Media Coverage of COVID -19

[adc82140]

Sounds like an episode of 'History Today' from Newman and Baddiel, for those who remember it?

That's you, that is.

 

[DustyBin]

I have just watched the Beeb trot out a professor who was quite happy to spread the bad news that antibodies don't always remain in our systems after a infection, but strangely left out how this might effect a vaccine but also left out any discussion about T-cells. Its sad to see well educated people peddling pop-science on live television.

I’m not an immunologist, however my understanding is that antibodies do fade over time as it’s not good to have them circulating around the body needlessly. The key thing is to have T-cell memory so that antibodies can be reproduced if needed (which they may not be) in the event of a future infection. To me this looks like another scare story.

 

[yorkie]

I’m not an immunologist, however my understanding is that antibodies do fade over time as it’s not good to have them circulating around the body needlessly. The key thing is to have T-cell memory so that antibodies can be reproduced if needed (which they may not be) in the event of a future infection. To me this looks like another scare story.

Yes that's what I've read from true experts.

It is indeed a scare story which has been deliberately designed to encourage the general public to be more scared than they should be, and to support lockdowns. Shame on those people!

 

[MattA7]

Yes that's what I've read from true experts.

It is indeed a scare story which has been deliberately designed to encourage the general public to be more scared than they should be, and to support lockdowns. Shame on those people!

isn’t the BBC part of the government (or at least heavily funded and supported by them) hence it would make sense that they want to publish misleading articles to scare the public into complying with the governments oppressive restrictions.

they wouldn’t suggest returning to normality because they know that the government doesn’t want such a thing.

 

[yorkie]

I was previously supportive of the BBC but their appalling coverage of Sars-Cov-2 means I'm losing a lot of respect for the organisation.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I was previously supportive of the BBC but their appalling coverage of Sars-Cov-2 means I'm losing a lot of respect for the organisation.

They are losing my licence fee

 

[adc82140]

I’m not an immunologist, however my understanding is that antibodies do fade over time as it’s not good to have them circulating around the body needlessly. The key thing is to have T-cell memory so that antibodies can be reproduced if needed (which they may not be) in the event of a future infection. To me this looks like another scare story.

Not quite. B cells are the ones that carry the memory and can create specific antibodies. They are assisted in creating the antibodies by CD4+ T cells. CD 8+ T cells are non specific direct attackers of viruses, and don't carry their own "memory" as such.

Both B cells and T cells are nigh on I possible to routinely detect. This is why the antibody test was ruled as pretty useless back in May/June.

If it was possible to get reinfected that easily, why are the hospitals not jam packed with second infections?

 

[kez19]

I was previously supportive of the BBC but their appalling coverage of Sars-Cov-2 means I'm losing a lot of respect for the organisation.

I am far from supportive of any organisation but I am the same, they even do this on the World Service but have noticed it has toned down a bit (as mentioned in one of my posts in a thread).

I just find it that in general the whole UK media is getting a kick out of this - its focus is mostly negative and rare we get a positive story, its just as bad for me in terms of BBC Scotland and STV they just hold onto First Ministers words as if its gospel (you could say this in terms of UK media too)

 

[radamfi]

I don't know what MSM is

Mainstream media - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mainstream media (MSM) is a term and abbreviation used to refer collectively to the various large mass news media that influence many people, and both reflect and shape prevailing currents of thought. The term is used to contrast with alternative media which may contain content with more dissenting thought at variance with the prevailing views of mainstream sources.

The term is often used for large news conglomerates, including newspapers and broadcast media, that underwent successive mergers in many countries. The concentration of media ownership has raised concerns of a homogenization of viewpoints presented to news consumers. Consequently, the term mainstream media has been widely used in conversation and the blogosphere, sometimes in oppositional, pejorative or dismissive senses, in discussion of the mass media and media bias.

Anyone who refers to MSM or Mainstream media is typically a conspiracy theorist, or at least doesn't believe what news organisations say. Bizarrely they are more likely to believe unregulated media such as the Daily Mail rather than strictly regulated TV news.

