Re: Coronavirus
 

Actually it doesn't make any direct difference to the virus whether you die. Covid deaths occur after the virus has gone from your body, and even if it didn't you'd probably be in ICU where it wouldn't have much chance to spread.. Transmission occurs much earlier, while you are still out and about.

However, if it reported that it is less deadly, people will be less cautious, which does help the virus. Isn't evolution brilliant?

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1640250623

Or to put it another way, small percentage of big number = worse than big percentage of small number

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think the 'big reveal' will tell us anything more than we already know from various other sources . . . . it'll probably give the news channels a lot more graphs to show us every 15 minutes though, along with experts dragged off the street to explain them to us thickos :rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

And the deaths graph stubbornly refuses to nudge upwards even a little bit. I notice the BBC decided not to include it in their daily figures report at all yesterday and eventually removed a whole paragraph from their initial report so as to make it less clear that deaths are not rising even as infections do.

According to the Internet Wayback Machine, at around 5pm the report said this:

Yet by around half past 7 that line had gone entirely.

https://web.archive.org/web/*/https:...ws/uk-59758757

I really hate sounding like a conspiracy nut so let me be as charitable as I possibly can be and suggest that the BBC no longer considers itself to be an impartial news-gathering service when it comes to covid, and is instead committed to full integration with the government’s messaging strategy. It is more interested in helping secure desired behaviours from the population than simply doing what it is chartered to do.

Folks may or may not think that’s a good thing … discuss …

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nothing to discuss as far as I'm concerned, you seem to have it quite accurately covered.

I'm in mind of that old adage . . "you can fool some of the people . . . etc etc"

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's a tough one for the BBC. They (like other Public Service Broadcasting channels) have a statutory duty to inform the public in an unbiased way. However, a balance has to be struck as to whether the news they broadcast is in the public interest.

One thing that has become clear is that peoples attitude to risk with COVID is shaky at best (not here of course, we're all geniuses here) People tend to see things as 100% risky or 0% risky and not much in between. Reporting the risk of Omicron has to be done very carefully as people might interpret a lower risk as zero risk and the whole COVID thing is over now.

It does look very much like people have taken the risk of Omicron seriously and have adjusted their behaviours accordingly for better or for worse if you are in the hospitality business for example. Towns are comparatively empty right now. This of course is following the Government take on people deciding for themselves how they react. Without opening a lockdown can of worms here, it could be argued that this public led 'lockdown' is having an effect in slowing the growth rate in cases. If this is the case, then people relaxing now will have the opposite effect and the rate will go up again.

I don't know if there's pressure on the Public Service Broadcasters from the Government on how to report issues around COVID but there is a duty to not report in way that could be interpreted by the reader/listener/viewer as a licence to undertake harmful behaviours.

In short, it's tough for organisations to report in a way that is both informative but also positive to the public good. Sometimes, they get it wrong, sometimes they get it right. In the BBC case, my feeling is that it could be interpreted by the layman that there is no link between the rise in cases and deaths. At present, the link isn't there but it's still early days due to the lag between the two - we need to see the whole disease cycle from infection, through hospitalisation to either deaths or going home.. That report didn't show that clearly.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m not - I don’t grant anyone three wishes…

Re: Coronavirus
 

A state broadcaster that dances to the tune of the government is a dangerous thing.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes.

I take Jon’s point about the BBC’s particular responsibility as the state broadcaster not to cause people to behave dangerously however I don’t accept it can be right for them to do this by suddenly withholding information they have previously routinely reported as it has been released. It gives the impression that the information is somehow unavailable (and yes I know it’s available elsewhere, but the point is, they have previously released the information straight away… So they create the impression that the information is now not available, and people perhaps will not go and look for it elsewhere).

If they can fulfil their obligations, whether statutory or moral, by rigourous reporting and analysis, then all well and good. But when they start doing it (or rather attempting to do it) by withholding information… For me, they have crossed a line.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Information should be given in the proper perspective. Eg if Omicron leads to X% less severe cases, then still leaves the remainder. Also as Omicron spreads a lot more easily, that increase the actual number of cases, severe or otherwise. Then there is the issue of a potential successor to Omicron, which might be more benign or might be more severe and dodge all vaccines. Omicron has a large number of differences compared to Delta, so anything is possible.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Or they could use the 'statistics' to see where the biggest rises in infections are, and then put those places in lock down and leave the rest of us alone

Merry Christmas London, Manchester, Birmingham etc etc :p:

Re: Coronavirus
 

That didn't work last year when they put London in tier 4 and everyone just ended up on the trains going all over the country instead.



Local lockdowns really only make sense if they are actual lockdowns and people need a reasonable excuse to leave the area, and that such is patrolled.



Realistically they would probably have to seal off the whole of London and prevent anyone going in and out if they wanted to do that, save for essential deliveries, people going to and from work who couldn't work from home, and allowing people to re-enter the area to go home if they arrived after it was locked down. That this is difficult to do here, is presumably why it won't be.



Starting to think the figures of Omicron published by UKHSA are either severely lagged or just a massive underestimate, surely now in the areas where it's dominant there is now minimal or no Delta, if the evidence Omicron is less severe is true, this is presumably good news.