Media Coverage of COVID -19

[Domh245]

(From the BBC news live feed, can't quote the URL as it goes a bit odd. Can any mods help me?)

I think this is the link you want

My bold. If the news was reported accurately without the constant scaremongering and doom n gloom he wouldn't have to say this.

It isn't the news is inaccurate, but you're right that it's constant scaremongering and doom n gloom. The relentless focus on covid stories (good or bad!) is the issue, and worst of all it's self sustaining - there isn't much else in the world going on apart from covid (in no small part because everything's locked down as a response), and similarly you can't just "drop" the coverage as that'll get the backs of the conspiracy theorists up. It's a right mess

The advice of the minister is sound though

 

[Yew]

How can one not follow the news, when changes in the law are as fast-paced and intrusive as they are? If you didn't follow the news a few weeks ago, you could find yourself breaking the law..

 

[DustyBin]

Is anybody planning on watching the BBC Two documentary tonight at 9pm?

SAGE used dodgy data from WIKIPEDIA to model Covid crisis in spring

Professor Ian Hall, deputy chair of the SAGE subgroup SPI-M, said: 'The public may be surprised that we were using Wikipedia - but that was really the only data available'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

No10's scientific advisers relied on dubious data from Wikipedia to help steer Britain through the spring's coronavirus crisis and wrongly predicted the peak of the first wave by two months, an explosive new documentary has claimed.

Members of the Government's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) admitted early virus modelling was based on unverified figures from the online encyclopedia, which can be edited and managed by members of the public.

One prominent Oxford University scientist told MailOnline using Wikipedia to guide Britain through the crisis was 'absolutely unacceptable', describing it as a 'damning reflection of our lack of preparedness'.

Professor Ian Hall, deputy chair of the SAGE subgroup SPI-M, said: 'The public may be surprised that we were using Wikipedia to get data very early on in the pandemic, but that was really the only data that was publicly available that we could access.'

The revelations will further dent public confidence in SAGE's use of data at a time where Boris Johnson pledged to 'follow the science', including the most criticised model that forecasted 500,000 Covid-19 deaths in the UK during the first wave and was used to shut down Britain.

It's unclear if data from Wikipedia was used by the team at Imperial led by Professor Neil Ferguson, who resigned from SAGE in May after having secret trysts with his married lover while lecturing Britain on the need to stay apart in Lockdown to stop the spread of the killer virus.

 

[Bantamzen]

Is anybody planning on watching the BBC Two documentary tonight at 9pm?

SAGE used dodgy data from WIKIPEDIA to model Covid crisis in spring

Professor Ian Hall, deputy chair of the SAGE subgroup SPI-M, said: 'The public may be surprised that we were using Wikipedia - but that was really the only data available'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I've just added an alert to my calendar. Might be interesting.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Sky News are reporting that you are more than 11 times more likely to contract coronavirus in a supermarket than you are in a pub, and over 16 times compared to if you’re in a gym !!!
After this revelation, there surely cannot be any person left that doesn’t believe the government’s ‘strategy’ isn’t incompetent, ridiculous and not based on any science!

Close the supermarkets!
Open the pubs!

COVID-19: Supermarkets most common places visited before positive test - latest data

PHE collated the data using the NHS Test and Trace app for people who tested positive between 9 and 15 November.

news.sky.com

 

[kristiang85]

Sky News are reporting that you are more than 11 times more likely to contract coronavirus in a supermarket than you are in a pub, and over 16 times compared to if you’re in a gym !!!
After this revelation, there surely cannot be any person left that doesn’t believe the government’s ‘strategy’ isn’t incompetent, ridiculous and not based on any science!

Close the supermarkets!
Open the pubs!

COVID-19: Supermarkets most common places visited before positive test - latest data

PHE collated the data using the NHS Test and Trace app for people who tested positive between 9 and 15 November.

news.sky.com

Whilst I agree with you, given gyms and pubs have been shut for a significant part of the year and supermarkets haven't, this might be expected? Or is data adjusted for that? I can't tell from the article.