 

[Yew]

She's now had to apologise and say that she will be keeping to the rule of 6. Obviously the boss has had a word...

Also the MSM are all pedalling a story today saying that antibodies fade quickly (a study from our old friends at Imperial, of course!) and that is a blow to herd immunity. Yet there's no mention of other body defences (eg t cells) and of course how they expect vaccines to work if this is the case...

Project fear is trying to get back on the rails it seems.

Edit: an example from Sky https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...tibodies-fall-rapidly-after-recovery-12115510 (sorry BBC wouldn't let me copy from their app on my phone)



We should also note this is not peer reviewed.

I really struggle to understand how so many scientists fail to comprehend the idea that it's an immune response, we don't continuously produce antibodies for anything else, so why would we for COVID.

 

[kez19]

Mainstream media - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anyone who refers to MSM or Mainstream media is typically a conspiracy theorist, or at least doesn't believe what news organisations say. Bizarrely they are more likely to believe unregulated media such as the Daily Mail rather than strictly regulated TV news.

Maybe throwing a spanner here but what would describe RT (Russia Today)? I use to watch that channel as an alternative to BBC but couple years ago they seemed more heavy handed towards the UK government but when it came to things happening in Scotland they gave the Scottish Government more of a light hearted approach (hence why I gave up watching RT), if a media organisation (no matter who runs where) they should be given the same treatment no matter or is there more chance money has been thrown at them to tow the line of certain parties? (now that I would believe)

 

[big_rig]

I am far from supportive of any organisation but I am the same, they even do this on the World Service but have noticed it has toned down a bit (as mentioned in one of my posts in a thread).

I just find it that in general the whole UK media is getting a kick out of this - its focus is mostly negative and rare we get a positive story, its just as bad for me in terms of BBC Scotland and STV they just hold onto First Ministers words as if its gospel (you could say this in terms of UK media too)

I agree they seem to be getting a kick out of - perhaps because being a journalist during this is probably a pretty easy gig, to be honest. Every single hour of every day there is a new piece of 'news' to report on - cases and deaths in every country on earth each of which can be a story or live blog update, endless stories about expert X predicts outcome Y (don't bother following up on these later on, mind), expert Z calls for activity A to be banned (and the follow-up when the call is denied/agreed), etc etc..

 

[kristiang85]

It seems there were lots of protests last night across Italy against new lockdown measures (some quite significant ones, even with a molotov cocktail or two from the videos I've seen posted). Scanning the various news sites I don't see any mention of this apart from one halfway down the Guardian's page in their live feed.

Protesters turned out by the hundreds in Turin, Milan and other Italian cities and towns Monday to vent their anger, sometimes violently, at the latest pandemic restrictions that force restaurants and cafes to close early and shutter cinemas, gyms and other leisure venues, AP reports.

In the northern city of Turin, some demonstrators broke off from a peaceful protest, smashing store windows on an elegant shopping street, setting smoke bombs and hurling bottles at police in a main city square where the Piedmont regional government is headquartered, RAI state TV said.

A photographer was injured by a hurled bottle, RAI said. Police fired tear gas to clear the protesters in Piazza del Castello.

In that same square, hours earlier, some 300 taxis peacefully lined up in neat rows to draw attention to their economic losses from the implosion of tourism and disappearance of workers from the city center as they do their jobs remotely during the pandemic.

Triggering the violence in Turin were a group of “ultras,” as violent soccer fans are known, the LaPresse news agency said. It said five of the protesters were detained by authorities.

In Italy’s business capital, Milan, police used tear gas to scatter protesters Monday night, and an Associated Press journalist saw at least two people detained.

 

[kez19]

I agree they seem to be getting a kick out of - perhaps because being a journalist during this is probably a pretty easy gig, to be honest. Every single hour of every day there is a new piece of 'news' to report on - cases and deaths in every country on earth each of which can be a story or live blog update, endless stories about expert X predicts outcome Y (don't bother following up on these later on, mind), expert Z calls for activity A to be banned (and the follow-up when the call is denied/agreed), etc etc..

