Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

[Swinglowandslow]

I’ve been trying to really limit my access to the news now, such are the misleading and inaccurate articles. A classic example today has made my mind up for me - from here on I’m not limiting my access to the news, I’m knocking it altogether.

This morning, the good old BBC reported that a third of people admitted to hospital with coronavirus are dying. Whichever way you look at it those odds are horrifying.

Horrifying, but not the true picture. Having now seen the full quote, a third of those admitted are, indeed, dying - but it’s a third of those admitted FOR MORE THAN 14 DAYS. Not the same thing at all, and of course those in hospital for that length of time are likely to be extremely ill.

By quoting the findings out of context, whether deliberate or not, the BBC have done nothing but add to the already widespread fear. It’s careless journalism at best, downright irresponsible at worst. Either way it simply isn’t acceptable.

I’m sure I’ve said it before, but part of the inevitable public inquiry which will come must focus on the behaviour of our press and media, which has been largely reprehensible.

This is sooo right! I am sure that most people are now sick and tired of the "gotcha" journalists and their reprehensible tactics. It's as if they have never been taught to be objective or responsible. The least they could do is realise that we have move to a situation far removed from the "Westminster game bubble". It seems to be the only journalism they know.
Yesterday, the same TV channel as referred to above, was awaiting the Daily briefing and the newscaster had passed on to the political commentator who was giving her spiel, when suddenly she was stopped in her tracks with the studio breaking in to announce breaking news that they had just received the figures for the deaths in the last whatever it was.
Jeez, they couldn't wait! Bloody sickening it was. I am still seething, thinking about it.

 

[drdel]

I’ve been trying to really limit my access to the news now, such are the misleading and inaccurate articles. A classic example today has made my mind up for me - from here on I’m not limiting my access to the news, I’m knocking it altogether.

This morning, the good old BBC reported that a third of people admitted to hospital with coronavirus are dying. Whichever way you look at it those odds are horrifying.

Horrifying, but not the true picture. Having now seen the full quote, a third of those admitted are, indeed, dying - but it’s a third of those admitted FOR MORE THAN 14 DAYS. Not the same thing at all, and of course those in hospital for that length of time are likely to be extremely ill.

By quoting the findings out of context, whether deliberate or not, the BBC have done nothing but add to the already widespread fear. It’s careless journalism at best, downright irresponsible at worst. Either way it simply isn’t acceptable.

I’m sure I’ve said it before, but part of the inevitable public inquiry which will come must focus on the behaviour of our press and media, which has been largely reprehensible.

The BBC Panorama used 5 doctors to rubbish the Government all had Labour association. Hardly balanced views.

 

[Deleted member 18645]

The radio show I work for in Florida has become a paid-up supporter of anything Trump says. My regular co-host is spouting so much rubbish that I have taken a short leave of absence from working for them under the pretence of other work taking priority. No way could I be on air and he is ranting on about re-opening everything, the pandemic is nowhere near as bad as everyone says, Florida is OK etc etc. I was talking yesterday with a work colleague in Milan and most people there are terrified to go out and all know friends who have suffered and died from it.

 

[backwoodsman]

I’ve been trying to really limit my access to the news now, such are the misleading and inaccurate articles. A classic example today has made my mind up for me - from here on I’m not limiting my access to the news, I’m knocking it altogether.

This morning, the good old BBC reported that a third of people admitted to hospital with coronavirus are dying. Whichever way you look at it those odds are horrifying.

Horrifying, but not the true picture. Having now seen the full quote, a third of those admitted are, indeed, dying - but it’s a third of those admitted FOR MORE THAN 14 DAYS. Not the same thing at all, and of course those in hospital for that length of time are likely to be extremely ill.

By quoting the findings out of context, whether deliberate or not, the BBC have done nothing but add to the already widespread fear. It’s careless journalism at best, downright irresponsible at worst. Either way it simply isn’t acceptable.

I’m sure I’ve said it before, but part of the inevitable public inquiry which will come must focus on the behaviour of our press and media, which has been largely reprehensible.

