiz suggests

I was under the assumption that you could trust the BBC more than Sky, seems like all media are on a level playing field

 

[scotrail158713]

1564 deaths reported today....the highest daily total since the start of the pandemic (however a small caveat that some historic cases going back as far as last May have been included in todays total)

I saw that earlier. The BBC notified it as a breaking news story on my phone, something that didn’t occur the last few days when cases fell substantially.
This is what annoys me so much, as the negative news is reported so much more than any positive stories.

 

[DerekC]

I saw that earlier. The BBC notified it as a breaking news story on my phone, something that didn’t occur the last few days when cases fell substantially.
This is what annoys me so much, as the negative news is reported so much more than any positive stories.

Now that isn't a new problem, nor is it confined to the BBC. "Good news is no news". In fact the BBC has been reporting for a couple of days that the 7-day rolling average of cases is starting to fall - I think down by 7% so far - which at least is in the right direction, but there's a long way to go!

 

[Andyh82]

The news about the vaccine was reported negatively tonight. Rather than focussing on the actual number, which they do for everything else, when comparing against other countries they used the ‘per 1000 population’ measure which puts Israel way out in front and the UK in a distant second place with a tiny little bar on the chart.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Good to see this piece by Channel 4 news about how pandemic poverty is pushing people into poverty and crushing lives. Well it’s horrible to watch but you get my point. Time to listen to these people not the comfortable yummy mummies

 

[Bantamzen]

Good to see this piece by Channel 4 news about how pandemic poverty is pushing people into poverty and crushing lives. Well it’s horrible to watch but you get my point. Time to listen to these people not the comfortable yummy mummies

More people, especially those people thinking they are sitting pretty on furlough, could do with seeing this. It would be a dose of harsh reality I feel a subsection of society needs to be administered, especially as March's budget looms into view. I still think this will be a watershed for the country, to date we've largely ignored the economic and social cost of all of this, but the budget is going to be the first real insight into this and what it will take to recover the damage. I suspect some people have a very nasty shock waiting for them.

 

[brad465]

Not Neil Ferguson again:

Covid: Infections levelling off in some areas - scientist

But the expert says the new Covid variant means any relaxation of rules will be a "gradual process".

www.bbc.co.uk

The coronavirus growth rate is slowing in the UK and the number of infections are starting to level off in some areas, a top scientist has said.

Prof Neil Ferguson told the BBC that in some NHS regions there is a "sign of plateauing" in cases and hospital admissions.

But he warned the overall death toll would exceed 100,000.

On Wednesday, the UK saw its biggest daily death figure since the start of the pandemic, with 1,564 deaths.

It has taken the total number of deaths by that measure to 84,767. There were also 47,525 new cases.

It comes after Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the national lockdown measures were "starting to show signs of some effect", but it was early days and urged people to abide by the rules.

Professor Neil Ferguson, an epidemiologist at Imperial College London whose modelling led to the first lockdown in March, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme it was "much too early" to say when the number of cases would come down.

At least the story has some positivity to it.

 

[Dent]

Not Neil Ferguson again:

Covid: Infections levelling off in some areas - scientist

But the expert says the new Covid variant means any relaxation of rules will be a "gradual process".

www.bbc.co.uk

At least the story has some positivity to it.

The number of infections are not "starting to level off", they are well past the peak and falling rapidly. How is it "much too early" to say when the number of cases would come down given that they are already coming down?

 

[kristiang85]

I saw that earlier. The BBC notified it as a breaking news story on my phone, something that didn’t occur the last few days when cases fell substantially.
This is what annoys me so much, as the negative news is reported so much more than any positive stories.

Especially as they don't emphasise that it is reported cases over a number of days (going back a couple of weeks) rather than 1,564 died on one single day.

 

[Horizon22]

Here the Guardian discusses the reduction in rail services. Also an interesting quote from the Rail Minister about travelling to vaccination centres by rail, if required:

UK rail services to be reduced to 72% of pre-pandemic levels

Timetable cuts to be announced Thursday are less than 50% reduction in services that was expected

www.theguardian.com

Rail minister Chris Heaton-Harris said: “It is critical that our railways continue to deliver reliable services for key workers and people who cannot reasonably work from home, and that they respond quickly to changes in demand.

