Media Coverage of COVID -19

[kez19]

According to the REACT trial, the R value is 0.88. This is being reported in the media as being a slow reduction in the virus. Yet when it was as 1.1, the virus was spreading exponentially. Hmmmm

Wasn’t at that level the UK as whole got the thumbs up to open again?

Yet at lower levels pubs/nightclubs and hotels etc are closed? (I might be misunderstanding but correct me)

 

[Jamesrob637]

Wasn’t at that level the UK as whole got the thumbs up to open again?

Yet at lower levels pubs/nightclubs and hotels etc are closed? (I might be misunderstanding but correct me)

I think it was 0.8 but happy to be proved wrong.

 

[kez19]

I think it was 0.8 but happy to be proved wrong.

I was looking at it for on travelltabby, but looking on the past about August it was about that 0.8, again even if I am wrong to be corrected but even the R number for UK and Scotland at times wasn’t by much, the highest was in March ? So I could understand locking down as it was high then but for so little seems overdramatic? Both politicians and media?

 

[notlob.divad]

According to the REACT trial, the R value is 0.88. This is being reported in the media as being a slow reduction in the virus. Yet when it was as 1.1, the virus was spreading exponentially. Hmmmm

I don't remember them reporting the virus spreading slowly, and reducing exponentially.

But that is just basic mathematics. The kind of mathematics I was taught as a 15 year old. Both of them are exponential and both could be described as slow.
(8 generations to double, vs 5 generations to halve)

Wasn’t at that level the UK as whole got the thumbs up to open again?

Yet at lower levels pubs/nightclubs and hotels etc are closed? (I might be misunderstanding but correct me)

But 'R' is not the only defining factor you can have R below 1, but that just means that the virus is infecting fewer people per generation than it did in the one before. Yet because the current case load is so high, it may take multiple iterations with R below 1 to get that case load down to 'manageable levels' Bearing in mind that as soon as you release restrictions you are likely to see the R number immediately rise back above 1.

 

[adc82140]

But that is just basic mathematics. The kind of mathematics I was taught as a 15 year old. Both of them are exponential and both could be described as slow.

That is precisely my point. They are both the same. But the media use "slow" when describing a decrease and "exponential" when describing an increase, because it sounds far more sensational. I can't imagine Sky News saying "the R value is now 1.1 meaning that the virus is spreading slowly"

 

[kez19]

But 'R' is not the only defining factor you can have R below 1, but that just means that the virus is infecting fewer people per generation than it did in the one before. Yet because the current case load is so high, it may take multiple iterations with R below 1 to get that case load down to 'manageable levels' Bearing in mind that as soon as you release restrictions you are likely to see the R number immediately rise back above 1.

Yet isn't that not what they spoke of (well in one of the Scottish Gov ads) about the spread as it infects one another etc?

Yet where was all these restrictions when someone caught the cold or flu? (I don't like exactly using these 2 as examples however) but we didn't exactly go into overdrive with it? Odd occasion maybe the flu but the advertising wasn't as melodramatic either.

That is precisely my point. They are both the same. But the media use "slow" when describing a decrease and "exponential" when describing an increase, because it sounds far more sensational. I can't imagine Sky News saying "the R value is now 1.1 meaning that the virus is spreading slowly"

I call it hysteria if I am honest, I think as mentioned before where are the media "positive" stories in all this? They are either left to the end of a bulletin or there is little to no coverage of it.

Which for me in my own opinion is that the media are just as complicit as these politicians and scientists (oh not forgetting OFCOM too), maybe the media should do a positive story daily to counter balance?

 

[jtuk]

But 'R' is not the only defining factor you can have R below 1, but that just means that the virus is infecting fewer people per generation than it did in the one before. Yet because the current case load is so high, it may take multiple iterations with R below 1 to get that case load down to 'manageable levels' Bearing in mind that as soon as you release restrictions you are likely to see the R number immediately rise back above 1.

