Corona virus sanity level

[Andy S]

We have only suffered a few weeks of this. They are now saying it could go on for six months. Should that happen what is your level of sanity likely to be?

Mine would be severe depression

[Grumpy Worthing White]

Six months?. That's all my three trips to Greece up the Swanee and kayak camping trips in Old Blighty up the river without a paddle  :016:

[filham]

I am locked into 12 weeks of isolation with She Who Must Be Obeyed, is there any hope of government sponsored wife swapping at the half way point.

[fulhamben]

We have only suffered a few weeks of this. They are now saying it could go on for six months. Should that happen what is your level of sanity likely to be?

Mine would be severe depression

stuff that, I'll take my chances with herd immunity if it comes to that

[Statto]

The deputy chief medical officer said the lockdown would be reviewed in 3 weeks. She said it would probably take 2-3 months to "see whether we have really squashed [the virus]" and 3-6 months before we go "back to normal". Nothing in that made it sound likely to me that the current lockdown, at least for under 70s, would be in place for anything like 6 months. But of course it's the "6 months" bit that makes the headlines and totally misleads anyone who doesn't read the full interview.

Without wanting to take the thread off on a tangent, IMO the media's coverage of this thing from the start has been frankly disgusting. The BBC have particularly disappointed me, because I expected more responsible reporting from them. Their coverage is generally riddled with mistakes, their reporters have little or no understanding of the issues, and it's all spun in the most negative, sensational way possible. Everyone in the country seems to be pulling together on this, except the media, who are really letting us down.   

[Sgt Fulham]

The deputy chief medical officer said the lockdown would be reviewed in 3 weeks. She said it would probably take 2-3 months to "see whether we have really squashed [the virus]" and 3-6 months before we go "back to normal". Nothing in that made it sound likely to me that the current lockdown, at least for under 70s, would be in place for anything like 6 months. But of course it's the "6 months" bit that makes the headlines and totally misleads anyone who doesn't read the full interview.

Without wanting to take the thread off on a tangent, IMO the media's coverage of this thing from the start has been frankly disgusting. The BBC have particularly disappointed me, because I expected more responsible reporting from them. Their coverage is generally riddled with mistakes, their reporters have little or no understanding of the issues, and it's all spun in the most negative, sensational way possible. Everyone in the country seems to be pulling together on this, except the media, who are really letting us down.   

+1000000

I also saw that headline and panicked until I read further into it. It is the reason i have stopped paying attention to the news. It's not good for your mental health to read about the devastation this virus is causing. In your head you see the faces of your loved ones, both young and old within the death toll. There is never good news and the virus hasnt changed since the reports out of Asia and Italy. The infection rate is still as projected, as is the mortality rate, but now it is happening to us. Appreciate your loved ones and hope you fall on the side of luck - the numbers are in your favour.

The mental side of this is awful. Peoples' lives in doubt, their loved ones, their jobs, their finances, even their hobbies. I dont know how long lockdown can go on for but there will be a breaking point.

[Andy S]

Statto I'm 67 and I for one know that there is no magic age where one thing happens or maybe something else. Herd immunity builds up over many years not months. Don't knock the BBC they are doing a great job with very little. I was wondering what people's sanity would be like after a long confinement. They won't be taking the brakes off anytime soon not after 3 months maybe 6 month

[Holders]

The deputy chief medical officer said the lockdown would be reviewed in 3 weeks. She said it would probably take 2-3 months to "see whether we have really squashed [the virus]" and 3-6 months before we go "back to normal". Nothing in that made it sound likely to me that the current lockdown, at least for under 70s, would be in place for anything like 6 months. But of course it's the "6 months" bit that makes the headlines and totally misleads anyone who doesn't read the full interview.

Without wanting to take the thread off on a tangent, IMO the media's coverage of this thing from the start has been frankly disgusting. The BBC have particularly disappointed me, because I expected more responsible reporting from them. Their coverage is generally riddled with mistakes, their reporters have little or no understanding of the issues, and it's all spun in the most negative, sensational way possible. Everyone in the country seems to be pulling together on this, except the media, who are really letting us down.   

I agree with the first para and largely with the second.

Time will tell whether reporting has been "sensational" but I certainly believe there are issues which have not been adequately aired in the MSM nor properly answered by the government who can not be said to have acted as well as they could and should. 

[Oakeshott]

I think the BBC are doing their best not to be wholly dismal, which is not easy when the virus and its impact is the only major story at the moment. From their website:

"BBC News is sharing stories of how people are helping and looking out for each other"

and there is evidence of that on the website. Also

"BBC Local Radio has launched a campaign called Make A Difference - broadcasting stories highlighting how communities are pulling together."

[ALG01]

Just on the reporting.
The media fixate on headline numbers and of coyrse they are terrible. But actually we seem to be about 15 days behind italy and their measures have, for a while, started slowing the infection rate, and our are now doing the same. The numbers will still be awful for weeks yet, that much is inevitable, but the media should at least indicate that the measures are begining to work...  like in any war it's not over until it's over but at least we can see we are pushing back.

[toshes mate]

I see the faults in several layers. 

A) UK experts and their colleagues elsewhere have very little meaningful and reliable data on their local level, and the information from other places may also be less than useful for comparative purposes as it stands.  Some places in North Italy have had startlingly good outcomes whilst others in North Italy have had startlingly bad outcomes; the reasons are largely unknown.

B) If a lock down had been announced on day one to last 'x' length of time with allowances made for restricted purchase of food and access to essential medicines then everybody would have immediately been in the same place, but that would have required a lot of confidential planning and contingency.  Stretching the time frame of a lock down is never a good idea.

