Media Coverage of COVID -19

[Yew]

So Thorpe Park Ltd are now empowered to makepublic safety decisions of this form?

Just making up their own science to pander to the ill informed.


WTF

I'd love to see the evidence base behind this decision.

 

[35B]

So Thorpe Park Ltd are now empowered to makepublic safety decisions of this form?

Just making up their own science to pander to the ill informed.


WTF

They have a duty under law to their staff and visitors. A duty which, as recent case law has reminded all theme park operators, is pretty onerous. Neither of us know specifically why they have this policy, or what role the local authority has in requiring it as part of their reopening, and I’m making no comment as to whether it’s right or wrong.

What I do comment on is the person who raised the complaint, and the doubts I have about her doing so in good faith. I am not convinced given her general position that the exemption she cites is genuine, and any sympathy she may have been entitled to went out of the window the moment she made the Rosa Parks comparison. I also find it extremely relevant that in the press story quoted, the reporter only quoted half of the tweet, with the result that the balance of the report was heavily skewed, in a way that avoided commenting on the sheer vileness of her comparison.

 

[kez19]

They have a duty under law to their staff and visitors. A duty which, as recent case law has reminded all theme park operators, is pretty onerous. Neither of us know specifically why they have this policy, or what role the local authority has in requiring it as part of their reopening, and I’m making no comment as to whether it’s right or wrong.

What I do comment on is the person who raised the complaint, and the doubts I have about her doing so in good faith. I am not convinced given her general position that the exemption she cites is genuine, and any sympathy she may have been entitled to went out of the window the moment she made the Rosa Parks comparison. I also find it extremely relevant that in the press story quoted, the reporter only quoted half of the tweet, with the result that the balance of the report was heavily skewed, in a way that avoided commenting on the sheer vileness of her comparison.

yet on the media side of things then, this is where you would say that the media do love a spin on a story, so in this case - its bad for Thorpe Park, i'm not defending either party here but it does seem this has been throughout this whole show, the media love to create this divide and its got people on both sides at each others throats. Do we see any comeback towards media, i'll expect then that they should then issue an apology or a correction if thats the case?

As for judging someone by their tweets - how could you judge? they could air their views but could be the nicest of people? (again far from defending the person here but its seem people are quick to judge on opinions but yet can't be that bothered finding out or lets saying getting to know them but again eh whats the point in that?)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jun 2021 ==

I have no idea of the circumstances of said daughter, and whether the claimed exemption was or was not legally justifiable.

The park has a policy about masks, which was clearly signed, and as far as I can tell this was applied. One visitor chose to complain about that. She did so in a particular way, making no reference to any characteristic that might have brought discrimination law into play, which seemed designed to inflame. I also noticed the comparison to Rosa Parks which is simply offensive in its ignorance and mischaracteris

That mode of complaint was entirely consistent with her Twitter profile, and I use the information from what she has put in the public domain to form my judgment.

What is noticeable is that Thorpe Park did not deny entry or otherwise limit an exempt person from what they could do, but solely applied a policy based on their judgement of public safety on the rides. I assume, but can’t be sure, that this is based on the view that the speed of the ride will cause aerosols emitted during screaming to blow backwards - not altogether an illogical position. However, whether I’m right or wrong, that judgment on safety is part of their legal duty, and applies regardless of what you or I think about mask wearing or it’s implementation in that situation.

As for the treatment of individuals, I have rather more sympathy in this instance for the staff facing a Twitter storm than I do the original poster. I also wonder how the 18 year old daughter feels - quite possibly embarrassed and used.

Ok lets take this out of context for a moment, so you would be happy for say someone like me being told to get to the back because I didn't wear a mask? The stark reality is we are heading to a 2 tier society where vax/unvax or if you want then mask/no mask but still its wonderful government policy in place isn't it?

Yet here we are we have the Euros on and Royal Ascot and people out in the open possibly without masks on but still its wonderful - we are treading on thin ice here and things like this don't help but build up anger and its no wonder - people are getting upset as to someone who complained at a theme park for exemption yet we have other events happening but yet we just ignore it all, or is it just because its footy/horse racing COVID acts differently? Dearie me when will the people wake up to this show?

