Media Coverage of COVID -19

[35B]

So the most positive spin that can be put on Independent SAGE is that they are too stupid/wilfully ignorant to have read in the news that the ratio of cases:deaths has gone down the drain since vaccines have been given to people? They must be the only people on the planet beyond tribes in Brazil which have no human contact to not be aware of this. I certainly wouldn’t be listening to anything that bunch of psychologists have to say on anything else if they’re so hopelessly uninformed!

Or, back in the real world, they are anti-vaxxers who want their safety blankets (and media appearances) to continue forever, because they are irrationally terrified of the virus and upset about going back to being ignored in University basements.

I give them credit for altruistic intent, but not for their inflexibility.

 

[DustyBin]

I give them credit for altruistic intent, but not for their inflexibility.

Their intent is far from altruistic, as I’ve been saying for the last 12 months:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...cientists-plot-bit-more-restrictionsLeft-wing 'zero covid' scientists plot bid for endless lockdownsA GROUP of scientists in Britain who want to push for continued and tougher lockdowns are set to launch an international "zero covid" network later this month.

The Sunday Express has learnt that members of Independent Sage are to be part of the launch of an international group called the World Health Network which will push for a “zero covid” strategy of maintaining lockdowns. The revelation came at an online meeting of the Zero Covid campaign group last week where trade union officials told attendees about how covid is a means of recruiting members and how the ultimate goal has to be “to bring down capitalism.” The news about the new international network was announced at the end of the meeting Yaneer Bar-Yam, an American physicist who is a member of the Covid Action Group which includes the members of Independent Sage including controversial behavioural scientist Professor Susan Michie, who is a member of the Communist Party. It follows MPs last month questioning why three Independent Sage members including Professor Michie, her husband Professor Robert West, and Professor Stephen Reicher, all behavioural scientists, are also official government advisors. Dr Bar-Yam, a leading member of the Covid Action Group, told the meeting of leftwing Zero Covid activists that a closed conference not open to the public will be held on 14 and 15 July to launch the World Health Network. He said: “We have a globalised team primarily of scientists called the Covid Action Group. [This is] morphing into the World Health Network [with] very enthusiastic participation from Indy Sage, ISAG (Independent Scientific Advocacy Group), Covid Germany, and reaching out to parents groups and others. “The purpose of the network is to facilitate the interaction of the teams. Give it some global infrastructure thinking about opportunities. He said the purpose was to “shift the pandemic response” adding “I think you all know the values we share and the work we are doing on that.” Earlier in the meeting Kathy Jenkins from Scottish Hazards, which was set up to provide free and confidential information, advice, support and training to workers on workplace health and safety issues, discussed how she was being funded with taxpayers’ money from the Scottish government to go to non-union members and using covid to encourage them to join trade unions. The other speaker Tracy Edwards from the Public and Commercial Services Union also discussed how they were using air quality, long covid and other issues to restructure the workplace and add regulation. Near the end of the meeting a Zero Covid activist Steve Ballard said that work on health and safety needed to be “combined with transforming the nature of work. He said: “The rich have always said you have got to work to make us rich. That’s got to stop. Otherwise we are all going to fry. Got to change the agenda pretty damn quick.” At a previous meeting he suggested that the Soviet Union style of Communism needed to be brought into Britain. Responding to his comments, Ms Edwards said: “I agree with Steve there. Capitalism makes its own. “The people who are in charge cannot be trusted to protect our health and safety. What we have got to do as a movement is not just control our working lives but society as a whole has pointed out. “We have got to urgently think about who is running society and shift the balance in favour of the many not the few.” Ms Jenkins added: “[Covid] hasn’t created problems, it has exposed them. Not only health and safety ones. “Loads of smaller things need changing, not just capitalism [but] I completely agree we have got to get rid of it.​

 

[35B]

Their intent is far from altruistic, as I’ve been saying for the last 12 months:

Yes, I saw much of that article doing the rounds yesterday. It name checks a number of Independent Sage members, but not the entire group; we shouldn't give Michie credit for single-handedly defining the approach of all Zero Covid activists. I note, for example, that Yaneer Bar-Yam does not show particularly left wing identification (indeed, is often associated with the far from left wing Nassim Nicholas Taleb) but was heavily involved in suppressing Ebola in West Africa, and applies those ideas fairly indiscriminately.

