Media Coverage of COVID -19

[Jamiescott1]

Todays sun has A column from rod little and an editorial saying the government are not handling this well. Mainly about civil servants not going back into the office and them treating the public like children.

The worst example of someone in the media overreacting is that Dr Sarah javis who pops up on radio2, Jeremy vine and the one show.

 

[birchesgreen]

Seems to be a bit of a media narrative building up now trying to get people to go back into their offices and not working from home.

There was this ridiculous tweet from Kirstie Allsopp yesterday too https://twitter.com/KirstieMAllsopp/status/1290987043829489666?s=20

 

[yorksrob]

I hope that this "media narrative" gains ground when they start talking about shutting the pubs and restaurants. Rather more important than working in an office (as opposed to my kichen), to my mind.

 

[Bantamzen]

Seems to be a bit of a media narrative building up now trying to get people to go back into their offices and not working from home.

I think the financial gravity of what we have done is starting to hit home. Many people probably thought back in March that we could just shut down for a few weeks, sit out the virus and hit the restart button. But right from Day #1 of Lockdown, companies started to collapse, jobs started to go. And it wasn't just for those sitting at home, there is a whole chain of businesses that rely on those office workers trundling day in day out to their offices. Its taken way too long for the media, and by proxy a large proportion of the public to release just what this means, but the penny is finally starting to drop, albeit way to late.

And if you think the media are starting to get twitchy now, just wait a couple of months when the weather starts to close back in on us! If largescale restrictions & local lockdowns are still ongoing, they will become more vocal as people's patience really starts to be stretched. Because modern day media feeds partly off how it perceives the current public mood, particularly on social media, then tries to amplify that to get their attention (and their clicks). So as the public's mood changes, expect to see a real shift in position from "Oh God we're all going to die!" through "We need to sort this out urgently" to "How the hell did we let the government get away with this?".

There was this ridiculous tweet from Kirstie Allsopp yesterday too https://twitter.com/KirstieMAllsopp/status/1290987043829489666?s=20

To be fair, she does have a point & one that's been made on these forums previously. A lot of companies have had their eyes opened to the possibility of reducing their estate & maintenance costs with remote working (which is exactly what WFH is), so it doesn't take a genius to make the connection from cheaper working from home practices to even cheaper working from a country where wage levels are lower.

I hope that this "media narrative" gains ground when they start talking about shutting the pubs and restaurants. Rather more important than working in an office (as opposed to my kichen), to my mind.

It will if that became the case. Take the Spanish holiday quarantine situation. A few months ago the very thought of going abroad to Spain would have had the media screaming "Murderers!". But when the restrictions were re-imposed the reaction was very different, because the media sensed that the public's mood might not be as accommodating towards it, given that a lot of people were hoping to get away over the summer months. So instead of welcoming the restrictions, some of the media were far more scathing, especially given that some of the areas of Spain popular with Brits were not so badly affected. If that was the mood coming from social media driven media outlets over Spanish holidays, imagine the mood if pubs and restaurants were widely shut down again.

 

[yorksrob]

It will if that became the case. Take the Spanish holiday quarantine situation. A few months ago the very thought of going abroad to Spain would have had the media screaming "Murderers!". But when the restrictions were re-imposed the reaction was very different, because the media sensed that the public's mood might not be as accommodating towards it, given that a lot of people were hoping to get away over the summer months. So instead of welcoming the restrictions, some of the media were far more scathing, especially given that some of the areas of Spain popular with Brits were not so badly affected. If that was the mood coming from social media driven media outlets over Spanish holidays, imagine the mood if pubs and restaurants were widely shut down again.

You should have heard the public health official on Radio 4 just now. The philosophy seemed to be "you can't have it all" with a particular emphasis on anything enjoyable. It would have been better if they'd let the bar owner who was also being interviewed respond to some of her opinions.

The more I see of this, the more I think a strategy of eliminaton is pointless.