C) The media have habitual form in exaggeration and hype of almost everything because it ensures their market share or better.  They are no longer seeing themselves as responsible citizens; they see themselves as marketeers of anything that'll push their personal ratings up.  Fake news is what the other guys are selling.  Truth walked away from all this a long time ago.

With all that in mind, the 'six month' mention is, in the context of how it was used and responded to, another example of a messenger releasing loose language to a profession that just loves that stuff.  This is a relationship made in hell for those who want serious facts, thoughtful comment, and meaningful discussion.  No wonder people feel anxious, fearful and losing optimism fast.

Nobody on the planet knows how serious SARS-Cov-2 is as compared to previous episodes of its type because the data necessary to make such judgements is missing.  Dr John Ioannidis* is just one of many doctors who explain in very great detail what we don't know about this virus, what we do know about 'flu in general, and why there may be a conflict between what we are being asked to do, and what may be necessary to beat this virus.   Lock down is acceptable provided it is required for an understood and explained limited time (i.e. not a stretching time frame) and is for serious purpose (i.e. to stop the rate of infection) but it also requires the Government to show confidence in being able to say what that time frame is and what it will achieve.  Other than being able to say those things the Government lays itself wide open to accusations that the lock down will cause much more damage than the virus itself could have done. 

Don't Panic - We knew this was coming and all necessary controls, systems and support networks are in place as of now. 

That's how it should have been done.


*one hour plus very detailed interview on YouTube.   

[west kowloon white]

Not sure I can be enthusiastic about the BBC's coverage- distorted propaganda and constant niggling at those doing their best.

[Andy S]

I think that is just having a pop at the news media for no reason. People today expect news from every angle and it is very easy to criticise for no reason. Would we want no news or for COVID- 19 to be ignored? Of course not and we are not going to like what we see/read either

[Holders]

Not sure I can be enthusiastic about the BBC's coverage- distorted propaganda and constant niggling at those doing their best.

Distorted propaganda - yes, also lack of tenacity by them and other media in pursuing the real issues. 

[RaySmith]

My wife's experience with jury service shows the contradictions in what we're told, and  lack of proper information at this time.

Having postponed jury service previously due to being treated for breast cancer, she was summoned again. OK, she'd get it over with.

But then the current  crisis, but jury service was still on she was told, depite a lock down being introduced, in fact,  it could be for a  long, four week trial, and he should fill in a form  if she thought she  filled the criteria for not being selected, and bring it with her on the Monday -  last Monday.
But then she got a text from the local Crown  Court  telling her that there were no  canteen or hot water or facilities at the court,and to make provision for this.

So, last Monday, she was about to  leave for the court - a train she was getting already cancelled - with  thermos and  sandwiches packed, when she got a phone call  'The court is closed indefinitely,  so don't attend.'

[MJG]

Not sure I can be enthusiastic about the BBC's coverage- distorted propaganda and constant niggling at those doing their best.

But what if 'doing there best' is not good enough? There needs to be answers to why some things are not being done/delivered

[Statto]

I think that is just having a pop at the news media for no reason. People today expect news from every angle and it is very easy to criticise for no reason. Would we want no news or for COVID- 19 to be ignored? Of course not and we are not going to like what we see/read either

I'm not asking for no news on coronavirus

But I'd like them to at least proofread updates on the live feed and delete the word "*Ready*" which they keep erroneously leaving in the text when it's published.

And if the deputy chief medical officer says things will return to normal in 3-6 months, I'd like the headline to say "3-6 months", not "Six months before UK returns to normal" as it did yesterday (in fact, it should really say, "Lockdown to be reviewed in 3 weeks")

When infection rates in Italy are falling and the death rate lags a couple of weeks behind, I'd like a headline to say "Infection rates falling, death rate still rising but likely to follow soon" rather than "BREAKING Huge jump in Italy death toll" like they did last week

When Matt Hancock says "we've reached 10,000 tests a day" when actually we're only carrying out 9,000, I'd like the BBC to infer that Hancock meant we've now got the capacity to carry out 10,000 tests, rather than the reporting "Confusion over UK testing numbers" like they have this morning

And so on...

[Holders]

Not sure I can be enthusiastic about the BBC's coverage- distorted propaganda and constant niggling at those doing their best.

But what if 'doing there best' is not good enough? There needs to be answers to why some things are not being done/delivered

Precisely, and others.

[Holders]

I think that is just having a pop at the news media for no reason. People today expect news from every angle and it is very easy to criticise for no reason. Would we want no news or for COVID- 19 to be ignored? Of course not and we are not going to like what we see/read either

I'm not asking for no news on coronavirus

But I'd like them to at least proofread updates on the live feed and delete the word "*Ready*" which they keep erroneously leaving in the text when it's published.

And if the deputy chief medical officer says things will return to normal in 3-6 months, I'd like the headline to say "3-6 months", not "Six months before UK returns to normal" as it did yesterday (in fact, it should really say, "Lockdown to be reviewed in 3 weeks")

When infection rates in Italy are falling and the death rate lags a couple of weeks behind, I'd like a headline to say "Infection rates falling, death rate still rising but likely to follow soon" rather than "BREAKING Huge jump in Italy death toll" like they did last week

When Matt Hancock says "we've reached 10,000 tests a day" when actually we're only carrying out 9,000, I'd like the BBC to infer that Hancock meant we've now got the capacity to carry out 10,000 tests, rather than the reporting "Confusion over UK testing numbers" like they have this morning

And so on...

And "confusion over not joining EU procurement scheme" when there was no confusion at all, just a deliberate decision not to.

[Statto]

And "confusion over not joining EU procurement scheme" when there was no confusion at all, just a deliberate decision not to.

No, I'm talking about the way irrefutable facts are delivered. I'm not going to criticise the BBC for declining to engage in residual Brexit bitterness and allegations. On the contrary, it really is time to move on from all that.