“The new reduced timetable delivers that, as well as reducing the financial burden on the taxpayer. Levels of services will vary by operator and changes will come into effect steadily over the next few weeks. Passengers who are using the railways, including those who need to travel to vaccination centres, should check their route before they travel, and aim to do so outside of peak times wherever possible

 

[kristiang85]

Finally some news that really cheered me up:

Insurers must pay many small firms for Covid lockdown losses

A Supreme Court ruling provides a lifeline for many firms that had business interruption insurance.

www.bbc.co.uk

Tens of thousands of small businesses are set to receive insurance payouts covering losses from the first national lockdown, following a court ruling.

The Supreme Court found in favour of small firms receiving payments from business interruption insurance policies.

For some businesses it could provide a lifeline, allowing them to trade beyond the coronavirus crisis.

The ruling could cost the insurance sector hundreds of millions of pounds.

The City watchdog, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), brought the test case, with eight insurers agreeing to take part in proceedings.

One of the insurers set to make significant payouts is Hiscox, which was challenged by 30,000 policyholders as part of the case.

Richard Leedham, who represented the Hiscox Action Group - on behalf of small businesses, said: "This is a landmark victory for a small group of businesses who took on a huge insurance player and have been fully vindicated.

"What is important now is that Hiscox accepts the Supreme Court's verdict and starts paying out to its policy holders, many of whom are in danger of going under".

Other insurers involved in the test case are Arch, Argenta, MS Amlin, QBE and RSA - but as many as 60 insurers sold similar products.

Huw Evans, director general of the Association of British Insurers, said: "All valid claims will be settled as soon as possible and in many cases the process of settling claims has begun.

"We recognise this has been a particularly difficult time for many small businesses and naturally regret the Covid-19 restrictions have led to disputes with some customers."

What is this case about?
In the lockdown of last spring, many small businesses made claims through business interruption insurance policies for loss of earnings when they had to close.

But many insurers refused to pay, arguing only the most specialist policies had cover for such unprecedented restrictions.

It was agreed that a selection of policy wordings should be tested in court, setting the parameters for what would be considered a valid claim.

The ruling provides guidance for a wider pool of 700 policies, potentially affecting 370,000 small businesses.

Giving the court's ruling, Lord Hamblen said the court accepted the arguments from representatives of policyholders and dismissed appeals from insurers against an earlier judgement finding in policyholders' favour.

The complex ruling covered issues such as disease clauses, whether business were denied access to the properties, and the timing of lost earnings.

James Ollerenshaw's hair salon was one of those businesses unable to operate during the first national lockdown.

The business - The Drawing Room in London's Spitalfields - paid an annual premium of £1,200 for business interruption insurance, and disease cover came as part of it.

Mr Ollerenshaw said the Supreme Court's decision would not directly affect his policy, but would decide the principles on claims such as his - and were vital for the business.

"A payout would cover the major costs, which is the rent. We have debt sitting there," he said.

He said he was delighted with the Supreme Court's ruling.

"The insurance industry needs to face up to the fact that it failed customers at their greatest moment of need, destroying companies, livelihoods and jobs," he said.

He formed a Covid Claims Group, joining other small business owners in calling for a quick resolution and payouts.

"Time matters," he said, pointing out that some small businesses have been forced to close down while waiting for the decision.

Small firms thrown lifeline in insurance case ruling
'We've spent £10,000 on invalid virus insurance'
The test case was fast-tracked to the highest court in England and Wales - the Supreme Court, which heard four days of legal representations in November. The final ruling provides authoritative guidance for these policies, and potentially of similar ones not part of the case.

The FCA, the insurance sector, and the Financial Ombudsman will all use the judgement to guide their decisions in other cases.

The Financial Ombudsman Service and courts in Scotland and Northern Ireland are expected to use the judgment to rule on other, similar cases.