Can I ask whereabouts you saw the the full thing which gave the "more than 14 days" bit. (A link perhaps?) I've seen pieces quoting the general theme but none that gave that clarification. Nb: am not doubting, just interested to see it.

 

[bluewolf]

The BBC Panorama used 5 doctors to rubbish the Government all had Labour association. Hardly balanced views.

But we’re they wrong?

I didn’t watch the program as I was working so I don’t fully know what was stated, but it’s become a societal norm to attack the messengers without referencing the message. Is what they were saying false? If it was then I’d expect further action.

 

[bluewolf]

Can I ask whereabouts you saw the the full thing which gave the "more than 14 days" bit. (A link perhaps?) I've seen pieces quoting the general theme but none that gave that clarification. Nb: am not doubting, just interested to see it.

I’m fairly certain that Sky we’re reporting the same thing this morning. No mention of 14 days. Just a figure of 33% mentioned (I think. I only caught it fleetingly as I was making the kids breakfast).

 

[drdel]

But we’re they wrong?

I didn’t watch the program as I was working so I don’t fully know what was stated, but it’s become a societal norm to attack the messengers without referencing the message. Is what they were saying false? If it was then I’d expect further action.

Their allegiance was not cited which contravenes the BBC guidelines. Surely the fact that ALL the medics were political activists from the left was a bit questionable?

 

[bluewolf]

Their allegiance was not cited which contravenes the BBC guidelines. Surely the fact that ALL the medics were political activists from the left was a bit questionable?

Maybe, but we’re they wrong?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

But we’re they wrong?

I didn’t watch the program as I was working so I don’t fully know what was stated, but it’s become a societal norm to attack the messengers without referencing the message. Is what they were saying false? If it was then I’d expect further action.

Here’s the BBC response mate.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/panorama-mon-27-apr

funnily enough no rebutal about the facts from the Government, just highlighting their political allegiances.
I guess not all NHS Staff are heroes!

 

[bluewolf]

Here’s the BBC response mate.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/panorama-mon-27-apr

funnily enough no rebutal about the facts from the Government, just highlighting their political allegiances.
I guess not all NHS Staff are heroes!

Seems a measured response. However, it’s easy enough to attack the response as it’s been put out by the BBC who are now the whipping boys for both sides of the political spectrum.

 

[pendodave]

The BBC Panorama used 5 doctors to rubbish the Government all had Labour association. Hardly balanced views.

Here’s the BBC response mate.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/panorama-mon-27-apr

funnily enough no rebutal about the facts from the Government, just highlighting their political allegiances.
I guess not all NHS Staff are heroes!

I'm imagining that even this government realised that it is not a hill to die on....

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Seems a measured response. However, it’s easy enough to attack the response as it’s been put out by the BBC who are now the whipping boys for both sides of the political spectrum.

Weird though isn’t it, programme highlights the issue with PPE, fake news etc.
Daily Mail spends a miliion on PPE, big congrats from the tories.

 

[Hacker Khan]

The radio show I work for in Florida has become a paid-up supporter of anything Trump says. My regular co-host is spouting so much rubbish that I have taken a short leave of absence from working for them under the pretence of other work taking priority. No way could I be on air and he is ranting on about re-opening everything, the pandemic is nowhere near as bad as everyone says, Florida is OK etc etc. I was talking yesterday with a work colleague in Milan and most people there are terrified to go out and all know friends who have suffered and died from it.

Who knew? Tell me more, sounds interesting.

 

[bluewolf]

Weird though isn’t it, programme highlights the issue with PPE, fake news etc.
Daily Mail spends a miliion on PPE, big congrats from the tories.

It’s unfortunate. Political allegiances are getting in the way of being more effective. As soon as any criticism is forthcoming then it’s viewed as politically motivated and is dismissed out of hand. The discussion is being hindered.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

It’s unfortunate. Political allegiances are getting in the way of being more effective. As soon as any criticism is forthcoming then it’s viewed as politically motivated and is dismissed out of hand. The discussion is being hindered.

Agreed, it was interesting and during the programme the Government did respond, I certainly didn’t get the impression during the programme it was politically motivated, but I also didn’t feel the Government weren’t trying their best and had responded to issues when they became aware of them.