 

[Domh245]

Whilst I agree with you, given gyms and pubs have been shut for a significant part of the year and supermarkets haven't, this might be expected? Or is data adjusted for that? I can't tell from the article.

Nope, the data is for the week of 9th to 15th November. It shouldn't be surprising at all therefore that most of the infections traced were identified as happening in supermarkets - the only place on PHE's list that is still accessible to most of the population

 

[adc82140]

It doesn't even trace the infections to supermarkets. The question asked by T&T is "where have you been in the week leading up to your positive test". Of course the place where most people have been is a supermarket. Doesn't mean that you caught it there. This is shoddy misreporting bordering on criminal.

 

[brad465]

Is anybody planning on watching the BBC Two documentary tonight at 9pm?

SAGE used dodgy data from WIKIPEDIA to model Covid crisis in spring

Professor Ian Hall, deputy chair of the SAGE subgroup SPI-M, said: 'The public may be surprised that we were using Wikipedia - but that was really the only data available'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I've just added an alert to my calendar. Might be interesting.

Not immediately as their is a forum quiz on at that time as it happens, but on catch-up it looks interesting. However while I'd hope for balance, criticism might be pointed towards acting late and not strictly enough in their eyes, rather than it was the wrong policy altogether.

 

[yorksrob]

It doesn't even trace the infections to supermarkets. The question asked by T&T is "where have you been in the week leading up to your positive test". Of course the place where most people have been is a supermarket. Doesn't mean that you caught it there. This is shoddy misreporting bordering on criminal.

Yes, it's a fairly meaningless observation. If they go back a few days, the chances are that half the population will have been in a supermarket.

 

[kez19]

Sky News are reporting that you are more than 11 times more likely to contract coronavirus in a supermarket than you are in a pub, and over 16 times compared to if you’re in a gym !!!
After this revelation, there surely cannot be any person left that doesn’t believe the government’s ‘strategy’ isn’t incompetent, ridiculous and not based on any science!

Close the supermarkets!
Open the pubs!

COVID-19: Supermarkets most common places visited before positive test - latest data

PHE collated the data using the NHS Test and Trace app for people who tested positive between 9 and 15 November.

news.sky.com

UK media must be scraping barrels now, just few days ago mouthwash kills COVID... deary me!

 

[Richard Scott]

Sky News are reporting that you are more than 11 times more likely to contract coronavirus in a supermarket than you are in a pub, and over 16 times compared to if you’re in a gym !!!
After this revelation, there surely cannot be any person left that doesn’t believe the government’s ‘strategy’ isn’t incompetent, ridiculous and not based on any science!

It's ridiculous reporting, evening it were true 11 times what? If it's 11 times next to nothing then the chance is still infinitely small.

 

[Bantamzen]

Not immediately as their is a forum quiz on at that time as it happens, but on catch-up it looks interesting. However while I'd hope for balance, criticism might be pointed towards acting late and not strictly enough in their eyes, rather than it was the wrong policy altogether.

Well I managed to get about 45 minutes into this documentary before switching it off. At first it seemed like it was going to be a critical look on how the data was gathered and used, but even early on the Wikipedia reference turned out to be some sources of government advice (the University of Manchester as a example) not being able to get their hands on the data from China. However it quickly transpired that other groups in the advice chain did have access to it, and it didn't really explain why some did not save that they weren't in the circle or some such excuse. Frankly if these advisory groups cannot secure data that most of the rest of the world can get their hands on, then perhaps they should be taken out of any advisory roles.

The programme then briefly touched on the care homes, highlighting that at least half of all deaths came from them, something that the Chinese and subsequently Italian data clearly showed. I was hopeful at this point that perhaps this would be the focus, but sadly the focus instead shifted to sporting events in March and pretty much stayed there, with the odd sad story of a football fan & a nurse who succumbed to the virus. There didn't seem to be any real effort to actually challenge the data that SAGE were using to build their models & drive government responses, which is what I was hoping to see.