Insurance policies would have been amended for new and renewing customers since this issue emerged, so losses from the latest lockdown measures in different parts of the UK would be clearly stated as part of the cover - or not - in new business interruption insurance policies.

Few things annoy me more than insurance companies trying to wriggle out of their obligations (in my early working days I temped with one; because of that ever since I go through any policy small print I sign up to with a fine toothed comb). This is fantastic, and hopefully will make the world of difference to some small businesses on the brink.

 

[Ted633]

Current BBC main headline.

PM Holding Briefing as Cases Rise Again

According to what? Cases have dropped 13,000 (about 80%) from last Friday's figures. It's absolutely mental how all the blatant scaremongering goes on without question (from most anyway)

 

[6862]

Current BBC main headline.

According to what? Cases have dropped 13,000 (about 80%) from last Friday's figures. It's absolutely mental how all the blatant scaremongering goes on without question (from most anyway)

I shall complain to them about this. A tip for anyone else wanting to complain, tick the box saying your require a response - they are obliged to read it and reply.

 

[DustyBin]

Finally some news that really cheered me up:

Insurers must pay many small firms for Covid lockdown losses

A Supreme Court ruling provides a lifeline for many firms that had business interruption insurance.

www.bbc.co.uk

Few things annoy me more than insurance companies trying to wriggle out of their obligations (in my early working days I temped with one; because of that ever since I go through any policy small print I sign up to with a fine toothed comb). This is fantastic, and hopefully will make the world of difference to some small businesses on the brink.

Agreed, and it’s not just small businesses either. Although when it comes to larger businesses I suspect proceedings will drag on due to the figures involved. I find it hard to sympathise with insurance companies but if the decision goes against them they may find themselves in trouble.

 

[Cdd89]

Another useful BBC headline:

Covid variants: Why hasn't the UK banned all international flights?

The UK has not banned international travel despite the emergence of coronavirus variants overseas.

www.bbc.co.uk

Headline Text:
Covid: Why hasn't the UK banned all international flights?

It doesn’t even attempt to answer the question, instead focusing on why we didn’t ban flights in Jan/Feb 2020, which makes it a rhetorical demand for a universal flight ban in my book. I get the impression a lot of vocal people want this, even though nobody is travelling to the U.K. for tourism at present...

 

[SS4]

Another useful BBC headline:

Covid variants: Why hasn't the UK banned all international flights?

The UK has not banned international travel despite the emergence of coronavirus variants overseas.

www.bbc.co.uk

It doesn’t even attempt to answer the question, instead focusing on why we didn’t ban flights in Jan/Feb 2020, which makes it a rhetorical demand for a universal flight ban in my book. I get the impression a lot of vocal people want this, even though nobody is travelling to the U.K. for tourism at present...

And they're talking about all flights in the headline but are on about passenger flights in the article

 

[Mugby]

The BBC's news bulletins were particularly depressing tonight, with images of corpses being locked away into cold storage, graves being dug and prolonged tearful interviews with people who have suffered recent bereavements.

If the BBC weren't so institutionally hostile to Boris and his government, you could easily have thought that tonight's offerings were a collaboration, specially compiled to ramp up project fear to the maximum.

 

[kristiang85]

My respect for the BBC as an institution has gone down massively in this pandemic. I can barely bring myself to look at even their website anymore, though I still watch the news as there really isn't an alternative (Sky are worse).

I thought watching the new Attenborough series would be a nice respite from the world, but even that has a ton of climate change messaging shoved down our throats every 5 minutes (for the record I am passionate about the environment, but I just want some solace from being lectured about something everytime I turn on the BBC).

 

[DustyBin]

My respect for the BBC as an institution has gone down massively in this pandemic. I can barely bring myself to look at even their website anymore, though I still watch the news as there really isn't an alternative (Sky are worse).

I thought watching the new Attenborough series would be a nice respite from the world, but even that has a ton of climate change messaging shoved down our throats every 5 minutes (for the record I am passionate about the environment, but I just want some solace from being lectured about something everytime I turn on the BBC).

