Media Coverage of COVID -19

[brad465]

Sajid Javid now says he's recovered, but he doesn't appear to have helped himself with the tweet he sent to declare this, because of one particular word (I'm wondering how long before, if at all, media outlets pick this up if it stirs enough controversy):

https://twitter.com/sajidjavid/status/1418932718847541248

Full recovery from Covid a week after testing positive. Symptoms were very mild, thanks to amazing vaccines. Please - if you haven’t yet - get your jab, as we learn to live with, rather than cower from, this virus.

 

[Cdd89]

It may not be a bad thing if it does blow up. The media would spend ages bloviating on the choice of language, but the central focus remains that someone in a vulnerable category had only mild symptoms, and that this was not luck but due to the vaccine. Individually, there is nothing to be afraid of anymore, and it certainly conveys that; sometimes blunt words are more effective at getting a message through than tactful ones…

 

[Yew]

Re [1], my view is that treatments like Ivermectin and Hydroxychlorquine have been promoted far beyond their merits, been subjected to serious trials and found wanting. Hydroxychloroquine was subject to a proper randomised controlled trial; the meta-analyses of Ivermectin showing benefit rely on highly contested trials.

As a treatment, I'd certainly agree, however I'd have been interested to see a proper investigation into it acting as a prophylactic measure.

I find HCL an interesting one, as I think the evidence base is rather similar in quality to that of masks, some low quality evidence for effectiveness, that seems to not percolate through to real world conditions. It' really highlights the lack of due process in non-pharmaceutical interventions.

 

[philosopher]

Sajid Javid now says he's recovered, but he doesn't appear to have helped himself with the tweet he sent to declare this, because of one particular word (I'm wondering how long before, if at all, media outlets pick this up if it stirs enough controversy):

https://twitter.com/sajidjavid/status/1418932718847541248

Looks like the media, or at the least the BBC noticed almost immediately:

Sajid Javid criticised for 'cower' Covid remark

He is accused of insulting those who have followed the rules and causing "deep hurt" to victims' families.

www.bbc.co.uk

Health Secretary Sajid Javid has been criticised for saying people should no longer "cower" from coronavirus.
He made the comments after tweeting that he had made a "full recovery" from Covid, a week after testing positive.
"Please - if you haven't yet - get your jab, as we learn to live with, rather than cower from, this virus," he wrote.
But Labour accused him of denigrating those who followed the rules, while a victims' group founder said his comments were "deeply insensitive".
Cower is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as meaning to bend down or move backward with your head down because you are frightened.

 

[Dent]

Sajid Javid now says he's recovered, but he doesn't appear to have helped himself with the tweet he sent to declare this, because of one particular word (I'm wondering how long before, if at all, media outlets pick this up if it stirs enough controversy):

https://twitter.com/sajidjavid/status/1418932718847541248

I don't see anything wrong with that message, it actually makes a very good point which has needed to be made for some time.

 

[brad465]

Looks like the media, or at the least the BBC noticed almost immediately:

Actually the BBC were relatively slow to notice/report it: some online newspaper sites had reports from it yesterday evening (the tweet was made yesterday afternoon). The BBC article wasn't visible until, judging by the update time, the early hours, but most readers would have only seen it waking up this morning.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jul 2021 ==

EDIT: He has now deleted the tweet and apologised:

Sajid Javid apologises for 'cower' Covid remark

The health secretary says he used a poor choice of word in a tweet, after criticism from victims' group.

www.bbc.co.uk

Health Secretary Sajid Javid has apologised after saying people should no longer "cower" from coronavirus.
He made the comments in a tweet announcing he had made a "full recovery" from Covid, a week after testing positive.
Labour accused him of denigrating those who followed the rules, while the founder of a victims' group said his comments were "deeply insensitive".
Mr Javid said "it was a poor choice of word and I sincerely apologise".

 

[NorthKent1989]

Sajid Javid now says he's recovered, but he doesn't appear to have helped himself with the tweet he sent to declare this, because of one particular word (I'm wondering how long before, if at all, media outlets pick this up if it stirs enough controversy):

https://twitter.com/sajidjavid/status/1418932718847541248

But he’s right though, people have got to stop acting like Covid is the Black Death, when it’s anything but that.

 

[duncanp]

I don't see anything wrong with that message, it actually makes a very good point which has needed to be made for some time.

I have just posted something similar on the support conversation thread, and personally I think that Sajid Javid has nothing whatsoever to apologise for.