 

[DustyBin]

Well I managed to get about 45 minutes into this documentary before switching it off. At first it seemed like it was going to be a critical look on how the data was gathered and used, but even early on the Wikipedia reference turned out to be some sources of government advice (the University of Manchester as a example) not being able to get their hands on the data from China. However it quickly transpired that other groups in the advice chain did have access to it, and it didn't really explain why some did not save that they weren't in the circle or some such excuse. Frankly if these advisory groups cannot secure data that most of the rest of the world can get their hands on, then perhaps they should be taken out of any advisory roles.

The programme then briefly touched on the care homes, highlighting that at least half of all deaths came from them, something that the Chinese and subsequently Italian data clearly showed. I was hopeful at this point that perhaps this would be the focus, but sadly the focus instead shifted to sporting events in March and pretty much stayed there, with the odd sad story of a football fan & a nurse who succumbed to the virus. There didn't seem to be any real effort to actually challenge the data that SAGE were using to build their models & drive government responses, which is what I was hoping to see.

I didn’t get home in time in the end, but it doesn’t sound as though I missed much! To be honest, with the Ofcom regulations currently in place, it was never going to challenge the narrative unfortunately....

 

[Bikeman78]

Well I managed to get about 45 minutes into this documentary before switching it off. At first it seemed like it was going to be a critical look on how the data was gathered and used, but even early on the Wikipedia reference turned out to be some sources of government advice (the University of Manchester as a example) not being able to get their hands on the data from China. However it quickly transpired that other groups in the advice chain did have access to it, and it didn't really explain why some did not save that they weren't in the circle or some such excuse. Frankly if these advisory groups cannot secure data that most of the rest of the world can get their hands on, then perhaps they should be taken out of any advisory roles.

The programme then briefly touched on the care homes, highlighting that at least half of all deaths came from them, something that the Chinese and subsequently Italian data clearly showed. I was hopeful at this point that perhaps this would be the focus, but sadly the focus instead shifted to sporting events in March and pretty much stayed there, with the odd sad story of a football fan & a nurse who succumbed to the virus. There didn't seem to be any real effort to actually challenge the data that SAGE were using to build their models & drive government responses, which is what I was hoping to see.

The death of the young nurse was very sad. Other than that, the tone of the documentary seemed to be that we should have done lockdown earlier.

 

[Logan Carroll]

Close the supermarkets!

People need to get food.

People do not need to go the gym or out drinking.

I don’t think the supermarkets could cope with the demand of every house in the country wanting delivery.

 

[Bantamzen]

The death of the young nurse was very sad. Other than that, the tone of the documentary seemed to be that we should have done lockdown earlier.

Yes, that was generally the tone of it, backed up by experts. Experts that seem to have ignored the fact that other countries that had even earlier and harsher lockdowns ended up with almost exactly the same problems as us.

 

[VauxhallandI]

People need to get food.

People do not need to go the gym or out drinking.

I don’t think the supermarkets could cope with the demand of every house in the country wanting delivery.

You don’t need to go to the gym or the pub.

What this pandemic has brought out is folks using their measuring sticks against others.

 

[greyman42]

I didn’t get home in time in the end, but it doesn’t sound as though I missed much! To be honest, with the Ofcom regulations currently in place, it was never going to challenge the narrative unfortunately....

Could someone expand on the comment regarding Ofcom regulations. I do not doubt the poster as i get the impression that the broadcast media are wary of or unwilling to tackle certain opinions such as the so called "science".

 

[Domh245]

Could someone expand on the comment regarding Ofcom regulations. I do not doubt the poster as i get the impression that the broadcast media are wary of or unwilling to tackle certain opinions such as the so called "science".