I lost all respect for the BBC a long time ago with its biased reporting and handpicked Question Time panels (and audiences). That’s maybe because of my political leanings, being conservative, though. As you say Sky are no better, certainly not when it comes to the pandemic, and the newspapers across the board have behaved shamefully. The only exception is possibly the Telegraph who seem to be the only newspaper willing to hold this useless government to account, ironically.

 

[kristiang85]

. The only exception is possibly the Telegraph who seem to be the only newspaper willing to hold this useless government to account, ironically.

Agreed. I actually took up a special offer to subscribe to them this last few months, which I never usually do, but the Guardian and BBC sites just made me angry and I couldn't bring myself to make the Mail Online my main news reading.

 

[VauxhallandI]

I lost all respect for the BBC a long time ago with its biased reporting and handpicked Question Time panels (and audiences). That’s maybe because of my political leanings, being conservative, though. As you say Sky are no better, certainly not when it comes to the pandemic, and the newspapers across the board have behaved shamefully. The only exception is possibly the Telegraph who seem to be the only newspaper willing to hold this useless government to account, ironically.

I lost respect for them during the Brexit period for their lack of representing a central challenging role against the Leave campaign and for giving too much airtime to people like Farage.

 

[Bantamzen]

My respect for the BBC as an institution has gone down massively in this pandemic. I can barely bring myself to look at even their website anymore, though I still watch the news as there really isn't an alternative (Sky are worse).

I thought watching the new Attenborough series would be a nice respite from the world, but even that has a ton of climate change messaging shoved down our throats every 5 minutes (for the record I am passionate about the environment, but I just want some solace from being lectured about something everytime I turn on the BBC).

Indeed, I feel the same way. To be honest the BBC's rather nanny-esk approach to anything health related prior to the pandemic had been grating at me for some time, barely a day would pass without a BBC news presenter telling viewers about another reason why eating / drinking / touching / breathing a multitude of things was bad and could kill you (I was waiting for them to get around to oxygen!). So when covid broke I could almost hear the squeals of delight from their editorial team, who by the way must be great fun at parties.

But they have managed to exceed even my expectations of over-the-top reporting, desperately trying to talk up the pandemic from serious to apocalyptic each and every day. And even when good news seems to break, BBC News are always on hand, bucket of cold water at the ready. When all of this os over, they along with much of the media ought to face some very serious questions as to the impact they have had on the wellbeing and mental health of this country. Sadly I suspect the aftermath will be a cluster-you-know-what of virtue signalling, and more importantly buck passing.

 

[DustyBin]

Agreed. I actually took up a special offer to subscribe to them this last few months, which I never usually do, but the Guardian and BBC sites just made me angry and I couldn't bring myself to make the Mail Online my main news reading.

The Daily Mail has been one of the worst when it comes to the pandemic, I’m now trying to avoid it. It has traditionally been my main online news reading but no more.

 

[kristiang85]

The Daily Mail has been one of the worst when it comes to the pandemic, I’m now trying to avoid it. It has traditionally been my main online news reading but no more.

I think I said earlier in this thread that the Mail is completely frustrating - it gives a platform to those who are skeptical of lockdowns, which is much needed for balance, yet are among the worst when it comes to using the numbers to make dramatic negative headlines.

For a paper that has traditionally championed Conservative principles, it does disappoint me they willing contribute to the fear narrative. But I guess clicks are more important than truth?

 

[Skimpot flyer]

When I looked at this Sky headline, my first reaction was anger.
If being vaccinated does not give you back your freedoms, why bother? Especially when there is a risk (however small) of serious side effects

COVID-19: 'Vast majority' of over-80s should be vaccinated before jabs offered to over-70s, minister says

There are concerns people who've had the jab will bend or ignore the rules out of false sense of confidence.

news.sky.com

My other half says this also plays right into the hands of conspiracy theorists who claim ‘this was never about controlling a virus, it’s about controlling YOU’

 

[yorksrob]

When I looked at this Sky headline, my first reaction was anger.
If being vaccinated does not give you back your freedoms, why bother? Especially when there is a risk (however small) of serious side effects

COVID-19: 'Vast majority' of over-80s should be vaccinated before jabs offered to over-70s, minister says

There are concerns people who've had the jab will bend or ignore the rules out of false sense of confidence.

news.sky.com

My other half says this also plays right into the hands of conspiracy theorists who claim ‘this was never about controlling a virus, it’s about controlling YOU’

Sorry, but SAGE have to give something in return. They've had it too easy in terms of compliance.