 

[Bikeman78]

Or, back in the real world, they are anti-vaxxers who want their safety blankets (and media appearances) to continue forever, because they are irrationally terrified of the virus and upset about going back to being ignored in University basements.

I know a few anti-vaxxers (and I don't have a problem with their position on the subject) and none of them are scared of Covid or want any of this to continue. They are happy to take their chances and have life go back to normal.

 

[PHILIPE]

I know a few anti-vaxxers (and I don't have a problem with their position on the subject) and none of them are scared of Covid or want any of this to continue. They are happy to take their chances and have life go back to normal.

Yes. They may be happy to take their chances themselves but they don't seem concerned about the possibility of spreading it if they do carch it.

 

[Bantamzen]

Yes. They may be happy to take their chances themselves but they don't seem concerned about the possibility of spreading it if they do carch it.

But most of the people not happy to take their chances will have the vaccine. Soooo.....

 

[35B]

I know a few anti-vaxxers (and I don't have a problem with their position on the subject) and none of them are scared of Covid or want any of this to continue. They are happy to take their chances and have life go back to normal.

There are indeed such people, with whose position I have many problems. But the charge of anti-vaxx for many of the pro-lockdown brigade is also justified - their approach to the increasingly clear evidence is equally la-la, and in denial of what is visible through the science.

 

[Cdd89]

Interesting how furious Michie is about being questioned about her political beliefs by Richard Madeley. The independent SAGE types are now saying they have been doing a public service and won’t be appearing on the programme unless they apologise.

I must admit to thinking it is a slightly asinine question (it’s better to question the logic, rather than the political beliefs of the person behind it), but I must admit I won’t miss them if they don’t continue making media appearances!

 

[Bantamzen]

Interesting how furious Michie is about being questioned about her political beliefs by Richard Madeley. The independent SAGE types are now saying they have been doing a public service and won’t be appearing on the programme unless they apologise.

I must admit to thinking it is a slightly asinine question (it’s better to question the logic, rather than the political beliefs of the person behind it), but I must admit I won’t miss them if they don’t continue making media appearances!

She was probably annoyed her call with them didn't have a "block" feature. She's known for shutting down social media discussion by locking down her accounts for supporters only. Not a great look for a group who want to drive discussion really.

 

[big_rig]

Interesting how furious Michie is about being questioned about her political beliefs by Richard Madeley. The independent SAGE types are now saying they have been doing a public service and won’t be appearing on the programme unless they apologise.

I must admit to thinking it is a slightly asinine question (it’s better to question the logic, rather than the political beliefs of the person behind it), but I must admit I won’t miss them if they don’t continue making media appearances!

They are starting to jump the shark now. I see Deepti Gurdasani (a computer programmer ‘scientist’ aka covid expert of course) calling it misogyny and calling for people to #BoycottGMB. I don’t think she realises the irony that people will be quite happy for her to boycott that and many other media appearances Her pal Pagel is making similar complaints about being asked questions instead of being allowed to deliver more dull monologues on TV - how rude of people to ask questions!

 

[Bantamzen]

They are starting to jump the shark now. I see Deepti Gurdasani (a computer programmer ‘scientist’ aka covid expert of course) calling it misogyny and calling for people to #BoycottGMB. I don’t think she realises the irony that people will be quite happy for her to boycott that and many other media appearances Her pal Pagel is making similar complaints about being asked questions instead of being allowed to deliver more dull monologues on TV - how rude of people to ask questions!

I fully support iSAGE boycotting all media & social media sites.....