The case load has never been at unmanageable levels so I have no idea what you are talking about

 

[notlob.divad]

The case load has never been at unmanageable levels so I have no idea what you are talking about

So we should wait until they are at unmanageable levels before we do something about them, knowing that there is a lag in the system dynamics?

Are you one of those drivers that only pulls the brake lever / pushes the brake pedal as you are passing the red light? Or do you see a red light in the distance, and start braking in time to stop before it?

 

[DustyBin]

So we should wait until they are at unmanageable levels before we do something about them, knowing that there is a lag in the system dynamics?

Are you one of those drivers that only pulls the brake lever / pushes the brake pedal as you are passing the red light? Or do you see a red light in the distance, and start braking in time to stop before it?

In your analogy there is no doubt that applying the brakes is the right thing to do, and there is no collateral damage caused by doing so. That’s the difference....

 

[jtuk]

So we should wait until they are at unmanageable levels before we do something about them, knowing that there is a lag in the system dynamics?

Are you one of those drivers that only pulls the brake lever / pushes the brake pedal as you are passing the red light? Or do you see a red light in the distance, and start braking in time to stop before it?

I do - however the problem with your analogy is that here, there is no red light

 

[notlob.divad]

I do - however the problem with your analogy is that here, there is no red light

There was a red light. A very big red light, maybe not across the whole country but certainly in the area I have the most knowledge of. When you speak to the people who have direct access to the raw data on numbers of critical care hospital beds, staffing levels, testing capacity, % +ve tests etc.

Passengers on a train cannot always see the red light on the signal, but the driver can and they are the one who puts the brakes on.

In your analogy there is no doubt that applying the brakes is the right thing to do, and there is no collateral damage caused by doing so. That’s the difference....

But the potential catastrophe of blasting through the red light is multiple times that for your car or train driver. Lets take worst case scenario, 2 fully packed commuter trains collide after a driver pass through a red. Potentially what 3000 potential casualties? Some would probably survive. But that is a one off, it happens and is done. In the UK counting back there have been 4 of those 3000 victim crashes in the month of November, and in each case, almost everyone died. What state would the rail industry be in if 8 fully packed passanger trains had crashed in the last month? Because that is what we are talking about, and that is with the restrictions.

And to those who say they are all old people who only had a few months to live anyway. Well the evidence from the first wave does not support that. In week 15 of this year England had a rate of death 36 standard deviations higher than the rolling 5 year year average. The weeks either side it had 28 and 31 respectively. Over the interim 34 weeks (7 months) if the above statement were true, we would have expected to see a sustantial and sustained drop in excess mortality figures as all of those people who would have died, didn't. But this is not what we have seen. There has been no point where we have seen a significant drop off in excess mortality outside the bounds of normal fluctuation, and in the middle of November we were back up at 6.6 standard deviations above the mean. So the vast majority of those people who died in the first wave, would have made it through to at least this Winter's flu season, and no one talking about economic consequences and colateral damage can bring back those lost months.

And to note, I say this as a person who this year has given up: My own wedding day, being in the room for the ultrasound scans of my first child, seeing any of my family members since February, attending the weddings of at least 2 other close friends, meeting my brother's first serious partner, being present as my sports team win the league for the 2nd year running, being present at the homecoming of my 2nd sports team winning the league for the first time in 30 years amongst all the other things that we have all sacrificed on a day to day basis. Yet still, despite all of this, it is the right call and potentially hasn't gone far enough. Why? well because at least I have been able to tell my 94 year old Grandad that if he looks after himself and keeps himself safe, there is a chance he will live to see the birth of his first Great Grandchild and he can even see a picture now, which he otherwise wouldn't have been able to do. His sister-in-law was not so lucky as she left us in the 1st wave.

These untold stories of missed oppurtunites are the real collateral damage in all of this. The economy can be re-built, with the right support those whos jobs and businesses have been impacted can be helped to re-build, re-skill and re-apply themselves. However the lost moments can never be brought back.