 

[VauxhallandI]

They have a duty under law to their staff and visitors. A duty which, as recent case law has reminded all theme park operators, is pretty onerous. Neither of us know specifically why they have this policy, or what role the local authority has in requiring it as part of their reopening, and I’m making no comment as to whether it’s right or wrong.

What I do comment on is the person who raised the complaint, and the doubts I have about her doing so in good faith. I am not convinced given her general position that the exemption she cites is genuine, and any sympathy she may have been entitled to went out of the window the moment she made the Rosa Parks comparison. I also find it extremely relevant that in the press story quoted, the reporter only quoted half of the tweet, with the result that the balance of the report was heavily skewed, in a way that avoided commenting on the sheer vileness of her comparison.

Their duty under law to their staff and visitors doesn’t relate to inventing their own rules which are in effect laws of their private land. This isn’t loose bolts on the Wurlitzer and Legionnaires in the restaurant

 

[brad465]

The Sunday Telegraph are fronting a story suggesting Hancock had positive vaccine data on reducing hospitalisations against the Delta variant that he was deliberately keeping hidden prior to the delay earlier this week:

 

[35B]

yet on the media side of things then, this is where you would say that the media do love a spin on a story, so in this case - its bad for Thorpe Park, i'm not defending either party here but it does seem this has been throughout this whole show, the media love to create this divide and its got people on both sides at each others throats. Do we see any comeback towards media, i'll expect then that they should then issue an apology or a correction if thats the case?

As for judging someone by their tweets - how could you judge? they could air their views but could be the nicest of people? (again far from defending the person here but its seem people are quick to judge on opinions but yet can't be that bothered finding out or lets saying getting to know them but again eh whats the point in that?)

In the absence of knowing a person, or having the opportunity to meet them, I form an opinion based on what they say or write. Looking at her Twitter feed, which is what I went to to check the story, and where she has chosen to say publicly about herself, gives plenty to go on and I stand by my judgment.

I’d go further, and suggest that the story was placed, and that both the originally quoted tweet and replies were chosen and selected for impact, and that AP (the agency credited) took the content as it was provided to them, which was then published unchanged by the Standard (again, a little googling shows that the same story appeared in a number of places with the same text). That’s common behaviour on all sorts of matters, and widely used by all sorts of people and groups wanting to get the credibility of a newspaper story telling a story their way.

This is not media creating a divide, but media acting as a distorting mirror which amplifies pre-existing divides. I don’t expect any kind of correction because the story is basically true - the daughter was laying claim to an exemption, it was accepted, she was asked to sit at the rear. The interesting bit, which would require proper effort from a journalist, would be to go back to that day at the theme park, and take a close look at both the park’s policy and the behaviour and motivations of the visitors involved in this story. It’s vanishingly unlikely that anyone would do this (it’s expensive to do proper journalism and the money is frequently not there), but the results would make for an interesting story.

Done well, it might shed interesting light on the park’s policy and the advice behind it, and also the motives and behaviours of the complainant.

 

[VauxhallandI]

The Sunday Telegraph are fronting a story suggesting Hancock had positive vaccine data on reducing hospitalisations against the Delta variant that he was deliberately keeping hidden prior to the delay earlier this week:

View attachment 98472

It was just dismissed out of hand by the Andrew Marr show

 

[DustyBin]

It was just dismissed out of hand by the Andrew Marr show

Why am I not surprised…

The story is in the DM as well. It appears that yet again we were presented with misinformation and lies in order to justify prolonging restrictions. How anybody can trust the government, or their advisors for that matter, is beyond me.

 

[kez19]

In the absence of knowing a person, or having the opportunity to meet them, I form an opinion based on what they say or write. Looking at her Twitter feed, which is what I went to to check the story, and where she has chosen to say publicly about herself, gives plenty to go on and I stand by my judgment.