 

[kristiang85]

I think it was a perfectly fair question, given she is a behavioural psychologist and she is calling for changes in our behaviour. Given this is also a proven tactic of communist governments, inducing behavioural change by fear, I think it is legitimate the other interests beyond public health should be questioned too.

The fact that she didn't answer it hasn't convinced me that this isn't the case, and now this misogyny claim is simply distracting from the real issue (which is another oft used tactic by these types).

 

[quantinghome]

Given this is also a proven tactic of communist governments, inducing behavioural change by fear...

Really? REALLY? This is the communist equivalent of Godwin's Law.

 

[kristiang85]

Really? REALLY? This is the communist equivalent of Godwin's Law.

Why do you say that? In communist states, the leadership uses fear (usually of the Western world) to keep people on their side, and this is maintained by mass propaganda, and limits on flows of information. The parallels with the government's COVID fear campaigns are obvious, and I think it's very fair that any advisors recommending this system are very open about their political affiliations and motivations, given what is at stake.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Yes. They may be happy to take their chances themselves but they don't seem concerned about the possibility of spreading it if they do carch it.

We have to live with Covid, it’ll be seasonal, lots of viruses are spread from person to person

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jul 2021 ==

Really? REALLY? This is the communist equivalent of Godwin's Law.

These past 18 months have been a taste of an authoritarianism that was completely unnecessary, you can hardly claim we’ve been free can you?

The government encouraging people to snitch on their neighbours and what not? Being told where you could and couldn’t go, the sinister and disgraceful “look him/her in the eyes” ad campaigns, all signify an sharp turn left into communism or authoritarianism at least.

 

[NSEFAN]

Why do you say that? In communist states, the leadership uses fear (usually of the Western world) to keep people on their side, and this is maintained by mass propaganda, and limits on flows of information. The parallels with the government's COVID fear campaigns are obvious, and I think it's very fair that any advisors recommending this system are very open about their political affiliations and motivations, given what is at stake.

Sometimes public behaviours do have to be changed. At the beginning of the pandemic there appeared to be a jolly good reason to be fearful. Now that we have more information, and that the vaccines have demonstrated their efficacy, things are different.

 

[kristiang85]

Sometimes public behaviours do have to be changed. At the beginning of the pandemic there appeared to be a jolly good reason to be fearful. Now that we have more information, and that the vaccines have demonstrated their efficacy, things are different.

Yes, I'm not denying at the beginning some of this was necessary.

But Michie was saying that we need to continue restrictions, which flies in the face of what the likes of Whitty and the head of the NHS have been saying, as well as pre-2020 conventions on dealing with these kind of events, especially now we have much more understanding of the virus and an excellent vaccine. It's right that other motivations should be questioned.

 

[quantinghome]

These past 18 months have been a taste of an authoritarianism that was completely unnecessary, you can hardly claim we’ve been free can you?

Again, really? REALLY? Restrictions which have been imposed more or less in every country with a significant outbreak turn out to be "completely unnecessary"?

The government encouraging people to snitch on their neighbours and what not? Being told where you could and couldn’t go, the sinister and disgraceful “look him/her in the eyes” ad campaigns, all signify an sharp turn left into communism or authoritarianism at least.

I see little sign of the government preparing to seize the means of production.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Again, really? REALLY? Restrictions which have been imposed more or less in every country with a significant outbreak turn out to be "completely unnecessary"?


I see little sign of the government preparing to seize the means of production.

You can caps lock really as much as you want, It’s Covid not Ebola, and while I support lockdown 1, I certainly didn’t agree with the tier system and I certainly don’t agree with the extensions to the restrictions on our lives, it’s my opinion you don’t have to like it

Authoritarians don’t usually work in blantantly obvious ways, but the endorsement of snitching on one’s neighbours in case they break the rules isn’t exactly normal now, and again unnecessary.

 

[Bikeman78]

There are indeed such people, with whose position I have many problems. But the charge of anti-vaxx for many of the pro-lockdown brigade is also justified - their approach to the increasingly clear evidence is equally la-la, and in denial of what is visible through the science.

