Or should we see 'other' science on the news

[Yolo2]

Mainly watch BBC news. Plenty of footage of nurses crying and constant re-telling of the daily figures. I'm a huge fan of the BBC but disappointed at their Coronavirus coverage. Why are we not seeing any scientific debate or discussion whatsoever? A professor at Oxford University thinks the virus might be firmly established in the population and much more widespread than government scientists believe. A professor at King's College London says the virus has most likely been in UK since January at the earliest and a huge amount of people reported Covid symptoms just after NY. Sweden's own top epedimologist has taken a completely opposing view on lockdown and has criticised the UK's approach. These are all experts in their fields with views which are hugely significant to the shocking and unprecedented situation we have found ourselves in. Before people say 'oh these people are wrong and anyone who leaves their house except to buy bread and rice should be jailed' etc etc.. the media's job is to report on this without bias and present a range of views. The fact that stuff like this is barely reported or debated suggests the media are towing the government line and terrified to do anything which might make people have any independent thought as to whether the lockdown and its continuation are a good idea.

If theyre respected scientists with something concrete behind them, then i agree

Dont want no 5g types on discussing it tho..

No me neither. But these are people at the top of their fields...radio silence on the news.

There was a good column in the Sunday Times by David Goodhart today about how the coverage has had too much emotion and too little science. I think I agree.

There clearly is some reporting of it if you know about it.

Most journalists have studied English not science. They have no idea how to accurately report on anything scientific at all. They don’t know what statistics mean. They are not even literate in basic scientific concepts. It’s better they not try and report in it in my opinion.

The few Covid science things they have reported on they have messed up royally.

YABU if you think the media present unbiased reporting. And BBC's "unbiased" reporting means they give both sides of an argument even if one side is totally bonkers.

YANBU. Far better than everyone on FB suddenly being experts on things they nothing about.

might make people have any independent thought as to whether the lockdown and its continuation are a good idea. well I'm not sure the BBC trying to stir up a debate as to whether we should ignore lockdown is a great idea. Clearly these ideas are out in the public domain, clearly people can make their own choice without draconian repercussions but should the BBC be actively trying to stir the pot?

A fb friend of mine has a, rant about an early press briefing a few weeks ago 'it's all numbers and graphs and blah blah blah'. Sasl an awful lot of people either won't watch, won't understand the nuance or misunderstand and take the conflicting theories piecemeal to construct their own theories which may lead to dangerous practices. If you're genuinely interested and capable then you can find out this stuff but for many people the sad or happy anecdotal stories and one scientific line at a time is more reassuring. Not saying its best, or what I want either. Individual tragedies and triumphs do not impact me. Wider research and strategy does but that's not what gets most people watching breakfast news.

it's because they only want to scaremonger to follow what government are doing.

@KrisAkabusi yes from reading the news, having to dig around. It's not widely known and should be on TV for debate

@PlanDeRaccordement. They aren't experts in anything except presenting facts from others...they don't need to be experts in everything they report. Of course they can get scientists on explaining things!

The ten o’clock news is not really the place for that kind of discussion. There are lots of other media on the BBC and elsewhere with more scope to go into the details and the areas where there may be legitimate differences of opinion. More or Less is pretty good on the numbers. Coronavirus Newscast doesn’t do science every day but has time to get into the details when it does. New Scientist podcast is worth a listen.

also a lot of dissenting scientists won't want to go on the TV now

There's someone from SAGE who is saying that social distancing is based on nothing - brave. Prof Sikara has tweeted about how irresponsible the "daily" figures are.

I think probably most people have given up on MSM for real reporting.

More or Less is pretty good on the numbers.

Given the number of people I’ve seen use the More or Less podcast to back up the ‘the people who are dying would have died anyway’ argument, I’m not sure the public are ready for the science.