The “outing” of the NHS Staff afterwards was initially done by guido fawkes and picked up by the msm.

Edit: Becareful discussing politics here, we’ll have the thread police on our back.

 

[Deleted member 18645]

Who knew? Tell me more, sounds interesting.

I have done a slot for years on a sports station in Tampa called "Across the pond". Talk about the Bucs from an NFL perspective but often digress into other sports where they want a European perspective. Soccer, golf, tennis, Olympics, anything really. Same as when 5Live want something from the States, it sounds more authentic coming from an American voice.

 

[Billysboots]

Can I ask whereabouts you saw the the full thing which gave the "more than 14 days" bit. (A link perhaps?) I've seen pieces quoting the general theme but none that gave that clarification. Nb: am not doubting, just interested to see it.

It was a quote attributed to Prof Calum Semple, who is leading/working on the study.

Interestingly, it was quoted on the Sky News app, which this morning has produced a further article which is confusing and contradictory - now there’s a thing

Whilst they now refer to 33% of coronavirus hospital admissions dying, there is still clear reference later in the article to 33% of those admitted for 14 days or more passing away.

Frankly, I’ve given up trying to work out who’s telling the truth.

 

[Hobbit]

Here’s the BBC response mate.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/statements/panorama-mon-27-apr

funnily enough no rebutal about the facts from the Government, just highlighting their political allegiances.
I guess not all NHS Staff are heroes!

The statement by the Beeb makes for some difficult reading, especially the 4 new revelations. However, the (whole)truth does have a different slant.

As example, NERVTAG minutes do show that a move away from eye glasses to visors is recommended. But it then goes on to say that the change will happen as the eye glasses are used up rather than dumping the eye glasses and buying in visors.

Similarly, the minutes show that gowns should become the PPE in aerosol generated cross infection but also acknowledges that there is a supply of aprons already in stock.

I'm not going to break the minutes down line by line, cross referencing them with the Beeb statement. Quite frankly I can't be 'arrised. BUT I will say, just using the eye glasses 'v' visors example, is that the Beeb have been a little disingenuous in selectively picking bits of minutes without adding in that the NERVTAG minutes say that the change will come about by use, not straight replacement.

I would just love someone in authority to ask the Beeb about the selective use of bits of the minutes. We know there are issues around PPE but lets see them sorted out honestly, and not by the very poor selective journalism seen above.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

The statement by the Beeb makes for some difficult reading, especially the 4 new revelations. However, the (whole)truth does have a different slant.

As example, NERVTAG minutes do show that a move away from eye glasses to visors is recommended. But it then goes on to say that the change will happen as the eye glasses are used up rather than dumping the eye glasses and buying in visors.

Similarly, the minutes show that gowns should become the PPE in aerosol generated cross infection but also acknowledges that there is a supply of aprons already in stock.

I'm not going to break the minutes down line by line, cross referencing them with the Beeb statement. Quite frankly I can't be 'arrised. BUT I will say, just using the eye glasses 'v' visors example, is that the Beeb have been a little disingenuous in selectively picking bits of minutes without adding in that the NERVTAG minutes say that the change will come about by use, not straight replacement.

I would just love someone in authority to ask the Beeb about the selective use of bits of the minutes. We know there are issues around PPE but lets see them sorted out honestly, and not by the very poor selective journalism seen above.

It’s nothing new though Bri, all parties claim the BBC is against them.

As I put above, watching the programme I didn’t feel it was politically motivated or made the Government look bad, it simply raised questions and I would rather the press pull the programme to bits using facts than the “let’s find the political persuasion of those interviewed” to discredit the programme.

 

[Golfmmad]

Taking Mrs Hogie to hospital tomorrow for a scan of a problem she has spotted - it might be OK - it might not. My wife knows too much. It is her clinical specialism. We have told our son of the scan. We will tell our daughter this evening.

Tomorrow, because of Covid-19, I will have to sit in our car in the car park as I won't be able to go into the hospital with my wife...so won't be with her when the consultant tells her what the scan shows. Hopefully all will be OK.

I missed this yesterday, hope all goes well for your wife today.