Now this may sound a bit over dramatic in a sense but shouldn't OFCOM be having "kind" words with the media in general? They were quick in terms of sanctioning RT over reporting (again not defending RT here) but shouldn't they be telling these networks to wind their necks in regardless ie BBC/Sky/Channel4/STV etc, I thought channels/networks were meant to be impartial regardless of reporting but it seems they can get away with it! Again up in Scotland, BBC/STV are basically give Sturgeon a free reign and hardly give her "tough" questions but yet it seems no one battens an eye lid regardless. I understand people jump over the moon regarding the BBC but it just seems to me no matter what the media are basically .. oh whats that slogan "all in this together" #allinthistogether (does give that saying a whole new meaning if you want to look at the media's own approach on this).

 

[radamfi]

Maybe throwing a spanner here but what would describe RT (Russia Today)? I use to watch that channel as an alternative to BBC but couple years ago they seemed more heavy handed towards the UK government but when it came to things happening in Scotland they gave the Scottish Government more of a light hearted approach (hence why I gave up watching RT), if a media organisation (no matter who runs where) they should be given the same treatment no matter or is there more chance money has been thrown at them to tow the line of certain parties? (now that I would believe)

Even RT have to comply with broadcasting rules. They breached the regulations and got fined for it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Oct 2020 ==

Now this may sound a bit over dramatic in a sense but shouldn't OFCOM be having "kind" words with the media in general? They were quick in terms of sanctioning RT over reporting (again not defending RT here) but shouldn't they be telling these networks to wind their necks in regardless ie BBC/Sky/Channel4/STV etc, I thought channels/networks were meant to be impartial regardless of reporting but it seems they can get away with it! Again up in Scotland, BBC/STV are basically give Sturgeon a free reign and hardly give her "tough" questions but yet it seems no one battens an eye lid regardless. I understand people jump over the moon regarding the BBC but it just seems to me no matter what the media are basically .. oh whats that slogan "all in this together" #allinthistogether (does give that saying a whole new meaning if you want to look at the media's own approach on this).

Why don't you report your findings to Ofcom, and see if they think broadcasting rules have been broken?

 

[brad465]

There was of course an inquiry done into Media behaviour, which should also have seen a second phase to it that was later canned. This of course happened, along with phase 1 recommendations not being implemented, because Cameron was too scared of Murdoch.

Want to know why the media are behaving like this? Ask him and his party why they've done nothing about it.

 

[kristiang85]

Now this may sound a bit over dramatic in a sense but shouldn't OFCOM be having "kind" words with the media in general? They were quick in terms of sanctioning RT over reporting (again not defending RT here) but shouldn't they be telling these networks to wind their necks in regardless ie BBC/Sky/Channel4/STV etc, I thought channels/networks were meant to be impartial regardless of reporting but it seems they can get away with it! Again up in Scotland, BBC/STV are basically give Sturgeon a free reign and hardly give her "tough" questions but yet it seems no one battens an eye lid regardless. I understand people jump over the moon regarding the BBC but it just seems to me no matter what the media are basically .. oh whats that slogan "all in this together" #allinthistogether (does give that saying a whole new meaning if you want to look at the media's own approach on this).

I posted a few pages back in this thread exactly why OFCOM seem to allow this - it is actually their own regulations! That's why print media can be a bit more varied with their views, but basically the broadcast media don't have as much leeway and mostly have to tow the government line.

This is broadly true. But OFCOM do have standards on 'misinformation', which is basically defined as anything against the government narrative on COVID, which can be construed as restricting the freedom of the press. In this report I've linked here, they give some examples of what they deem as misinformation: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/ass...week-twenty-five-misinformation-deep-dive.pdf

- Face masks/coverings offer no protection
- No. of deaths is much lower in reality
- Potential dangers of a Coronavirus vaccine
- No. of cases is much lower in reality
- Theories linking Coronavirus to 5G technology
- Schoolchildren can be tested without parents' permission

Now, the first four of those are very legitimate challenges to the government narrative, but it seems if broadcasters go down the route of discussing these, they will likely get a rap on the knuckles. Certainly it explains why talking heads on BBC going down these routes get quickly shut up, and thus it's the smaller news orgs who tend to air the alternative views. Thus the debate is less open to the general viewing public.