I agree. I have been reading many of the scientific reports and dialogues over the last month. I have been rather perplexed by the number of critiques of the two "main" sources we see - Imperial College in the UK and John Hopkins in the USA. Yes, both have recognised expertise. But they are far from the only ones, and there are many many scientists and institutions with equal or greater experience and expertise who have vastly different perspectives to offer. None of them are underplaying the pandemic, but many of these other views seems, frankly, less hysterical and knee jerk. Some of them are those of the CDC, one of the most respected institutions on disease control in the world. Although I suspect I know why Trump isn't favouring them. I saw the look on their faces when he visited to give them the benefit of his vast experience of disease control. None of them should ever play poker...

Most of the science is not yet conclusive. If the media starts presenting all these different views, which are just views at the moment (look at how you have said "think" and "likely" in your OP) some people will take them as fact and adjust their behaviour accordingly. If these scientists then turn out to be wrong, damage will already have been done.

The reason they're not doing that is because people are biased towards doing what's easier for them. So if you have 99 scientists saying we need to continue lock down and you have one (perhaps not even in a relevant field) saying it's fine we don't need to worry people are inclined to believe the person that says they don't need to bother.

Also No one who relies on BBC news (or other news outlet) for their scientific coverage has the ability to make any sensible comment on the scientific data. If they did they would be reading the scientific papers (the imperial paper is fairly straight forward to understand).

The BBC news will report what the current scientific consensus is saying - obviously they won't report every single opposing view because most people don't have a basic grasp of statistics so won't be able to critic it in any rational way.

@Moondust001

I think you're a classic case. Clearly no scientific expertise but you describe the papers as "hysterical and knee jerk" and offer an analysis of which scientist has the most expertise when you're clearly not in the least bit qualified to make any assessment.

I assume absolutely none of you have any expertise to make a discerning critique of the actual science (or you'd be on the peer review panel) so what would be the benefit of hearing it?

Essentially as other people have said it's not for the general public to review the various scientific theories and make a decision about which is the most likely to be accurate. The general public are very very far from capable of doing that. That's why you have scientific advisors and SAGE to review the various models and evidence and make decisions based on all points of view. Having mr joe bloggs who has a degree in Engineering so he thinks he knows a bit about numbers weighing in will be completely pointless.

The BBC have been going this way for a while. It's "news" website is little more than a gossip column now.
The reason the general public are incapable of reviewing scientific theories is because we have dumbed down and infantilised them. Anyone who remembers old programming schedules or has seen newspapers from the 70s and earlier can see a huge difference. Admittedly no individual should be taking this or that one specific academic review and drawing conclusions, but they would be quite capable of understanding that there are competing ideas if we weren't saturated with gossip about media personalities and reality TV crap.

I assume absolutely none of you have any expertise to make a discerning critique of the actual science (or you'd be on the peer review panel) so what would be the benefit of hearing it?

That's up there with the most horrific authoritarian and anti-democratic comments I have heard in recent times. Because we don't want to be led around by the nose by out-of-touch elitist groups who will not take our circumstances into account nor our concerns, but will use us for their own purposes.

@Hanfulofdust@Yolo2
Really? Pray tell how you know that I have no scientific expertise? Because my background, experience and qualifications say otherwise. But I'm sure you are right. Or a troll. Personally I am leaning towards the latter.

I work in a newsroom and we have BBC News on all day. I’ve heard all the things you mention discussed on BBC news, as well as in many other media outlets.

Most of the science is not yet conclusive. If the media starts presenting all these different views, which are just views at the moment (look at how you have said "think" and "likely" in your OP) some people will take them as fact and adjust their behaviour accordingly. If these scientists then turn out to be wrong, damage will already have been done.
That is right. The science can't be conclusive because this is new and we don't know enough about it yet. Neither do the "favoured" few institutions, and if the advice of the scientists we are listening to, to the exclusion of the full range of expert opinions, is wrong, we are already doing the damage.

Not everybody wants to hear the range of scientific opinion. But it is a valid argument that the choice should, as far as possible, be given to people to make for themselves. Not made for them by others. Some people would prefer to have no scientific opinion and can manage perfectly well with their own prejudices and Facebook - as regularly seen on these threads.