Ofcom currently have regulations around Covid in place that essentially forbids broadcast media from challenging the view set out by Downing Street/SAGE

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0033/195873/Note-to-broadcasters-Coronavirus-update.pdf

In particular, we strongly advise you to take particular care when broadcasting, for example:
• unverified information about the Coronavirus. This may include, for instance, discussion of unverified theories for the causes of the Coronavirus and discussion of potential treatments or cures for the Coronavirus that do not align with advice of the NHS or other public health authorities;
• statements that seek to question or undermine the advice of public health bodies on the Coronavirus, or otherwise undermine people’s trust in the advice of mainstream sources of information about the disease; and
• statements about public health advice on the Coronavirus which may not apply to all four nations in the UK, given the variations in official guidance between the nations. Care should be 4 Published on 26 May 2020 taken to ensure that viewers and listeners are made aware in an appropriate manner of the different approaches taken by public authorities in England, Wales, Scotland and/or Northern Ireland in areas such as social distancing requirements

(my bold)

Now of course, it's only guidance, but would you be willing to take the risk and incur Ofcom's wrath by going and running a story saying "the data that was used to justify lockdown was utterly fabricated"

 

[bramling]

Ofcom currently have regulations around Covid in place that essentially forbids broadcast media from challenging the view set out by Downing Street/SAGE

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0033/195873/Note-to-broadcasters-Coronavirus-update.pdf

(my bold)

Now of course, it's only guidance, but would you be willing to take the risk and incur Ofcom's wrath by going and running a story saying "the data that was used to justify lockdown was utterly fabricated"

It’s pretty concerning that there’s an element of censorship.

What it does mean is that when this is over it’s quite probably Boris and company will be torn apart. That could make Blair’s post-PM experience seem a walk in the park by comparison.

 

[Domh245]

It’s pretty concerning that there’s an element of censorship.

What it does mean is that when this is over it’s quite probably Boris and company will be torn apart. That could make Blair’s post-PM experience seem a walk in the park by comparison.

He was voted into office with similarly threatening comments about parliament and the judiciary. I somehow doubt that he'll get picked up over this

 

[bramling]

He was voted into office with similarly threatening comments about parliament and the judiciary. I somehow doubt that he'll get picked up over this

I don’t know, there’s already a cocktail of 50k deaths and “worth death toll in Europe”. Next year there’s almost certain to be some pretty unpopular tax measures. Meanwhile people will be growing increasingly tired of this, and wanting to see some evidence for having sacrificed over a year of their lives.

The media isn’t immune from coming down on BJ, we saw for example two solid weeks of coverage over the Durham incident, pretty much all of which was highly negative.

The Blair / Campbell machine seemed untouchable during the first two terms, that soon changed, and I’d say Blair was more popular than Boris initially.

Boris is already toxic. I know a number of people who voted Conservative in the last election, including from what might be termed “red wall” areas, and without exception they’re all disgusted with how he has performed. The trouble with his muddled and unfocused approach is it essentially pleases *nobody*.

 

[Domh245]

I don’t know, there’s already a cocktail of 50k deaths and “worth death toll in Europe”. Next year there’s almost certain to be some pretty unpopular tax measures. Meanwhile people will be growing increasingly tired of this, and wanting to see some evidence for having sacrificed over a year of their lives.

The media isn’t immune from coming down on BJ, we saw for example two solid weeks of coverage over the Durham incident, pretty much all of which was highly negative.

The Blair / Campbell machine seemed untouchable during the first two terms, that soon changed, and I’d say Blair was more popular than Boris initially.

Boris is already toxic. I know a number of people who voted Conservative in the last election, including from what might be termed “red wall” areas, and without exception they’re all disgusted with how he has performed. The trouble with his muddled and unfocused approach is it essentially pleases *nobody*.

Oh he'll definitely be getting put through the mill over the handling of the whole affair, I just doubt that the effective censorship of the media will get too much of a look in, at least to start with

 

[bramling]

Oh he'll definitely be getting put through the mill over the handling of the whole affair, I just doubt that the effective censorship of the media will get too much of a look in, at least to start with

Oh yes agreed, I think I misinterpreted your post a bit. There’s more then enough other stuff for him to be hauled over the coals over.