These are the OFCOM regulations:

However, we expect broadcasters to be alert to the potential for significant harm to audiences related to the coronavirus, which could include:
- health claims related to the virus which may be harmful;
- medical advice which may be harmful; and,
- accuracy or material misleadingness in programmes in relation to the virus or public policy regarding it.

The final point basically forbids discussion of the items above.

 

[kez19]

Even RT have to comply with broadcasting rules. They breached the regulations and got fined for it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Oct 2020 ==



Why don't you report your findings to Ofcom, and see if they think broadcasting rules have been broken?

Regarding OFCOM what would be the point? The last time I remember STV getting into bother all they got was a slapped wrist! Seems more like if you have an organisation such as OFCOM shouldn't they be the ones looking at the channels output than relying on viewers?

I don't need to report my "findings" let alone I don't keep a note on these things, its when it has been broadcast in real time it just seems its more of no holds barred approach (that again you would expect OFCOM to pick up on but it just seems to ignore)

Regarding RT, I understand that but shouldn't it be if one broadcaster breaks the rules then others should do too?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Oct 2020 ==

I posted a few pages back in this thread exactly why OFCOM seem to allow this - it is actually their own regulations! That's why print media can be a bit more varied with their views, but basically the broadcast media don't have as much leeway and mostly have to tow the government line.

So in other words we can't be as open as we would like to be as it would cause issues? Yet no wonder people will go looking on the internet and find sources regardless.

Sounds more like bribery than being open/honest with the viewers (no wonder trust is going in terms of politicians/media)

 

[radamfi]

Regarding OFCOM what would be the point? The last time I remember STV getting into bother all they got was a slapped wrist! Seems more like if you have an organisation such as OFCOM shouldn't they be the ones looking at the channels output than relying on viewers?

If you don't believe Ofcom will enforce its own broadcasting rules then nothing will satisfy you.

 

[DustyBin]

Not quite. B cells are the ones that carry the memory and can create specific antibodies. They are assisted in creating the antibodies by CD4+ T cells. CD 8+ T cells are non specific direct attackers of viruses, and don't carry their own "memory" as such.

Both B cells and T cells are nigh on I possible to routinely detect. This is why the antibody test was ruled as pretty useless back in May/June.

If it was possible to get reinfected that easily, why are the hospitals not jam packed with second infections?

Thanks, that looks like a better explanantion. I think we agree on the salient point though!

 

[kez19]

If you don't believe Ofcom will enforce its own broadcasting rules then nothing will satisfy you.

Why would I be satisfied? Surely the broadcasters themselves that should know what rules/regulations it should be following not down to the viewer scouring the internet to find out wrongdoings that is their own responsibilty and they should know that! Again this goes back to the whole BBC and license fee, people are happy to give that up, BBC loses funding but if its a commercial broadcaster nothing happens.

 

[radamfi]

Why would I be satisfied? Surely the broadcasters themselves that should know what rules/regulations it should be following not down to the viewer scouring the internet to find out wrongdoings that is their own responsibilty and they should know that! Again this goes back to the whole BBC and license fee, people are happy to give that up, BBC loses funding but if its a commercial broadcaster nothing happens.

Chances are the BBC is compliant or at least intend to be. They are human and they may slip up from time to time. If you remember they beat themselves up severely over the David Kelly fiasco. If you have a concrete example of a non-compliant broadcast then report it. Otherwise you just sound like someone who complains about the mainstream media.

 

[Richard Scott]

Chances are the BBC is compliant or at least intend to be. They are human and they may slip up from time to time. If you remember they beat themselves up severely over the David Kelly fiasco. If you have a concrete example of a non-compliant broadcast then report it. Otherwise you just sound like someone who complains about the mainstream media.

Some recent BBC broadcasts have certainly allowed people to express their views on restrictions being over the top so at least there has been some balance recently even if not as much as some of us would like but at least it's there.

