BBC back to scaremongering again

[Orangeblossom7777]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54648684

And they seemed to have got so much more rational lately. Nick Triggle in particular. This James Gallagher however is something else.

Just looking at this one today. I found out from research in fact this is mainly the case in the few, severe cases (but made out to seem like this is how it is for the majority of people)

About ten percent of the severe hospitalised cases have the blood clotting issue, around 5% have embolisms (meantime I have a relative without covid, but COPD who also has an embolism. It happens in some cases.)

Also, studies have shown lung damage does recover with covid. It's not as negative as this article makes out.

Surely the BBC should not be as scaremongery and cherry picking?

Sorry, don’t see any scaremongering in that article.

Like to explain why not?

It is defined as "the spreading of frightening or ominous reports or rumours"

not scaremongering, just explaining science to people, nothing to see here, move on

I agree with you, OP.

They seem to have missed "for a small percentage of people" off the headline.

They are reporting findings from:
Prof Paul Lehner from the University of Cambridge.
Prof Tracy Hussell from the University of Manchester.
Prof Mauro Giacca, from King's College London.
Prof Sir Stephen O'Rahilly, from the University of Cambridge.
You can either read what they have to say, or the likes of Richard Littlejohn in the daily mail.

They’re hardly scaremongering. We hit 26000 cases and almost 250 deaths a couple of days ago and it wasn’t covered on their front page.

It could be called scaremongering, but I think it's more to do with concentrating on the serious aspects, in order to get people to comply more readily with restrictions.

The language used is awful. Screaming with virus, hit and run killer, doesn't care if it kills you. I started reading it earlier and closed it again

Well, it IS a virus, Sorry.

They don't have feelings, you know.

I think the point is that the (unconscious) aim of the virus is to propagate itself. So people are tangential and indeed would be expendable, from its point of view (if it had a point of view, which it doesn't really.)

It does also kill people, and we all know that.

I think they are trying to explain these ideas to people who aren't themselves scientists. Maybe a bit too anthropomorphic, but not scaremongering.

We'll see a lot more deaths before the end of the year, unfortunately, and that really is being realistic, not scaremongering.

I guess its terms and phrases, such as running rampant, deadly, hit and run killer in bold type etc,...you need to read the entire piece to realise that something like "hit and run killer" is an analogy to how the virus behaves in order to keep replicating in new hosts. Not that it leaves the scene having killed its host. Yes, it seems to have sensationalised the really quite mediocre facts about how viruses behave.

I'm not certain what the target audience is for this piece either. It would appeal to those of us wanting to understand the medical science, and we are maybe more critical and analytical, and not prone to bias or scare tactics, or less susceptible in general. I can imagine that people who are more prone to being scared, more susceptible to bias, or ideology in general tend more towards reading narrative story pieces involving people. So on balance its not going to have the impact you imagine.

I think the point is that the (unconscious) aim of the virus is to propagate itself. So people are tangential and indeed would be expendable, from its point of view (if it had a point of view, which it doesn't really.)

Absolutely.

@Jrobhatch29

The language used is awful. Screaming with virus, hit and run killer, doesn't care if it kills you. I started reading it earlier and closed it again

Yep weird article.

Either do science or don’t. The writer sounds like he’s getting bored and spicing it up. Not my kind of writing.

@herecomesthsun

Well, it IS a virus, Sorry.

They don't have feelings, you know.

I think the point is that the (unconscious) aim of the virus is to propagate itself. So people are tangential and indeed would be expendable, from its point of view (if it had a point of view, which it doesn't really.)

It does also kill people, and we all know that.

I think they are trying to explain these ideas to people who aren't themselves scientists. Maybe a bit too anthropomorphic, but not scaremongering.

We'll see a lot more deaths before the end of the year, unfortunately, and that really is being realistic, not scaremongering.

Happy to read facts. Not happy to read facts delivered by hyperbole

Scaremongering -aka saying anything other than CV is just like a cold with mild symptoms.

“ Also, studies have shown lung damage does recover with covid. It's not as negative as this article makes out.”

Can you reference these please? @Orangeblossom7777

@MiniTheMinx

I guess its terms and phrases, such as running rampant, deadly, hit and run killer in bold type etc,...you need to read the entire piece to realise that something like "hit and run killer" is an analogy to how the virus behaves in order to keep replicating in new hosts. Not that it leaves the scene having killed its host. Yes, it seems to have sensationalised the really quite mediocre facts about how viruses behave.

I'm not certain what the target audience is for this piece either. It would appeal to those of us wanting to understand the medical science, and we are maybe more critical and analytical, and not prone to bias or scare tactics, or less susceptible in general. I can imagine that people who are more prone to being scared, more susceptible to bias, or ideology in general tend more towards reading narrative story pieces involving people. So on balance its not going to have the impact you imagine.

^This

I think the governments Long Covid ad was scaremongering in comparison.

@Ifailed

They are reporting findings from: Prof Paul Lehner from the University of Cambridge. Prof Tracy Hussell from the University of Manchester. Prof Mauro Giacca, from King's College London. Prof Sir Stephen O'Rahilly, from the University of Cambridge. You can either read what they have to say, or the likes of Richard Littlejohn in the daily mail.

Littlejohn is a prize bell-end, I will grant you that. But he said something back in March which has held true through all this: give people power and they will use it - always. Look no further than the leaders in Scotland and Wales for evidence of this.

I thought the same thing this morning when I read it - definitely not proportionate or balanced. But that seems to be the job of much of the media these days - to "take sides" rather than create balance. Which is why I tend to go to the sources and check the science myself. But not everyone can do that. Just as politics has become more "populist" - it doesn't matter what the truth is, as long as it sounds like it's true and resonates with "real people" - so has the media become less about facts and more about a good story.

*“ Also, studies have shown lung damage does recover with covid. It's not as negative as this article makes out.”

Can you reference these please? @Orangeblossom7777*

This is about the small percentage of people who are severe in hospital remember-

www.healthline.com/health-news/heart-and-lung-damage-from-covid19-can-improve-over-time#The-research-explained

I have noticed the reporting changes in tone with degree of lockdown!- it has been much more proportional and balanced, recently so it is a shame to see that kind of emotive thing again..

That's interesting. It looks as though Covid patients have more long term effects than were expected at first (there were all the initial comparisons with flu) but that it was then found these don't necessarily persist and there is hope of recovery.

There may be a bit more in the observations about the nature of changes in the lungs that has been lost here (possibly they are characteristic of covid but don't always appear and resolve more completely than was first thought.

I am very aware when reading articles about covid that the information changes depending on whether the article was written in March or in October, as covid was so very new in March and we know so much more now.

Also, we are still waiting for more longitudinal data as people are observed to recover.

You're quite right that the BBC article is a lot less nuanced than it could be. You could certainly argue that the quality of the popular scientific writing here should be a bit more qualified.

My impression though was that it wasn't a deliberate attempt to mislead, as scaremongering would imply.

But they need to be able to use language in an interesting way without losing accuracy.

[quote Orangeblossom7777]*“ Also, studies have shown lung damage does recover with covid. It's not as negative as this article makes out.”

Can you reference these please? *@Orangeblossom7777**

This is about the small percentage of people who are severe in hospital remember-

www.healthline.com/health-news/heart-and-lung-damage-from-covid19-can-improve-over-time#The-research-explained[/quote]
Thanks. That looks promising, although it’s only results from 86 patients.

I think it’s a bit of an unknown still. BMJ last month “ To summarise, persistent respiratory complications following covid-19 may cause substantial population morbidity, and optimal management remains unclear.”

www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3001

Actually August!