I’d go further, and suggest that the story was placed, and that both the originally quoted tweet and replies were chosen and selected for impact, and that AP (the agency credited) took the content as it was provided to them, which was then published unchanged by the Standard (again, a little googling shows that the same story appeared in a number of places with the same text). That’s common behaviour on all sorts of matters, and widely used by all sorts of people and groups wanting to get the credibility of a newspaper story telling a story their way.

This is not media creating a divide, but media acting as a distorting mirror which amplifies pre-existing divides. I don’t expect any kind of correction because the story is basically true - the daughter was laying claim to an exemption, it was accepted, she was asked to sit at the rear. The interesting bit, which would require proper effort from a journalist, would be to go back to that day at the theme park, and take a close look at both the park’s policy and the behaviour and motivations of the visitors involved in this story. It’s vanishingly unlikely that anyone would do this (it’s expensive to do proper journalism and the money is frequently not there), but the results would make for an interesting story.

Done well, it might shed interesting light on the park’s policy and the advice behind it, and also the motives and behaviours of the complainant.

however as the point, the media has shown to be doing exactly that, distort facts and creating divisions but you said you would take the park over someone else based on their Twitter, so let’s say she had been right all along what would you then say?

As for this one and it’s journalism, what do you expect all media are going full on tabloid/click bait facts really don’t matter as long as it’s sides for one and not the other, the days I could watch BBC/STV let alone Sky are long gone (let alone local paper) as all they care about is clickbaiting an audience and just don’t care regarding their own actions have consequences

 

[35B]

however as the point, the media has shown to be doing exactly that, distort facts and creating divisions but you said you would take the park over someone else based on their Twitter, so let’s say she had been right all along what would you then say?

As for this one and it’s journalism, what do you expect all media are going full on tabloid/click bait facts really don’t matter as long as it’s sides for one and not the other, the days I could watch BBC/STV let alone Sky are long gone (let alone local paper) as all they care about is clickbaiting an audience and just don’t care regarding their own actions have consequences

Leaving aside any questions of the probability she’s right in her views, I’d say that as a campaigner I’d probably prefer to be wrong than have her on my side.

 

[kez19]

I’m saying this as a curious response, did anyone see Dr Hilary on Lorraine (it’s probably on YouTube) giving CPR to a doll? The part for myself that got me was he covered the persons face (doll), so in reality we are expected to do this? I rather give CPR regardless COVID or not but I see as far as I know he let alone ITV haven’t been pulled up on this? So I guess if we as public did this and person died I bet be told suffocation but because if we say TV told us it wouldn’t matter?

 

[Bantamzen]

The Sunday Telegraph are fronting a story suggesting Hancock had positive vaccine data on reducing hospitalisations against the Delta variant that he was deliberately keeping hidden prior to the delay earlier this week:

View attachment 98472

If there is any element of truth to this, it is a total disgrace. If PHE really have concluded that another wave of infections would not overwhelm the NHS, then why the hell are we having this extension to them? I am starting to get very angry about this.

 

[kristiang85]

If there is any element of truth to this, it is a total disgrace. If PHE really have concluded that another wave of infections would not overwhelm the NHS, then why the hell are we having this extension to them? I am starting to get very angry about this.

Yes me too. This should be a sackable offence on the spot, to be honest.

If I went into a meeting in my work and didn't give them crucial data that would have stopped them losing the company a ton of money, I'd expect that to happen to me. A country is a much bigger fish...

 

[jumble]

Discrimination is discrimination, if someone is exempt is it right to treat them differently?

Not discussing the right from wrongs but it may be the local council have mandated this which puts it out of Thorpe parks hands.

 

[DustyBin]

Yes me too. This should be a sackable offence on the spot, to be honest.

If I went into a meeting in my work and didn't give them crucial data that would have stopped them losing the company a ton of money, I'd expect that to happen to me. A country is a much bigger fish...

Sadly this demonstrates how apathetic people have become. Our freedoms are being withheld under false pretences and yet a lot of people are OK with it. This is one of the most worrying aspects to all of this for me. The “contract” between the government and general population has been fundamentally altered and I’m sure the former would like it to stay that way. Meanwhile the latter appear to be sleepwalking, completely unaware of what’s happening and what it could mean for them. Some even seem to like it, for now.

