Printable View
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeNQ...ature=youtu.be
Some snippets from a podcast, and I found it relevant to some of my bugbears regarding the daily British press briefings.
Do you think the press / political commentators have done a good job on reporting on the crisis so far?
The public deserve accurate information and honesty about the situation. If we don't get it, the media is right to point out errors. It should also seek to be critical, both of Westminster and the Senedd, where warranted.Quote:
Originally Posted by chris lee
Pity the media hasn't been this proactive over the last few years
You see a questioning of the role of the media in that clip, I see two people using the current crisis to push a political agenda. We're all guilty to different degrees of applying our prejudices and views to any situation. For me, this atrticle;-Quote:
Originally Posted by chris lee
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...r-nose-growing
although a bit over the top in some regards, hits the target far more often than your video clip does - the daily briefings we get are just scripted propaganda to a degree and I would say that, if anything, the media needs to be more "critical" in their questioning than it has been up to now.
2 interesting stories over the past few days which speaks to role media play:
- Matt Hancock says 100,000 tests target met. His initial verbal statement seems to suggest 100,000 tests was the target, the government twitter page suggests 100,000 people was the initial target, the numbers are massaged to include tests posted, the 100,000 tests a day happens once (twice?) before dropping back below that.
How successfully has the media reported that? I bet there are thousands who have heard 100,000 target met and haven't heard anything else.
Steve Baker (Tory MP) tweets that Dominic Cummings' influence has the media amplifying government messages. Does 100,000 matter or are we just talking about this small detail obsessively when should be talking about overall picture which media is not describing well enough to average person?
- Sunday Times headline suggests over-70's will continue to be asked to shield, Matt Hancock tweets that they were never asked to unless having specific health condition. His tweet reads that "the clinically vulnerable, who were asked to stay in lockdown for 12 weeks, emphatically do not include all the over 70's" but even in this tweet correcting a headline has got it wrong: the clinically extremely vulnerably do not include all over 70's (group asked to shield) but the clinically vulnerable (group asked to take greater care when social distancing) do include all over 70's.
Again, how well are the media communicating what's actually going on to ordinary person, but also how well are the government?
To summarise, to be critical of the media for becoming adversarial is wrong just as long as they're doing so to scrutinize and provide clear picture of events, but accuracy needed and highlighted clarifications needed where there information becomes unclear. However, there are those in government who want media to be seen as "gotcha merchants" because media (perception of and flaws in system) can be used to protect politicians - an Irish meme the other day suggesting UK media using good news stories like Colonel Tom to distract from valid criticism of UK actions.
How well are the media doing on reporting on crisis? Not always as well as I would like (some fantastically detailed and researched articles aside) but my reasons are not the same as those thinking it's all too negative or unsupportive. Or so says the unnamed government source.
Correction: to be critical of the media for becoming critical is wrong just as long as they're doing so to scrutinize and provide clear picture of events.Quote:
Originally Posted by surge
However, there are those in government, and in the media, who want media to be seen as "gotcha merchants" because media (perception of and flaws in system) can be used to protect politicians.
The media like the opposition parties have been no where near critical enough. Hopefully Starmer steps up soon as it looks like they are scared of looking like they are trying to get political gain from this.
We are almost certainly going to be the worst hit country in Europe.
The press need to step up and hold this lot to account. It seems only Piers Morgan has the bottle to do this so far.
It is a mixed picture, but generally the media (or at least the media that get invited to the daily press conferences and dominate the print and broadcast world) have been too passive and too unchallenging. There are exceptions - even in the BBC - but not enough.
Seems like the term "gotcha" is becoming the new "fake news" in that you can shout it at someone asking a valid question. We're already seeing it happen here and in the USQuote:
Originally Posted by surge
Aggressive questions asked by snowflakes then, isn't that a contradiction in terms?Quote:
Originally Posted by delmbox
It is but common sense and reality went out of the window a while ago, Trump's moved to goalposts in terms of politician interaction with the press and public, Brexit too but I think things have followed the lead from across the pond. Social media as well, it's a perfect storm.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
Politics has always been a game but at least it felt like there was a semblance of truth and people would be held accountable for their actions. Now you can do what you want as long as you shout loudly to your fanbase, very few people care about the truth anymore, they just care about their sides.
She's stating the bleedin' obvious. If the Govt. hasn't reached it's target on testing, or Care homes aren't getting PPE, whilst there should be questions asked - and answered - I really hope when this is over and the economy is wrecked with 4-5 million long term un-employed , serious questions are asked about the wisdom, ethics, and advice-taken, about the whole approach..Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
The media's job is to hold to account, not merely report what the government say
I'm surprised anyone thinks the BBC and ITV are anywhere near holding the government to account, nevermind the way some of the newspapers are behaving. The frontpages of the Sun and Mail would make a dictatorship blush
2 points, shouldn't privately run care homes that make old folks sell their homes to pay the fees be supplying their own PPE and will they be held to account for failing, just as people want the government (rightly) to be held to account?Quote:
Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish
And the other point is how long are you going to wait before it can be said the 4-5 million you conjecture on can be classed as "long-term"?