All the lefties and locktivists are getting their knickers in a twist for political reasons;-

Shadow justice secretary David Lammy also questioned his use of the word, saying: "Don't denigrate people for trying to keep themselves and their families safe."

Lib Dem health spokeswoman Munira Wilson said Mr Javid's tweet was "outrageous" and his "careless words have insulted every man, woman and child who has followed the rules and stayed at home to protect others".

Rubbish, the pair of you.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I don't see anything wrong with that message, it actually makes a very good point which has needed to be made for some time.

I agree.

He simply spoke the truth - people are cowering at the coronavirus.

 

[island]

But he’s right though, people have got to stop acting like Covid is the Black Death, when it’s anything but that.

Of course he is.

 

[Cdd89]

Notably the story itself was buried in 6th place in the headlines but the apology is the top story on the BBC/Sky. I suspect this of having been intentionally planned/foreseen by Javid since those angry about the sentiment (rather than the choice of words) are also those who believe we should still be taking significant measures to “control” the virus.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Of course he is.

Do you disagree? No need to be so vague

 

[Alex C.]

I think cower was a poor choice of word - there are still many vulnerable people out there who aren't able to get a jab and are immuno-compromised. Current Government guidance to me (and other clinically vulnerable people) is that I should try to avoid unvaccinated people (they're not clear on the logistics behind that), avoid crowded spaces and ask people visiting me to take a LFT amongst a number of measures. I'm not following the majority of these because I'm happy with the risk profile that is posed to me as a vaccinated individual.

Cower implies these people are cowardly for being cautious, even though that is the official government line. It's hardly inclusive language (and given the fuss that is made on this forum about accommodating those who can't wear masks you would think inclusivity would be something everyone agrees on).

The tweet could have simply been:

Full recovery from Covid a week after testing positive. Symptoms were very mild, thanks to amazing vaccines. Please - if you haven’t yet - get your jab, as we learn to live with this virus.

 

[Dent]

Cower implies these people are cowardly for being cautious, even though that is the official government line.

It doesn't really input any such thing. This contrived criticism is unjustified, and risks undermining the important message.

"Being cautious" is not really an accurate description of the behaviour which was being called out, and desperately needs to be called out.

 

[Alex C.]

It doesn't really input any such thing. This contrived criticism is unjustified, and risks undermining the important message.

"Being cautious" is not really an accurate description of the behaviour which was being called out, and desperately needs to be called out.

How do you know what behaviour was being called out? The Tweet wasn’t exactly loaded with detail. It offered two possibilities - living with the virus, or cowering.

What behaviour would you describe as cowering (e.g would avoiding meeting people indoors be considered cowering?)

 

[island]

Do you disagree? No need to be so vague

I agree with your post that I quoted, and I didn’t think I was vague

 

[Berliner]

I am far from supporting this government, but what Javid tweeted was true and he should have never deleted that tweet. People talk about standing up to cancer, not letting it defeat them, and victims families don't bat an eyelid. So why is it that covid victims families' opinions suddenly dictate what government ministers should say or not say in public?

We have let this virus scare people into abnormal behaviour for too long.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Hi

I agree with your post that I quoted, and I didn’t think I was vague

Don’t worry, i thought as much I just wanted to be sure (not that I mind disagreeing it’s healthy) but I didn’t want to offend you I just wanted to se if you had further thoughts on it

 

[jumble]

Other countries have made a variety of vaccines mandatory - California did so for measles following outbreaks that killed very few by comparison with Covid.

Of course the USA is also quite fond of mandatory injections for some murderers wheras we gave up this barbaric behaviour more than 50 years ago so I am not sure that following the example of a government that kills it's own citizens is always the best idea.

 

[35B]

Of course the USA is also quite fond of mandatory injections for some murderers wheras we gave up this barbaric behaviour more than 50 years ago so I am not sure that following the example of a government that kills it's own citizens is always the best idea.

Of all the strawman arguments! It's also worth note that the mandatory vaccination policies are at a state level, not well correlated with pro-capital punishment policies, and not the federal level.

 

[jumble]

Of all the strawman arguments! It's also worth note that the mandatory vaccination policies are at a state level, not well correlated with pro-capital punishment policies, and not the federal level.

Not at all
Here in the UK we do not believe in executing people. USA does Is this a reason for us to adopt their policies ?
Here in the UK we do not mandate compulsory vaccination. USA does Is this a reason for us to adopt their policies ?