 

[35B]

Yes me too. This should be a sackable offence on the spot, to be honest.

If I went into a meeting in my work and didn't give them crucial data that would have stopped them losing the company a ton of money, I'd expect that to happen to me. A country is a much bigger fish...

And if you'd read reports at the time, you'd know that a number of ministers were pretty hacked off at how Hancock played it - no time to consider the papers, and a driven conclusion.

And, without defending Hancock one inch, there's a big difference between a company and a country.

 

[DustyBin]

And, without defending Hancock one inch, there's a big difference between a company and a country.

Precisely, and it’s even more important that decisions affecting a country are based on the facts (all of them). What Hancock did is unforgivable. If he simply hadn’t had time to present the data the announcement should have been delayed but he allowed it to go ahead. The question is why? There comes a point at which events can no longer be attributed to coincidence, or incompetence for that matter, and for me we’re well and truly at that point.

 

[35B]

Precisely, and it’s even more important that decisions affecting a country are based on the facts (all of them). What Hancock did is unforgivable. If he simply hadn’t had time to present the data the announcement should have been delayed but he allowed it to go ahead. The question is why? There comes a point at which events can no longer be attributed to coincidence, or incompetence for that matter, and for me we’re well and truly at that point.

Or, alternatively, he used the political dark arts to drive a decision where he felt the risk was unacceptably high with rapidly changing data?

 

[hst43102]

Sadly this demonstrates how apathetic people have become. Our freedoms are being withheld under false pretences and yet a lot of people are OK with it. This is one of the most worrying aspects to all of this for me. The “contract” between the government and general population has been fundamentally altered and I’m sure the former would like it to stay that way. Meanwhile the latter appear to be sleepwalking, completely unaware of what’s happening and what it could mean for them. Some even seem to like it, for now.

THIS. I can't believe that we've gone from a "free" society to something reflective of a soviet state in less than two years - and that a good chunk of people seem ok with it!

 

[35B]

THIS. I can't believe that we've gone from a "free" society to something reflective of a soviet state in less than two years - and that a good chunk of people seem ok with it!

To make that comparison, you have to ignore what the soviet state was like. Which, to start with, would have risked a trip to the Lublyanka had you posted that.

 

[DustyBin]

Or, alternatively, he used the political dark arts to drive a decision where he felt the risk was unacceptably high with rapidly changing data?

I honestly don’t believe that. Even if it was the case, I’m not at all comfortable with the Health Secretary withholding vital information from the PM in order to secure an outcome; it’s wrong on every level. I’m not sure if you’re simply playing devils advocate here but however you approach this Hancock has acted in a deceitful manner, which I find rather worrying.

 

[hst43102]

To make that comparison, you have to ignore what the soviet state was like. Which, to start with, would have risked a trip to the Lublyanka had you posted that.

Perhaps I'm already inside?

 

[big_rig]

I honestly don’t believe that. Even if it was the case, I’m not at all comfortable with the Health Secretary withholding vital information from the PM in order to secure an outcome; it’s wrong on every level. I’m not sure if you’re simply playing devils advocate here but however you approach this Hancock has acted in a deceitful manner, which I find rather worrying.

35B is in the habit of making extremely disingenuous arguments then running away when challenged on his poorly disguised zero covid agenda. Not worth treating in good faith I’m afraid.

 

[kristiang85]

To make that comparison, you have to ignore what the soviet state was like. Which, to start with, would have risked a trip to the Lublyanka had you posted that.

Well, the modern equivalent is the closure (temporary or permanent) of social media accounts of many of those who question the COVID narrative from the various western governments...

 

[35B]

I honestly don’t believe that. Even if it was the case, I’m not at all comfortable with the Health Secretary withholding vital information from the PM in order to secure an outcome; it’s wrong on every level. I’m not sure if you’re simply playing devils advocate here but however you approach this Hancock has acted in a deceitful manner, which I find rather worrying.