 

[HSTEd]

But the potential catastrophe of blasting through the red light is multiple times that for your car or train driver. Lets take worst case scenario, 2 fully packed commuter trains collide after a driver pass through a red. Potentially what 3000 potential casualties? Some would probably survive. But that is a one off, it happens and is done. In the UK counting back there have been 4 of those 3000 victim crashes in the month of November, and in each case, almost everyone died. What state would the rail industry be in if 8 fully packed passanger trains had crashed in the last month? Because that is what we are talking about, and that is with the restrictions.

Except applying the brakes kills people.
They might not be photogenic pensioners dying of a single identifiable disease, but they still die.

SAGE and the Government have cold bloodedly liquidated huge numbers of people and destroyed huge numbers of lives to save their chosen demographic.

These untold stories of missed oppurtunites are the real collateral damage in all of this. The economy can be re-built, with the right support those whos jobs and businesses have been impacted can be helped to re-build, re-skill and re-apply themselves. However the lost moments can never be brought back.

Every day that people suffer economic disruption, people will die or suffer dramatic reductions in their quality of life.
Vast resources that could have been expended improving the lives of the entire population are expended to save a select group.


Even without the cost of economic damage and it's comorbidities, the government has already spent far more per QALY to save pensioners (who on average will live 10-14 years at best according to demographic data) from dying than it would consider justifiable for other public health interventions.

You might want to believe than the lives of a couple hundred thousand economically inactive pensioners have infinite value, but ultimately they are as expendable as everyone else is in our society, and indeed more so.

 

[brad465]

Here's a good article from the BBC (not often these go together) question if the NHS really needs protecting and showing how there are still a number of free beds:

Covid: Does the NHS really need protecting?

Ministers argue tough restrictions are need to stop hospitals becoming overwhelmed. Is this true?

www.bbc.co.uk

England has exited lockdown but for nearly all the country, Wednesday marks just a small step back towards normality.

With the exception of Cornwall, the Isle of Wight and Isles of Scilly, strict restrictions mean people's lives are being curtailed.

A crucial factor - ministers have argued - is that the NHS risks being overwhelmed without the tough curbs on freedoms. But is this really true?

 

[notlob.divad]

Except applying the brakes kills people.
They might not be photogenic pensioners dying of a single identifiable disease, but they still die.

SAGE and the Government have cold bloodedly liquidated huge numbers of people and destroyed huge numbers of lives to save their chosen demographic.



Every day that people suffer economic disruption, people will die or suffer dramatic reductions in their quality of life.
Vast resources that could have been expended improving the lives of the entire population are expended to save a select group.


Even without the cost of economic damage and it's comorbidities, the government has already spent far more per QALY to save pensioners (who on average will live 10-14 years at best according to demographic data) from dying than it would consider justifiable for other public health interventions.

You might want to believe than the lives of a couple hundred thousand economically inactive pensioners have infinite value, but ultimately they are as expendable as everyone else is in our society, and indeed more so.

I think I disagree with just about everything you say. All you have shown is highlighting the inherent problem of capitalism, where people's health and wellbeing are intrinsically linked to their economic fortunes, and the value placed on their lives linked to their economic potential.

But this is now no longer talking about covid in the media.

 

[DB]

I think I disagree with just about everything you say. All you have shown is highlighting the inherent problem of capitalism, where people's health and wellbeing are intrinsically linked to their economic fortunes, and the value placed on their lives linked to their economic potential.

But this is now no longer talking about covid in the media.

So what specifically has he said which is disputable?