The real point is that it is not particularly relevant in a discussion about if we should mandate vaccinations here in the UK what other countries may or may not do.

 

[yorkie]

Other countries have made a variety of vaccines mandatory...

Is not a reason to do it here, but what's this got to do with media coverage?

In any case, and trying to bring this thread back on topic, current media reporting on this subject is not favourable to your apparent position; indeed the topic of mandatory vaccinations or vaccine passports are some of the few areas of this pandemic where the media have not been terrible at reporting.

Mandatory vaccines for students to attend lectures ‘hugely discriminatory’, universities union says

University and College Union accuses PM of ‘trying to pin blame on students for not yet taking up a vaccine they haven’t been prioritised to receive’

www.independent.co.uk

Proposals for mandatory Covid vaccinations for university students have triggered a sharp backlash, with one union saying they would be “hugely discriminatory”, while Labour branded the idea a “barrier to learning”.

Why don’t governments make covid-19 vaccines mandatory?

Even when vaccines are fully approved, countries will hesitate to force people to get jabbed

www.economist.com

Vaccination mandates for general adult populations are rare, for good reason. The benefits for communities have to be weighed against the rights of individuals to make their own decisions. The World Health Organisation (WHO) says that mandatory vaccination must be “necessary and proportionate” in the achievement of “important public-health goals”.

 

[35B]

Is not a reason to do it here, but what's this got to do with media coverage?

In any case, and trying to bring this thread back on topic, current media reporting on this subject is not favourable to your apparent position; indeed the topic of mandatory vaccinations or vaccine passports are some of the few areas of this pandemic where the media have not been terrible at reporting.

Mandatory vaccines for students to attend lectures ‘hugely discriminatory’, universities union says

University and College Union accuses PM of ‘trying to pin blame on students for not yet taking up a vaccine they haven’t been prioritised to receive’

www.independent.co.uk

Why don’t governments make covid-19 vaccines mandatory?

Even when vaccines are fully approved, countries will hesitate to force people to get jabbed

www.economist.com

Indeed, some have jumped into the media with comments like that. My point was and remains that the argument against mandatory vaccination as automatically illegitimate because an infringement of human rights fails at the first hurdle because constitutional and human rights courts have ruled that mandatory vaccination can be justified - which is precisely the point made in the Economist that you quote. I also note that it the passage you quote continues as follows:

But it is not uncommon for laws to insist that children, certain workers or travellers arriving in a country must be vaccinated. A study by researchers at McGill University found that in 2018, 105 out of 193 countries had at least one mandatory vaccine of this sort. Of those, 62 countries imposed penalties for non-compliance. Australia, for example, links childhood vaccinations to pre-school admission (“no jab, no play”) and family-assistance payments (“no jab, no pay”). All allow exemptions on medical grounds and many also in accordance with religious beliefs.

Whether they are necessary or proportionate in the case of this disease is a question of policy, on which opinions reasonably differ. Which is where the final paragraph of that Economist article is especially pointed:

Even when covid-19 vaccines have been fully authorised, governments will hesitate to make them mandatory. Compulsion risks fuelling “anti-vax” sentiment, undermining other inoculation programmes. Punishing non-compliance usually hits poorer and migrant families hardest. Although opinion varies greatly—a survey in January by Ipsos, a pollster, found that 77% of Mexicans and 68% of Brazilians supported mandatory vaccinations for covid-19, compared with 37% of French people and 39% of Germans—democracies would struggle to force needles into arms. The hope is that enough people will get jabbed to render the question of whether to mandate jabs academic. The fear is that widespread hesitancy will make it ever more pointed.

 

[yorksrob]

Is not a reason to do it here, but what's this got to do with media coverage?

In any case, and trying to bring this thread back on topic, current media reporting on this subject is not favourable to your apparent position; indeed the topic of mandatory vaccinations or vaccine passports are some of the few areas of this pandemic where the media have not been terrible at reporting.

Mandatory vaccines for students to attend lectures ‘hugely discriminatory’, universities union says

University and College Union accuses PM of ‘trying to pin blame on students for not yet taking up a vaccine they haven’t been prioritised to receive’

www.independent.co.uk

Why don’t governments make covid-19 vaccines mandatory?

Even when vaccines are fully approved, countries will hesitate to force people to get jabbed

www.economist.com

I note that the WHO frequently bleats about how we need to curtail our freedoms to prevent the spread of covid.

They seem to want it both ways.