 

[MikeWM]

Regarding RT, I understand that but shouldn't it be if one broadcaster breaks the rules then others should do too?

On a related note, I do find it interesting that Twitter feels the need to point out that RT is 'Russia state-affiliated media' on every tweet that it does, but eg. the BBC doesn't have a similar tag.

 

[radamfi]

On a related note, I do find it interesting that Twitter feels the need to point out that RT is 'Russia state-affiliated media' on every tweet that it does, but eg. the BBC doesn't have a similar tag.

Maybe because the BBC isn't state affiliated?

 

[wireforever]

Media coverage of red wall tory revolt when you read the articles in detail the letter to the Govt has the names of all the MP'S but 14 have chosen to have their names redacted from the letter how spineless of them even if they have the whip withdrawn they can still sit in the house as a independent MP. I don't think any of them will resign as a MP and force a by election

 

[adc82140]

The BBC have an over inflated sense of self importance. They believe that everyone will hang on their every word. The constant harping on about how they are Covid safe throughout Strictly is cringe worthy. Do they really believe that people will write in if they see two dancers together and it hasn't been explained to them five times that they are a bubble? Pre Covid is was the same with poppy wearing in November. They are of the opinion that if someone isn't wearing a poppy that there will be letters sent.

 

[MikeWM]

Maybe because the BBC isn't state affiliated?

The definition Twitter is using appears to be

where a government “exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution.”

If you don't think the BBC falls into the first categories there then I respectfully disagree. Certainly since the Hutton Inquiry.

 

[Bantamzen]

One of the most disappointing things about the BBC during the period has been its lack of really critical probing of politicians and their policies. For an organisation that was once renowned for pushing back on politicians they have been terribly lame, acting as little more than a mouthpiece for the government.

 

[kristiang85]

On the immunity topic, this is a much more balanced explanation than the one being thrown around this morning on the media (this one was published in September): https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563

I won't paste the whole thing, but this is a very relevant part near the end:

T cell studies have received scant media attention, in contrast to research on antibodies, which seem to dominate the news (probably, says Buggert, because antibodies are easier, faster, and cheaper to study than T cells). Two recent studies reported that naturally acquired antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 begin to wane after just 2-3 months, fuelling speculation in the lay press about repeat infections.282930

But T cell studies allow for a substantially different, more optimistic, interpretation. In the Singapore study, for example, SARS-CoV-1 reactive T cells were found in SARS patients 17 years after infection. “Our findings also raise the possibility that long lasting T cells generated after infection with related viruses may be able to protect against, or modify the pathology caused by, infection with SARS-CoV-2,”8 the investigators wrote.

T cell studies may also help shed light on other mysteries of covid-19, such as why children have been surprisingly spared the brunt of the pandemic, why it affects people differently, and the high rate of asymptomatic infections in children and young adults.

The immunologists I spoke to agreed that T cells could be a key factor that explains why places like New York, London, and Stockholm seem to have experienced a wave of infections and no subsequent resurgence. This would be because protective levels of immunity, not measurable through serology alone but instead the result of a combination of pre-existing and newly formed immune responses, could now exist in the population, preventing an epidemic rise in new infections.

But they were all quick to note that this is speculation. Formally, the clinical implications of the pre-existing T cell reactivity remain an open question. “People say you don’t have proof, and they’re right,” says Buggert, adding that the historical blood donor specimens in his study were all anonymised, precluding longitudinal follow-up.

There is the notion that perhaps T cell responses are detrimental and predispose to more severe disease. “I don’t see that as a likely possibility,” Sette said, while emphasising that we still need to acknowledge the possibility. “It’s also possible that this absolutely makes no difference. The cross reactivity is too small or weak to affect the virus. The other outcome is that this does make a difference, that it makes you respond better.”

Weiskopf added, “Right now, I think everything is a possibility; we just don’t know. The reason we’re optimistic is we have seen with other viruses where [the T cell response] actually helps you.” One example is swine flu, where research has shown that people with pre-existing reactive T cells had clinically milder disease