And it is related to the media, because one of the reasons why the government has focussed solely on 'beat the virus', with no consideration for the other impacts of their policies, is because the media has relentlessly pushed the fear agenda - it's only in the past few months that we have been seeing some more balanced articles, mostly in the right-wing media, and these are still a minority.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I see today a former French president, aged 94 and with heart problems, died in a cardiology unit, but this was after testing positive for coronavirus.
Of course, the headline screams ‘

Ex-French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing dies from Covid​

Valery Giscard d'Estaing dies from coronavirus aged 94

Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who was president of France between 1974 and 1981, died in a cardiology ward in Tours aged 94 after falling ill with Covid-19, his family have said.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Just about everyone dies from Covid these days, if you look at the media reporting, Maradona excepted !

 

[DB]

It's disappointing to see a tech news site which is normally notable for accuracy taking this line:

Glastonbury hippy shop Hemp in Avalon rapped for spouting 'plandemic' pseudoscience

WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!

www.theregister.com

With the sarcastic comment that:

It's strange that people will object to overwhelming evidence from the world's top health organisations, but have no qualms about lapping up pseudoscience or the spittle-flecked rantings of a bloke sitting in a truck on YouTube. ®

They don't seem to have actually looked at this 'overwhelming evidence' or they would see how full of holes it is. While peddlers of woo are easy targets, this sort of lazy journalism does them no credit, and it's surprising to see how many of the comments agree with it, given that the audience tends to be highly educated people working in the IT world.

 

[WelshBluebird]

It's disappointing to see a tech news site which is normally notable for accuracy taking this line:

Glastonbury hippy shop Hemp in Avalon rapped for spouting 'plandemic' pseudoscience

WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!

www.theregister.com

With the sarcastic comment that:


They don't seem to have actually looked at this 'overwhelming evidence' or they would see how full of holes it is. While peddlers of woo are easy targets, this sort of lazy journalism does them no credit, and it's surprising to see how many of the comments agree with it, given that the audience tends to be highly educated people working in the IT world.

Why exactly is it "disappointing"?
By all means have a discussion about if face masks are effective in preventing transmission or not.
But the article (and the ruling on the adverts in question) were specifically about if face masks are dangerous (for 99% of people they are not), if they lead to you breathing in dangerous levels of CO2 (they do not) and that the COVID-19 pandemic isn't real and is a hoax (by all means disagree about how serious it is - but it certainty isn't a "hoax").
I don't see any issue at all with condemning those people who are shouting "plandemic".

Indeed - for anyone here who does have an issue with the COVID restrictions including the rules around facemasks - realise the conspiracy theorists are doing your cause no good at all and are actually making you all look mad.

 

[DB]

Why exactly is it "disappointing"?
By all means have a discussion about if face masks are effective in preventing transmission or not.
But the article (and the ruling on the adverts in question) were specifically about if face masks are dangerous (for 99% of people they are not), if they lead to you breathing in dangerous levels of CO2 (they do not) and that the COVID-19 pandemic isn't real and is a hoax (by all means disagree about how serious it is - but it certainty isn't a "hoax").
I don't see any issue at all with condemning those people who are shouting "plandemic".

Indeed - for anyone here who does have an issue with the COVID restrictions including the rules around facemasks - realise the conspiracy theorists are doing your cause no good at all and are actually making you all look mad.

It is disappointing because it is entirely one-sided and claims that there is 'overwhelming evidence' that masks work, which is nonsense.

If they had been more balanced about this but picked up on the more ridiculous points (e.g. about it being a hoax, etc) I wouldn't have an issue with it.

And tarring everyone with the same brush as the conspiracy theorists is exactly what the government wants and has tried itself to do when it comes to protests. Only the hard of thinking (which is a lot of the population) automatically assumes that if a cause is espoused by conspiracy theorists that automatically means that it must be completely wrong.

 

[WelshBluebird]

It is disappointing because it is entirely one-sided and claims that there is 'overwhelming evidence' that masks work, which is nonsense.

If they had been more balanced about this but picked up on the more ridiculous points (e.g. about it being a hoax, etc) I wouldn't have an issue with it.

And tarring everyone with the same brush as the conspiracy theorists is exactly what the government wants and has tried itself to do when it comes to protests. Only the hard of thinking (which is a lot of the population) automatically assumes that if a cause is espoused by conspiracy theorists that automatically means that it must be completely wrong.