 

[Bantamzen]

You should have heard the public health official on Radio 4 just now. The philosophy seemed to be "you can't have it all" with a particular emphasis on anything enjoyable. It would have been better if they'd let the bar owner who was also being interviewed respond to some of her opinions.

The more I see of this, the more I think a strategy of eliminaton is pointless.

I have thought for a long time that elimination is going to have about as much chance of being successful as Bradford City have of winning the 2021 Champions League.

 

[birchesgreen]

To be fair, she does have a point & one that's been made on these forums previously. A lot of companies have had their eyes opened to the possibility of reducing their estate & maintenance costs with remote working (which is exactly what WFH is), so it doesn't take a genius to make the connection from cheaper working from home practices to even cheaper working from a country where wage levels are lower.

I have to disagree with you (and her) there, businesses have been offshoring for years, many have returned because they found it didn't work out for them. Nothing to do with home working or not.

 

[Bantamzen]

I have to disagree with you (and her) there, businesses have been offshoring for years, many have returned because they found it didn't work out for them. Nothing to do with home working or not.

Ah but an event like this could see companies spreading out the risk. Rather than having your workforce solely in one country, some might consider spreading out. I certainly wouldn't rule it out simply because many chose to reverse previous decisions to off-shore.

 

[birchesgreen]

I doubt SMEs will want that hassle, but we are going OT here

 

[MikeWM]

They're actually pushing this as a bad thing!
More than eight in 10 people who tested positive for coronavirus in England had no symptoms at time of illness, study shows

More than eight in 10 people who tested positive for coronavirus in England had no symptoms of the illness at the time, the latest monthly study for the Government revealed today.

So, err, they're not actually 'ill' then? Sounds good news to me, but oh no, not the media don't think so...

The lack of symptoms is a concern as it means people will have the ability to spread the virus without realising they are infectious.

We're worried if people are ill. Now we're worried if people aren't ill. I know, let's just worry about everything, ever, until we all collapse into a pile of neuroses.

The report said asymptomatic people were “a potential source of ongoing transmission”.

Note the word 'potential'.

Pathetic.

 

[DB]

They're actually pushing this as a bad thing!
More than eight in 10 people who tested positive for coronavirus in England had no symptoms at time of illness, study shows


So, err, they're not actually 'ill' then? Sounds good news to me, but oh no, not the media don't think so...



We're worried if people are ill. Now we're worried if people aren't ill. I know, let's just worry about everything, ever, until we all collapse into a pile of neuroses.



Note the word 'potential'.

Pathetic.

It also ignores the point that this could mean that herd immunity is building up faster than predictions.

 

[Bantamzen]

They're actually pushing this as a bad thing!
More than eight in 10 people who tested positive for coronavirus in England had no symptoms at time of illness, study shows


So, err, they're not actually 'ill' then? Sounds good news to me, but oh no, not the media don't think so...



We're worried if people are ill. Now we're worried if people aren't ill. I know, let's just worry about everything, ever, until we all collapse into a pile of neuroses.



Note the word 'potential'.

Pathetic.

Firstly we were worried about dying, then we were worried about other people dying, now we are worrying about walking around not being ill. OK, yeah, like great...

It also ignores the point that this could mean that herd immunity is building up faster than predictions.

Indeed, isn't it terrible that there may be more people walking around with potential immunity?

 

[LAX54]

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

It 's a 'deadly virus' IF you have another condition that will make it worse, however that is no different for 'normal' flu !

 

[adc82140]

So by virtue of the fact that 80% are asymptomatic, if people (until recently) only went for tests if they were unwell, then at least 500% more people than thought have had it. Even if only 1 in 5 of the population have immunity, that's a significant break in the chain.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So by virtue of the fact that 80% are asymptomatic, if people (until recently) only went for tests if they were unwell, then at least 500% more people than thought have had it. Even if only 1 in 5 of the population have immunity, that's a significant break in the chain.

I suspect we'll find it a lot more than 80% - the rule on testing is "only if you have symptoms" in the wider population. Some people clearly will lie about having symptoms to get a test, but most people won't.

Though if this is coming from random surveillance testing only it might well be accurate.