 

[DustyBin]

I think I said earlier in this thread that the Mail is completely frustrating - it gives a platform to those who are skeptical of lockdowns, which is much needed for balance, yet are among the worst when it comes to using the numbers to make dramatic negative headlines.

For a paper that has traditionally championed Conservative principles, it does disappoint me they willing contribute to the fear narrative. But I guess clicks are more important than truth?

My thoughts exactly.

When I looked at this Sky headline, my first reaction was anger.
If being vaccinated does not give you back your freedoms, why bother? Especially when there is a risk (however small) of serious side effects

COVID-19: 'Vast majority' of over-80s should be vaccinated before jabs offered to over-70s, minister says

There are concerns people who've had the jab will bend or ignore the rules out of false sense of confidence.

news.sky.com

My other half says this also plays right into the hands of conspiracy theorists who claim ‘this was never about controlling a virus, it’s about controlling YOU’

You’re right about the conspiracy theorists. I often hear them say “how much more needs to come true before you see it’s not a theory” and in all honesty they do have a point. That’s not to say there is a conspiracy, but it’s becoming increasingly difficult to discredit what they’re saying (I don’t mean the Bill Gates and 5G stuff!).

 

[Domh245]

If being vaccinated does not give you back your freedoms, why bother

There's a few different reasons. Firstly the lack of certainty that it stops transmission though this should be clearer by the time that it starts to get rolled out to the wider population (there's already preliminary evidence from Israel looking at the effectiveness of reducing transmission). Secondly the time lag for the vaccine to actually prove effective and the fact that for a small percentage it won't be effective at all means that there still needs to be caution in the short term whilst immunity develops and the NHS continues to run at very high levels of occupancy. There's also a 'cohesion' argument - if all the elderly start swanning around doing whatever they want now that they've been vaccinated, nobody is going to follow the rules any more which whilst large numbers of people remain unvaccinated will result in large strain on the NHS again

The full SPI-B paper on this topic is here if you fancy reading it (though it mostly focuses on that it does happen and what can be done to mitigate it)

 

[kez19]

I lost all respect for the BBC a long time ago with its biased reporting and handpicked Question Time panels (and audiences). That’s maybe because of my political leanings, being conservative, though. As you say Sky are no better, certainly not when it comes to the pandemic, and the newspapers across the board have behaved shamefully. The only exception is possibly the Telegraph who seem to be the only newspaper willing to hold this useless government to account, ironically.

The only thing BBC related I listen to is the world service but since it’s went full blown Covid I have had to switch off from it recently, Times Radio seems OK but I can’t get into it (don’t know if it’s missing something or it’s just me) as I’m use to the world service.

TV wise I rarely watch the news let alone I don’t watch STV News/BBC Scotland (odd occasion may watch Look North (Newcastle) but that’s still the same in terms of what’s already on BBC and elsewhere)

 

[VauxhallandI]

There's a few different reasons. Firstly the lack of certainty that it stops transmission though this should be clearer by the time that it starts to get rolled out to the wider population (there's already preliminary evidence from Israel looking at the effectiveness of reducing transmission). Secondly the time lag for the vaccine to actually prove effective and the fact that for a small percentage it won't be effective at all means that there still needs to be caution in the short term whilst immunity develops and the NHS continues to run at very high levels of occupancy. There's also a 'cohesion' argument - if all the elderly start swanning around doing whatever they want now that they've been vaccinated, nobody is going to follow the rules any more which whilst large numbers of people remain unvaccinated will result in large strain on the NHS again

The full SPI-B paper on this topic is here if you fancy reading it (though it mostly focuses on that it does happen and what can be done to mitigate it)

True and this should be the overt message not the one negative one we are hearing. The should frame it with what has happened with previous vaccination programmes etc