Each to their own. I've had both my vaccines. Most of the anti vaccine people that I know I've known since school and I consider them to be intelligent people. If they choose not to have the vaccine it makes no odds to me. The world has made it through previous pandemics and so I've no doubt we'll get through this one too.

 

[quantinghome]

You can caps lock really as much as you want, It’s Covid not Ebola, and while I support lockdown 1, I certainly didn’t agree with the tier system and I certainly don’t agree with the extensions to the restrictions on our lives, it’s my opinion you don’t have to like it

OK, so just to confirm what your view is - you don't actually think the restrictions were 'completely unnecessary'; in fact you agree with the first (and most draconian) lockdown but not some of the later, lesser, restrictions. Presumably the second full lockdown (this January) you also think was necessary?

Authoritarians don’t usually work in blantantly obvious ways, but the endorsement of snitching on one’s neighbours in case they break the rules isn’t exactly normal now, and again unnecessary.

Certain words mean certain things. 'Communism' is a highly specific political system (with a 0% track record of success, excluding the whole beating the Nazis thing). If you want to criticise the government for authoritarianism, then fine, but let's use the words as we commonly define them, rather than going full Humpty Dumpty. And as you actually agreed with the first lockdown I'm not sure where that leaves us.

Can't recall any government messaging encouraging us to snitch on our neighbours for breaking lockdown - they may have done but it certainly wasn't well publicised if they did. However, the government has long encouraged snitching on neighbours for welfare fraud, immigration violations and the like, yet it's only now you complain? Niemoller might have said something about that.

 

[birchesgreen]

I think it was a perfectly fair question, given she is a behavioural psychologist and she is calling for changes in our behaviour. Given this is also a proven tactic of communist governments, inducing behavioural change by fear

Indeed, not used by Western governments as well as course.

 

[WelshBluebird]

If you want to criticise the government for authoritarianism, then fine, but let's use the words as we commonly define them, rather than going full Humpty Dumpty.

Sadly it has become very common for people to label things as Communism just because they don't like it. Look at how even pretty centrist politicians are labelled in the US, and even in this country it has now got to the point where you can't stand as a left leaning candidate standing on a fairly moderate platform without having the tabloids go all "Comrade" on you.

The government encouraging people to snitch on their neighbours and what not? Being told where you could and couldn’t go, the sinister and disgraceful “look him/her in the eyes” ad campaigns, all signify an sharp turn left into communism or authoritarianism at least.

Authoritarian yes. Communist no. What you tend to find is as you get to the far extremes of the right and the left, both have to heavily rely on authoritarianism to keep their power. That does not mean any government displaying authoritarian tendencies is communist - far from it.

 

[quantinghome]

Sadly it has become very common for people to label things as Communism just because they don't like it. Look at how even pretty centrist politicians are labelled in the US, and even in this country it has now got to the point where you can't stand as a left leaning candidate standing on a fairly moderate platform without having the tabloids go all "Comrade" on you.

Yeah, it's one of those political 'irregular verbs' from Yes Minister:

"I am restructuring the nation's railways to reduce waste"

"You are renationalising the railways by stealth"

"He is a communist"

And to be fair, it's not a recent pheonomenon and it's not just communism. George Orwell said in 1946 "The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’ ".

 

[greyman42]

The BBC News are already giving Johnson hell by criticising the lifting of restrictions.

 

[NorthKent1989]

The BBC News are already giving Johnson hell by criticising the lifting of restrictions.

They would do, they so pro lockdown it’s laughable, it’s almost as if they have zero faith in the vaccines….

I’m seeing plenty of angry locktavists deriding the ending of masks and social distancing and ending lockdown, what planet are these people on in which we can have any more lockdowns and restrictions, they’re really selfish

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jul 2021 ==

Authoritarian yes. Communist no. What you tend to find is as you get to the far extremes of the right and the left, both have to heavily rely on authoritarianism to keep their power. That does not mean any government displaying authoritarian tendencies is communist - far from it.