 

[Freightmaster]

So by virtue of the fact that 80% are asymptomatic, if people (until recently) only went for tests if they were unwell, then at least 500% more people than thought have had it.

Correct - the true figure is estimated to somewhere between 6 and 9 million infected,
with the vast majority mild/asymptomatic; rather more than the 307,000 'official' tally!!

But what the national figures can't tell you is the percentage of the population infected,
as this varies significantly between urban and rural areas. In particular London, which
was the UK's equivalent of New York during April, is though to have had an infection rate
of up to 33%, enough for (temporary?) herd immunity to kick in, which is why hospitalisations/
deaths in the capital are currently extremely low.



MARK

 

[AdamWW]

So by virtue of the fact that 80% are asymptomatic, if people (until recently) only went for tests if they were unwell, then at least 500% more people than thought have had it. Even if only 1 in 5 of the population have immunity, that's a significant break in the chain.

This seems is from random sampling, so none of the tests being discussed were because someone had symptoms.

And as they point out, an asymptomatic test may be on someone who goes on to develop symptoms. But that seems rather unlikely to be the case for all of 80% in a random sample, I'd have thought.

 

[adc82140]

So they don't mean asymptomatic then. They mean presymptomatic. Very different concepts.

 

[AdamWW]

So they don't mean asymptomatic then. They mean presymptomatic. Very different concepts.

Well from one test you don't know which.

The article talked about people with a positive test who didn't have symptoms on the day of test or (I think it was) a week before.

I see no reason why you couldn't also ask them a week later if they then had had symptoms and maybe they do.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

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

So, in total, 56,500 people died from flu over the last 5 years, despite there being a vaccine.
This fact alone shows that the policy some advocate, of keeping all the current restrictions in place ‘until we have a vaccine’ is abhorrent. Such a policy will destroy the economy, destroy people’s quality of life and - if it goes on too long - the government’s ability to pay a decent pension, should we reach old age.
There is no guarantee we will develop a workable vaccine; more importantly, the flu statistics show that vaccines do not even ensure that no-one will die from the virus they are ‘protected’ against!
So the lockdown enthusiasts had better wake up: you are never likely to reach the goal of zero Covid19 deaths, even with a vaccine !!!

 

[45107]

So, in total, 56,500 people died from flu over the last 5 years, despite there being a vaccine.
This fact alone shows that the policy some advocate, of keeping all the current restrictions in place ‘until we have a vaccine’ is abhorrent. Such a policy will destroy the economy, destroy people’s quality of life and - if it goes on too long - the government’s ability to pay a decent pension, should we reach old age.
There is no guarantee we will develop a workable vaccine; more importantly, the flu statistics show that vaccines do not even ensure that no-one will die from the virus they are ‘protected’ against!
So the lockdown enthusiasts had better wake up: you are never likely to reach the goal of zero Covid19 deaths, even with a vaccine !!!

Apart from the fact that 60,000 have died in approx 6 months this year, in excess of the previous 5 year average.
60,000 over 6 months or 56,500 over 5 years. Which has the greater fatality rate ?

 

[carlberry]

So, in total, 56,500 people died from flu over the last 5 years, despite there being a vaccine.
This fact alone shows that the policy some advocate, of keeping all the current restrictions in place ‘until we have a vaccine’ is abhorrent. Such a policy will destroy the economy, destroy people’s quality of life and - if it goes on too long - the government’s ability to pay a decent pension, should we reach old age.
There is no guarantee we will develop a workable vaccine; more importantly, the flu statistics show that vaccines do not even ensure that no-one will die from the virus they are ‘protected’ against!
So the lockdown enthusiasts had better wake up: you are never likely to reach the goal of zero Covid19 deaths, even with a vaccine !!!

A vaccine wont guarantee that no one would die of something until a high percentage of people have the vaccine (or have recovered from the disease) and the vaccine is know to produce long lasting immunity. Flu also mutates each year so the Flu vaccine is never a vaccine against Flu, it's actually a vaccine against last years and the immunity isn't long term. Therefore Flu will carry on killing people. If people washed their hands more, Flu would kill less people. Most people who recover from Flu have few ongoing health issues.