 

[brad465]

Ofcom currently have regulations around Covid in place that essentially forbids broadcast media from challenging the view set out by Downing Street/SAGE

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0033/195873/Note-to-broadcasters-Coronavirus-update.pdf

(my bold)

Now of course, it's only guidance, but would you be willing to take the risk and incur Ofcom's wrath by going and running a story saying "the data that was used to justify lockdown was utterly fabricated"

It’s pretty concerning that there’s an element of censorship.

What it does mean is that when this is over it’s quite probably Boris and company will be torn apart. That could make Blair’s post-PM experience seem a walk in the park by comparison.

While that is concerning, I have seen on Question Time at least panellists who've expressed opinions along the lines of opposing the current strategy: Sunetra Gupta made an appearance back in September in the same episode as businessman John Caudwell, both of whom agree on the current approach being wrong; I did also see the BBC interview the former in the pre-lockdown announcement news bulletins. Michael Portillo in a later episode also expressed similar views.

You definitely won't see interviews by David Icke going down well with Ofcom on broadcast media of course, but that's not of course what we or many others believe in.

The increasing numbers on the backbenchers opposing the current strategy and acknowledging other scientific views calling for an alternative approach will keep those views being expressed in Parliament, although it may be a while more before they're effective enough.

 

[greyman42]

Ofcom currently have regulations around Covid in place that essentially forbids broadcast media from challenging the view set out by Downing Street/SAGE

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0033/195873/Note-to-broadcasters-Coronavirus-update.pdf

(my bold)

Now of course, it's only guidance, but would you be willing to take the risk and incur Ofcom's wrath by going and running a story saying "the data that was used to justify lockdown was utterly fabricated"

I wonder how many of the general public are aware of these restrictions when they take everything they hear on the news to be gospel.

 

[bramling]

While that is concerning, I have seen on Question Time at least panellists who've expressed opinions along the lines of opposing the current strategy: Sunetra Gupta made an appearance back in September in the same episode as businessman John Caudwell, both of whom agree on the current approach being wrong; I did also see the BBC interview the former in the pre-lockdown announcement news bulletins. Michael Portillo in a later episode also expressed similar views.

You definitely won't see interviews by David Icke going down well with Ofcom on broadcast media of course, but that's not of course what we or many others believe in.

The increasing numbers on the backbenchers opposing the current strategy and acknowledging other scientific views calling for an alternative approach will keep those views being expressed in Parliament, although it may be a while more before they're effective enough.

Peter Hitchens has also been on Sky a couple of times, but treated as a bit of a maverick by the presenters, almost to the point of being humoured.

One of the evening Sky presenters has an irritating trait that whenever an anti-lockdown view is expressed she puts on a very serious voice and will come in with something like “but we do need to remember tens of thousands of people have died”, and then swiftly changes the subject and moves on. She’s even worse when someone says something against masks.

I wonder how many of the general public are aware of these restrictions when they take everything they hear on the news to be gospel.

I must say it was completely news to me when I read it on here; it was raised a few weeks back and that was the first I knew of it.

People may well be quite angry to find they’ve been effectively fed a biased news agenda.

 

[Richard Scott]

Ofcom currently have regulations around Covid in place that essentially forbids broadcast media from challenging the view set out by Downing Street/SAGE

We really are living in 1980s East Germany now.

 

[Scotrail12]

Does Ofcom apply to radio? If so, TalkRadio are getting away with it, they certainly are not toeing the party line with their opinions on COVID, especially not Julia Hartley Brewer, Mike Graham, Richard Madeley and Dan Wootton. I can't say I was a fan of these people pre COVID, particularly JHB & Wootton but I do really respect them speaking out and challenging the government.

Really worrying if that gets enforced as that shuts down freedom of speech and enters dictatorship territory. It's bad enough now that had it happened a year ago in any other country, we'd rightly be appalled!