But it is those conspiracy theorists who you are defending here.
Have you read what the ads were saying?
Any ad that goes on about "plandemic" deserves to be banned and the people who pushed it condemned as crazies.
I'd have thought, assuming you don't want to be associated with them, you'd be happy those people were being condemned as they are?

 

[DB]

But it is those conspiracy theorists who you are defending here.
Have you read what the ads were saying?
Any ad that goes on about "plandemic" deserves to be banned and the people who pushed it condemned as crazies.
I'd have thought, assuming you don't want to be associated with them, you'd be happy those people were being condemned as they are?

I'm not defending the conspiracy theorists - I am pointing out that while it's fine to criticise specific claims which are demonstrably ridiculous, that is no excuse for claiming that there is "overwhelming evidence" that masks work, as this simply isn't true.

 

[Mag_seven]

The "Grim Milestone" cliché is very much in evidence in the media today (total no of UK deaths has now exceeded 60,000 sadly)

 

[adc82140]

It's "sobering milestone" on Sky. I wonder if my Facebook post about "grim milestone" and whip rounds for thesauruses was listened to by the Sky deputy political editor (I was at school with him and he's a Facebook friend)

 

[Yew]

I see today a former French president, aged 94 and with heart problems, died in a cardiology unit, but this was after testing positive for coronavirus.
Of course, the headline screams ‘

Ex-French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing dies from Covid​

Valery Giscard d'Estaing dies from coronavirus aged 94

Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who was president of France between 1974 and 1981, died in a cardiology ward in Tours aged 94 after falling ill with Covid-19, his family have said.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Just about everyone dies from Covid these days, if you look at the media reporting, Maradona excepted !

"Man above average age of death with serious medical conditions dies"

 

[birchesgreen]

The "Grim Milestone" cliché is very much in evidence in the media today (total no of UK deaths has now exceeded 60,000 sadly)

It's become the media's grim millstone.

 

[kez19]

It's become the media's grim millstone.

or they may as well call it a grim milestone...marathon!

 

[Bantamzen]

One interesting thing I have noted about our local newspaper is that for weeks & months they constantly reported on Bradford's infection rate per 100,000. Every single day they would update us, often using the notorious phrase "grim milestone" as figures rose. Then a couple of weeks ago they dialled back the reporting of the figures, mentioning them less & less until today when they have reported that rates have halved in 3 weeks. It is almost as if they are reluctant to report good news.

 

[Ted633]

One interesting thing I have noted about our local newspaper is that for weeks & months they constantly reported on Bradford's infection rate per 100,000. Every single day they would update us, often using the notorious phrase "grim milestone" as figures rose. Then a couple of weeks ago they dialled back the reporting of the figures, mentioning them less & less until today when they have reported that rates have halved in 3 weeks. It is almost as if they are reluctant to report good news.

Its the same with the BBC. When cases were rising throughout September & some of October, there would be a dedicated article (Not main headline, but on the main page) saying how many new cases had been reported. Once they plateaued and started to decline, its not normally there and the daily figure is buried on the 'Evening Update' article.

 

[island]

One interesting thing I have noted about our local newspaper is that for weeks & months they constantly reported on Bradford's infection rate per 100,000. Every single day they would update us, often using the notorious phrase "grim milestone" as figures rose. Then a couple of weeks ago they dialled back the reporting of the figures, mentioning them less & less until today when they have reported that rates have halved in 3 weeks. It is almost as if they are reluctant to report good news.

As the old trade saying goes, if it bleeds, it leads...

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Did anyone spot that Piers Corbyn’s £10,000 fine was not issued, after he contested it in court ? No? Funny how it the case was not featured prominently in newspapers...

Piers Corbyn found guilty of breaching regulations at lockdown protest

Brother of former Labour leader spoke at May event in London’s Hyde Park

www.theguardian.com