Care Homes are outside the NHS, run privately for profit. They should have been sourcing PPE themselves, not waiting the Govt. to supply. Re pt. 2, I think it's going to be years not months. The UK is more dependent on the service, hospitality, retail sectors than most countries. There isn't going to be much left of it unfortunately..Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
- Sunday Times headline suggests over-70's will continue to be asked to shield, Matt Hancock tweets that they were never asked to unless having specific health condition. His tweet reads that "the clinically vulnerable, who were asked to stay in lockdown for 12 weeks, emphatically do not include all the over 70's" but even in this tweet correcting a headline has got it wrong: the clinically extremely vulnerably do not include all over 70's (group asked to shield) but the clinically vulnerable (group asked to take greater care when social distancing) do include all over 70's.
I don't quite get your point here. The 2 groups mentioned are different, and what they were asked to do was different, there is nothing wrong with it.
The extremely vulnerable (people with underlying health concerns) of any age were asked to "shield" for 12 weeks.
The clinically vulnerable (People who might be more suseptible to the virus) which includes old people (anyone over 70), because it is killing them disproportionally) were asked to take greater care when social distancing even if the did not fall into group 1..
The two 'groups' are quite disctinct and quite different.
There is a difference between total isolation sheilding and taking extra care social distancing.
Private Care Homes dont make old folks sell their homes.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
no they just want payment and they don't care how the 'client' gets the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilts
My newsagent, credit card company and local supermarket are exactly the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
we all see the people in the media and who we know personally who tell the tale of having to sell mum and dad's home to pay for their care. So if the care homes are taking the money they should be responsible for the care they are charging for, where ever the money comes from. And that should include adequate PPE.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie
I am not suggesting the Governemt tells them to "Get your own" and let the people die if they don't, but when everything quietens down they should be held accountable just as the government should
Everyone who is outside of any decision making or governance is open to criticism , having read this weekends newspapers I ( I read 4 ) I would say reporting out weighed the criticism .
Maybe we should also examine our own values whereby we farm off our old folk to care homes to the degree that we do.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
There is an agenda emanating from the right that we are not allowed to criticise the Government at times like these. It’s a nonsense. They should be held to account at all times especially with Parliament barely sitting.
Frankly the reporting has been abysmal at times. Last Friday night both the BBC and ITN led with Hancock reaching the 100,000 testing of people when this was not factually correct. Not good enough.
How are we expecting thousands of individual care homes across the UK to procure enough PPE for their staff when our own Govt. (with their connections and finances) are failing to procure enough for the areas that they're responsible for?Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
I think we're all in agreement that private care homes should be funding it themselves, like any other business should be, but I don't think we can expect all of these separate businesses to be able to source their own PPE at this time.
Bad news always sells more.
That's Piers Morgans schtick. Ok, he's now had a covid-19 test despite not showing a single symptom but hey, he's an "essential worker" and has no history of faking things at all...
There is no such thing as "the media". It's not a monolith.
Why Care Homes couldnt get PPE is a question to be asked. Some have already said they have tried for new supplies but cant get them. A Care Home owner in Wales said when she got to check out from her supplier she couldnt purchase as the items are reserved for NHS England.!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
Its a disgrace Care Workers , Nurses , Doctors all falling to this horrible virus.
Why couldn't Care Homes get PPE?
I've no PROFIT reasons why the PROFIT 84% PROFIT privately PROFIT owned care PROFIT homes haven't.
Snippet from Guardian live feed.
"Cases in Germany likely to be 10 times higher than official number, researchers conclude
More than 10 times as many people in Germany have probably been infected with the coronavirus than the number of confirmed cases, researchers from the University of Bonn have concluded from a field trial in one of the worst hit towns.
The preliminary study results, which have yet to be peer reviewed for publication in a scientific journal, serve as a reminder of the dangers of infection by unidentified carriers of the virus, some of whom show no symptoms, the researchers said.
The readings come as Germany took further steps on Monday to ease restrictions, with museums, hairdressers, churches and more car factories reopening under strict conditions.
About 1.8 million people living in Germany must have been infected, more than 10 times the number of about 160,000 confirmed cases so far, the team led by medical researchers Hendrik Streeck and Gunther Hartmann concluded.
“The results can help to further improve the models to calculate how the virus spreads. So far the underlying data has been relatively weak,” Hartmann said in a statement.
