UK VIII: Testing Times

[Asura]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60407234

Rees-Mogg comes out with a load of crap, but what bothers me if the BBC's headline.

Like this is casually, verifiably false. Even if you think the effects have been neutral or positive, there has been an effect.

If a politician says "the grass is blue", the headline shouldn't be "x says the grass is blue", its "x appears visibly confused in public".

[MartyG]

That would then be editorial, not news. The BBC is reporting the news of what he said. That is what he said. The headline does not say, "Rees-Mogg rightly states there little evidence Brexit hit trade" as that that too would be editorial.

There's even a link in that article to another earlier article



My biggest beef with the BBC's website is that it's not sectioned very well, so trying to find stuff that's more than a week old can be tiresome. There is, however, an entire section of the website dedicated to fact checking: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/reality_check

[Asura]

The headline does not say, "Rees-Mogg rightly states there little evidence Brexit hit trade" as that that too would be editorial.

I'm pretty sure if he'd said "2+2=5" the headline would not have been "Rees-Mogg says 2+2=5" - or, on the off-chance it was, the article would've had a very different tone. That's effectively what's happened here. He's saying black is white, heads is tails, a car is a battleship.

And Rees-Mogg has said it because he knows there are millions of people out there who, in this metaphor, genuinely believe 2+2=5 and will love him for saying it.

I guess as the national broadcaster they believe it's their job to report this kind of stuff. But I just don't think such an obvious lie is newsworthy, other than to point out how ridiculous it is.

[MartyG]

As the BBC reports in the article itself as positioned by the Office for Budget Responsibility.

[Asura]

Had time to think it over and you're right, [MENTION=42]MartyG[/MENTION], about the editorial thing.

It just annoys me when clear bad actors like Rees-Mogg can say things like this, to the adulation of people who mind-shreddingly agree with it, in matters that aren't opinion but rather simple fact.

Then again Clegg is like, I dunno, grand admiral at Meta now. I genuinely feel like the bloke on the street corner who thinks it's everyone else who is crazy.

[MartyG]

I'm not sure it's likely to persuade anyone in either direction - if you're able to see thru the pretense then so is anyone else who wants to.

The problem with politics is it's rarely about facts, more how those facts are presented, for ill or good.

[Neon Ignition]

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=overview&areaName=United%20Kingdom

UK daily cases are starting to circle being around 60% down from where they were

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/testing?areaType=overview&areaName=United%20Kingdom

UK testing is starting to circle being around 40-50% down from where it was too meaning cases are down but 'end of the pandemic' talk is very intentionally misleading.

[Asura]

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/deta...ited%20Kingdom
UK daily cases are starting to circle being around 60% down from where they were

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/testing?areaType=overview&areaName=United%20Kingdom

UK testing is starting to circle being around 40-50% down from where it was too meaning cases are down but 'end of the pandemic' talk is very intentionally misleading.

A potential "high watermark" for this, if such a thing exists - is that in the UK, in prior years before COVID, around 30,000 people died annually of respiratory illnesses (flu, pneumonia mainly). That's rounding up a little bit, e.g. it was 29k in 2019. That means that we're not at anything resembling pre-COVID "normal" until the monthly death rate is ~2,500, or scratchy maths, ~600 deaths per week.

We're still at over 1,000 deaths per week, so we're well over the usual average.

Just to say - this isn't saying that "everything's okay once we're under 600", I just mean that if someone's saying "things are back to normal", until they're <600, that's verifiably false.

[Dogg Thang]

I wonder if the 30k or so deaths are still happening outside of covid? I can't imagine they are to that extent because covid probably gets at-risk people first so I would expect that number to be greatly reduced.

[Asura]

I wonder if the 30k or so deaths are still happening outside of covid? I can't imagine they are to that extent because covid probably gets at-risk people first so I would expect that number to be greatly reduced.

Almost certainly, I mean people don't stop catching flu just because COVID exists (though I do recall hearing that deaths for many causes - like, for example, car accidents - did drop during the pandemic, so I guess it's a complex picture).

But this is just "deaths from respiratory illnesses" of which there are many, but prior to 2020, the deaths from flu and pneumonia were the vast majority of the cases (mainly thanks to immunisation; I mean hardly anyone gets whooping cough these days).

So one day, like in 2030, this number will probably include people who die of pneumonia, flu and COVID.

I guess the point here is that prior to the pandemic, 600 people nationally died per week of this overall category of illness, but we kinda just lived with that. So if we get down to that number, regardless of what proportion is COVID, flu or pneumonia, we're effectively back to a statistical normal.

[Dogg Thang]

So if we get down to that number, regardless of what proportion is COVID, flu or pneumonia, we're effectively back to a statistical normal.

Yep. Yeah, my question was more if people started to look at that figure on top of the normal respiratory illness, as in covid matching those rather than being folded in with that number. As you say, the proportion doesn't hugely matter if it's all one number. Not to say it's fine that people are dying, just as you say it's back to what we considered normal.

[MartyG]

Flu cases have been lower this and last year: https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ron-data-shows

The take up of the vaccine has been higher (in my area they were offering a shot of the flu vaccine at the same time as the booster to everyone) and the social measures have reduced things too (as you'd expect given it works for more than just Covid). So the numbers are lower because of that.

[Asura]

Flu cases have been lower this and last year: https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ron-data-shows

The take up of the vaccine has been higher (in my area they were offering a shot of the flu vaccine at the same time as the booster to everyone) and the social measures have reduced things too (as you'd expect given it works for more than just Covid). So the numbers are lower because of that.

This whole thing makes me think of something.

I really hope they keep the hand sanitiser stations at supermarkets and big shops.

They won't, obviously; I mean many times in recent weeks I've gone to shops and they're there, but empty, which was never the case during the height of the pandemic. But I really wish they would.

[Neon Ignition]

Yep, I already see the stations being slid further and further into the corner. I imagine they'll soon go as a cost cutting measure.

[MartyG]

I kept hand sanitiser in my backback long before the Covid stuff happened to use when I was out - mostly if I was popping in to a cafe to eat a lovely elevenses morning snack and latte. Will be doing so long after this pandemic is over.