A bit of devil's advocate, and a bit of the real world about how decisions are often made - and was reported as such at the time, presumably as a result of disgruntled ministers leaking to favoured journalists. As for the approach, if he genuinely felt it important to get the decision through, then sometimes the ends do justify the means - not that I'd expect those here to agree with that in this case! It's worth remembering that, at the time, the decision was both delayed and on a very publicly communicated date, so he didn't have the option of kicking it into touch.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jun 2021 ==

35B is in the habit of making extremely disingenuous arguments then running away when challenged on his poorly disguised zero covid agenda. Not worth treating in good faith I’m afraid.

My agenda is not zero Covid, and comments like that say more about the inability of some to think critically or look at the world as it is.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jun 2021 ==

Well, the modern equivalent is the closure (temporary or permanent) of social media accounts of many of those who question the COVID narrative from the various western governments...

I'd have said you'd do better to look at countries like Eritrea or North Korea, where having access a social media account would be to risk death.

 

[Bantamzen]

I honestly don’t believe that. Even if it was the case, I’m not at all comfortable with the Health Secretary withholding vital information from the PM in order to secure an outcome; it’s wrong on every level. I’m not sure if you’re simply playing devils advocate here but however you approach this Hancock has acted in a deceitful manner, which I find rather worrying.

I'm more than uncomfortable with it, I'm totally livid about it. Deliberately misleading government thinking when so much is at stake is little short of criminal. Any PM with a spine would have sent Hancock packing & reconvened the meeting to discuss the situation again. Sadly there is a distinct lake of backbones in this current cabinet.

And also as sad is the fact that something so serious passes almost unnoticed by the wider public. A real case of Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[Jamiescott1]

Completely incorrect headlines like this in todays daily mail doesn't help.
"

Britain's daily Covid cases rise by 37% in a week to 10,633​

I'm not sure where 37% increase in a week comes from? I make it 5% increase.

Boris Johnson pours cold water on easing Covid rules early

Department of Health bosses posted 10,633 positive tests - up 37.3 per cent on last Monday's count, with the national up-tick in cases fueled by the highly-transmissible Indian variant.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[DustyBin]

A bit of devil's advocate, and a bit of the real world about how decisions are often made - and was reported as such at the time, presumably as a result of disgruntled ministers leaking to favoured journalists. As for the approach, if he genuinely felt it important to get the decision through, then sometimes the ends do justify the means - not that I'd expect those here to agree with that in this case! It's worth remembering that, at the time, the decision was both delayed and on a very publicly communicated date, so he didn't have the option of kicking it into touch.

What you appear to be saying is that Hancock wanted to delay the lifting of restrictions but the evidence didn’t support this, so he withheld it. And somehow that’s OK?

We were told “data not dates” remember, or should that only pertain to maintaining restrictions?

 

[kez19]

Completely incorrect headlines like this in todays daily mail doesn't help.
"

Britain's daily Covid cases rise by 37% in a week to 10,633​

I'm not sure where 37% increase in a week comes from? I make it 5% increase.

Boris Johnson pours cold water on easing Covid rules early

Department of Health bosses posted 10,633 positive tests - up 37.3 per cent on last Monday's count, with the national up-tick in cases fueled by the highly-transmissible Indian variant.

www.dailymail.co.uk

What do we expect its fear porn by the media! Over exaggerating things it’s ok I believe in karma and think media will get theirs soon enough

Its also to note that they called it the Indian Variant than what the WHO called it Delta - to me it does seem media can't even keep up with variants let alone new names - can the media tell me the winning numbers on the lottery by chance?

 

[Dent]

Completely incorrect headlines like this in todays daily mail doesn't help.
"

Britain's daily Covid cases rise by 37% in a week to 10,633​

I'm not sure where 37% increase in a week comes from? I make it 5% increase.

Boris Johnson pours cold water on easing Covid rules early

Department of Health bosses posted 10,633 positive tests - up 37.3 per cent on last Monday's count, with the national up-tick in cases fueled by the highly-transmissible Indian variant.

www.dailymail.co.uk

How did you get 5%?

Last Monday was 7,742. 10,663/7,742=1.377 (two decimal places), so it is actually nearer 38%.