The team analysed blood and nasal swabs from a random sample of 919 people living in a town in the municipality of Heinsberg on the Dutch border, which had among the highest death tolls in Germany.
To arrive at their estimate, the researchers put the town’s number of known deaths from Covid-19 relative to the larger estimate of local people with a prior infection – as indicated by antibody blood test readings – and applied the rate of 0.37% to country-wide deaths.
They also found that about one in five of those infected showed no symptoms."
Caveat being that the research had not yet peer reviewed. If true though, shows how dangerous looking at statistics and figures is.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but is the care homes aspect of this discussion a bit too close to home (no pun intended) for you to be unbiased?Quote:
Originally Posted by tell it like it is
For the record, I'm not a fan of them. I actually said to my brother the other day (about seeing care home owners on the news) that I have this opinion that all of them are greedy bastards and have no empathy. This is based on the fact that my mum once worked in a privately run care home and the owners were utter c**ts, who only concentrated on profit margins, not the quality of life for the residents.
That being said... how were they supposed to prepare and stockpile for a pandemic when our own Govt. (who had ample warnings and time to prepare) failed to do so?
Just wondering what your take on that would be.
But some people, including some in the media, are claiming that the UK government should have had a stockpile of PPE just in case of such and emergency. Shirley by the same token private health care providers should also have had such a stockpile? They are paid generous sums to take care of their clients.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heisenberg
At another angle I have no idea, nor have I seen it mentioned, what the shelf life of some of these items of PPE might be. It's a bit like snow ploughs, they are expensive and for long periods sit in a yard unused but when we have a snowfall eveyone is complaining that the authorities don't have enough. Its a difficult balance.
I actually just mentioned this in my last post (while you would have been writing your response)...Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
"how were they supposed to prepare and stockpile for a pandemic when our own Govt. (who had ample warnings and time to prepare) failed to do so?"
I don't know the answer - but I'm guessing it's a completely different ballgame to what the Govt. were playing - this is why I'm suggesting that we can't compare the two when it comes to having PPE. I'm not saying that I'm right, it's just how I see it.
D.R.P.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
I'd not say it's about stockpiling for a pandemic, it's about not having the equipment due to cost per se. From what I've seen, I don't believe care home workers have the correct equipment at normal times, especially when flu kicks in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heisenberg
The UK Government didnt have sufficient stockpiles of PPE. They were warned supplies were low.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
Were Care Homes advised to get stockpiles because of a pandemic.? I dont know.
But because of the shortage some Care Homes now cant get PPE from their usual suppliers.
I understand that they cannot get what they need and government has a duty to protect the inhabitants but the question is will they be held accountable and be billed for the PPE later? Shops and companies who have to bring in screens and PPE to continue to function are having to bear the cost from their profits. Shouldn't care home companies be made to do the same?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilts
From what I understand they are paying for it. Also paying VAT as well. Although they can claim this back.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
What is that supposed to mean? Fugging textspeak. I hate it!Quote:
Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish
So do I !Quote:
Originally Posted by xsnaggle
Disaster Recovery Plan. Most businesses have them in place, such as what happens if our factory burns down. Without one there's panic, meeting after meeting, can't find this, haven't got that, who do we contact for this and that etc.,. Normally the Directors have one at home on file - all customers backed up, all contacts re plant, machinery, insurance, where to go to find temporary accommodation - it can save a business from ruin, and means they can be up and running in days. The Govt. will have one in the event of a nuclear strike and you would have thought also such things as a pandemic, especially after SARS etc. If they did have one it would have told them where the existing PPE was located incl. it's "shelf life". [ if say 5yrs, then they should replenish every 5yrs], how much there is, where it can be obtained, including all those businesses who can produce extra, at what speed and quantity, the contacts in those businesses [who would obviously be in agreement with the arrangements], and so on. I don't know about the technical requirements of the testing kits, but I would think they're mostly generic. If that's the case, then there's no excuse for not being able to put the resource of those contacts who are able, to produce enough kits within a week or so. It seems that it's all been done on the hoof, with little or no readiness..
That's the spirit! It's a relief to hear you sounding so upbeat. I was getting worried about you. After all, just a fortnight ago you were predicting that the only people working by the end of this year would be those in the public sector and there wouldn't be any money available to pay them. I'm glad your outlook is becoming a bit more positive.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish
Public sector work? *whistles*Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
Everyone is wise after the fact, we're still dealing with mass uncertainty about covid-19. Scientific views change seemingly every day - an kids transmit or not? Are German figures accurate? So on, so on...
I doubt any government has handled it perfectly or could.
What's needed now is to balance the risks to remove the lockdown as efficiently as possible.