Fair point.

 

[35B]

They would do, they so pro lockdown it’s laughable, it’s almost as if they have zero faith in the vaccines….

I’m seeing plenty of angry locktavists deriding the ending of masks and social distancing and ending lockdown, what planet are these people on in which we can have any more lockdowns and restrictions, they’re really selfish

That's odd, my impression looking at the BBC website this evening is that they are covering reasonably neutrally, seeking a variety of viewpoints and informed commentators on the subject, and with a piece by their Health Correspondent that specifically calls out a scientific consensus for relaxing restrictions.

But the coverage of any story will focus on the impact of change. Change creates winners and losers, but the winners' gains are always a bit hard to define and for some time in the future, whereas the losers' losses are immediate and tangible.

We now need to hope and pray that the relationship between infections and hospitalisations stays as in the pattern it's now in, and doesn't shift again.

 

[greyman42]

That's odd, my impression looking at the BBC website this evening is that they are covering reasonably neutrally, seeking a variety of viewpoints and informed commentators on the subject, and with a piece by their Health Correspondent that specifically calls out a scientific consensus for relaxing restrictions.

I was watching the BBC News channel. Perhaps it was just the way Fiona Bruce was putting the story across.

 

[NorthKent1989]

OK, so just to confirm what your view is - you don't actually think the restrictions were 'completely unnecessary'; in fact you agree with the first (and most draconian) lockdown but not some of the later, lesser, restrictions. Presumably the second full lockdown (this January) you also think was necessary?


Certain words mean certain things. 'Communism' is a highly specific political system (with a 0% track record of success, excluding the whole beating the Nazis thing). If you want to criticise the government for authoritarianism, then fine, but let's use the words as we commonly define them, rather than going full Humpty Dumpty. And as you actually agreed with the first lockdown I'm not sure where that leaves us.

Can't recall any government messaging encouraging us to snitch on our neighbours for breaking lockdown - they may have done but it certainly wasn't well publicised if they did. However, the government has long encouraged snitching on neighbours for welfare fraud, immigration violations and the like, yet it's only now you complain? Niemoller might have said something about that.

Welfare fraud is pretty serious, and it devalues the people who desperately need it and sadly they’re demonised alongside those who commit fraud.

As for immigration, legal immigration is fine and should be encouraged however illegal immigration should never be endorsed.

However those aren’t the issues we are talking about now are? We are talking about Covid and it’s pretty presumptive of you to imply that I don’t have any issues with those things as well as restrictions on our freedoms, not every one goes on social media to virtue signal you know.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jul 2021 ==

That's odd, my impression looking at the BBC website this evening is that they are covering reasonably neutrally, seeking a variety of viewpoints and informed commentators on the subject, and with a piece by their Health Correspondent that specifically calls out a scientific consensus for relaxing restrictions.

But the coverage of any story will focus on the impact of change. Change creates winners and losers, but the winners' gains are always a bit hard to define and for some time in the future, whereas the losers' losses are immediate and tangible.

We now need to hope and pray that the relationship between infections and hospitalisations stays as in the pattern it's now in, and doesn't shift again.

We can hope and pray for those things but lockdowns aren’t the answer, we can’t keep focusing on Covid indefinitely.

 

[quantinghome]

Welfare fraud is pretty serious, and it devalues the people who desperately need it and sadly they’re demonised alongside those who commit fraud.

As for immigration, legal immigration is fine and should be encouraged however illegal immigration should never be endorsed.

However those aren’t the issues we are talking about now are? We are talking about Covid and it’s pretty presumptive of you to imply that I don’t have any issues with those things as well as restrictions on our freedoms, not every one goes on social media to virtue signal you know.

You're missing the point - those were a couple of random examples picked simply because the government has encouraged snitching on them for many years. You think encouraging snitching is a sign of authoritarian government, so I'd like to know whether you object to it in all cases or only some.