Covid currently has no vaccine, no treatment and (in some cases) causes ongoing health issues therefore is much more serious. Without the virus mutated significantly then we're going to have Covid deaths in the long term, however as soon as there's either a vaccine or (more likely) an effective early treatment it changes from something with significant risk to something with minimal risk. And, longer term, if people keep on washing their hands we'll have less deaths from Flu as well!

 

[DB]

Apart from the fact that 60,000 have died in approx 6 months this year, in excess of the previous 5 year average.
60,000 over 6 months or 56,500 over 5 years. Which has the greater fatality rate ?

You've ignored the point that a vaccine isn't going to be fully effective either, and flu deaths fluctuate - e.g. in 2014-15 it was over 28k, with not a murmur from the media.

Some people seem to think that because they would like the virus to be wiped out in a short timescale then this must be possible, and are prepared to sacrifice anything and everything else to that. The reality is that it isn't possible - even with a vaccine it will take years to wipe it out, and may never happen. Trashing the ecomony will therfore all be for nothing.

Humanity does seem to have this idea that it can prevent this sort of event. The reality is that in all species there will be periodic pandemics; that's just how it is. This one isn't even a particularly bad one in historical terms, and a lot of the issues can be lessened by there being better medical care than during any previous pandemic.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Apart from the fact that 60,000 have died in approx 6 months this year, in excess of the previous 5 year average.
60,000 over 6 months or 56,500 over 5 years. Which has the greater fatality rate ?

The point I was making - and you know it - is that we cannot eliminate Covid. We haven’t even managed zero deaths from flu. So are you saying that 11,500 deaths on average from flu is ‘acceptable’, and that this death rate doesn’t justify massive restrictions on our lives every winter? So what level of Covid deaths is ‘acceptable’? You will never get zero deaths, even with a vaccine.

 

[45107]

I am aware that we can’t eliminate Covid. The aim should be to reduce the impact through measures such as distancing, masks etc until there is a vaccine available. A balance needs to be struck between the health and the wealth of the population. Fortunately I am not in a position of power to decide or influence where the balance lies.

In my view, there is no acceptable number of deaths. The aim should be to get the figure as low as possible.
The restrictions were imposed as the figures for infections and deaths were rising exponentially. Looking elsewhere around Europe and beyond, a number of countries are now re-imposing restrictions that were removed/reduced a couple of weeks ago due to a rise in cases again.

 

[adc82140]

What if a vaccine is never found?

 

[Yew]

I feel like it's unlikely that when we review this in terms of hours of human life squandered, vs hours of human life saved, we will see a positive return on investment.

 

[DB]

What if a vaccine is never found?

Of if there is one but it doesn't work very well.

Governments around the world seem quite prepared to gamble with their economies on the basis of this unknown, unfortunately.

 

[Yew]

The aim should be to reduce the impact through measures such as distancing, masks etc until there is a vaccine available.

To me, it seems that those are the main impacts of this.

In my view, there is no acceptable number of deaths.

Just wait until you see what happens to everyone eventually.

 

[bramling]

I am aware that we can’t eliminate Covid. The aim should be to reduce the impact through measures such as distancing, masks etc until there is a vaccine available. A balance needs to be struck between the health and the wealth of the population. Fortunately I am not in a position of power to decide or influence where the balance lies.

In my view, there is no acceptable number of deaths. The aim should be to get the figure as low as possible.
The restrictions were imposed as the figures for infections and deaths were rising exponentially. Looking elsewhere around Europe and beyond, a number of countries are now re-imposing restrictions that were removed/reduced a couple of weeks ago due to a rise in cases again.

One way or another I don’t think we can sustain things as they are much longer. People at my work are becoming extremely drained for a number of reasons, which is starting to lead to errors occurring. This really is now starting to have serious effects on mental health and wellbeing, and that’s a major concern going forward.