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?

@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.

This sums it up.

Very experienced and knowledgeable people are saying serious things, it isn't scaremongering to report it.

Too many wallies people believe Trump's line about it being 'no worse than flu'. They are ignorant.

It seems to me factual, not scaremongering. It's also a useful counter to all the idiots who claim covid is a harmless flu variant.

Also, the one I referenced was about cases in the first wave before the new treatments and less ventilation etc. Things seem t be improved now in general, amongst the very ill.

I think the main things that annoyed me where not making it clear this is in the small amount of severe cases, and also not being balanced. With good reparative it should be less emotive and more factual.

I must admit I didnt get much further than the title "Why is coronavirus so deadly?" I'm guessing maths isnt the author's strong point. Surely no one can argue that an 0.05% fatality rate is "so deadly".

How on earth will these journalists cope when a virus comes along that actually IS really deadly?! Do you think they'll invent new words to describe it!?

It looks deadlier if you are higher risk.

It is much more of a concern than flu, which causes a lot of problems for the NHS in a bad year.

Hmm, found the reporter on Twitter.

Heading "Like a “hit and run” killer and a “master of deception” that our bodies are not prepared for"

Noted the comments in particular the first one...

twitter.com/JamesTGallagher/status/1319591069428944898?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

It looks deadlier if you are higher risk.

And less deadly, conversely, if you are lower risk. That's the joy of averages.

About ten percent of the severe hospitalised cases have the blood clotting issue, around 5% have embolisms

wrong information.

www.hriuk.org/health/your-health/lifestyle/people-with-coronavirus-are-at-risk-of-blood-clots-and-strokes

"recent data from the Netherlands and France suggest that of the patients with coronavirus who are admitted to intensive care units (ICU), 30-70% develop blood clots in the deep veins of the legs, or in the lungs.

Around one in four coronavirus patients admitted to ICU will develop a pulmonary embolism."

www.heart.org/en/news/2020/09/03/what-covid-19-is-doing-to-the-heart-even-after-recovery

"A growing number of studies suggest many COVID-19 survivors experience some type of heart damage, even if they didn't have underlying heart disease and weren't sick enough to be hospitalized."

"Sorry but I find this a disappointingly unbalanced piece. No mention of recovery rates, median age of deaths, role of comorbidities, age as a key determinate for outcomes, mild and asymptomatic cases - and the comparison with smallpox (c.1in 3 fatality rate) is ridiculous."

"It's incredibly lazy journalism .... Anybody who can read numbers and interpret ratios would never make the comparison to smallpox. I am stunned that the BBC would allow this article to be released without the detail you have outlined in your tweet."

"A ridiculously scaremongering article..... What has happened to impartiality, accuracy and balance?"

"A misleading headline which will provoke fear rather than analysis, understanding and discussion. Pure clickbait."

But of course, not on MN...

[quote Orangeblossom7777]Hmm, found the reporter on Twitter.

Heading "Like a “hit and run” killer and a “master of deception” that our bodies are not prepared for"

Noted the comments in particular the first one...

twitter.com/JamesTGallagher/status/1319591069428944898?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet[/quote]
Those comments certainly are interesting. Honestly that article just made me roll my eyes and close it. I read alot about covid but can't be arsed with dramatics like that

I agree op.

The media are under influence of the government and want to scare people so that they can justify their restrictions.

The lung damage from COVID has been shown to be reversible for example.

I agree with you too OP. I read it this morning and felt scared/unsettled afterwards...

That info about embolisms mentions patients taken to ICU, however in the OP I was talking about patients in hospital. There is a difference. Only a proportion are in ICU.

So yes, it may be higher as a percentage in ICU patients, that makes sense. Doesn't make what I was saying 'wrong' though.

Ss an aside, elderly people do get pulmonary embolisms, sadly, my own relative has one without covid, they are a risk in the elderly. He has sarcoidosis which is an autoimmune lung disease.

(that was in response to 2bazookas above)

It is not scaremongering to me. It does only state things that we knew before. The only new one to me if the thickening of the blood that some patients present. I had not read about that before.

Interesting the unquestioning nature of some posters. It's been mentioned on here before about the BBC and their reporting

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/3924110-bbc-media-bias

I think with any reporting these days it’s better to go to the scientific source.

There’s a bit of a media vacuum as we’re stuck in corona virus news, so they ham it up a lot of the time.

I couldn’t read it due to the language so cant comment on facts. But the style is very off putting.

Yes of course its clickbait. Isn't it all, tis the Internet innit. Yes I believe the author has chosen to write on a topic having cobbled together a few quotes from different sources, sensationalised the facts to hang it all together and make for engaging reading.

If the author lacks qualifications or any medical scientific knowledge they are probably apt to sift through evidence and seize upon research that backs their own bias or hypothesis, to choose to populate their piece with quotes that back up this position. These pieces seldom present competing, nuanced, contradicting or inconclusive findings. It seems to me that journalists are trained to write in the same way students are taught to write undergraduate essays. Its lazy. But then lots of people don't want to read research and this is the equivalent of BBC bitesize for adults I suppose.

I think its worrying that already the available research points to the need for longitudinal studies because its likely that Covid leaves people with quite serious morbidity. Worrying because this virus, the err 'hit and run virus' modus operandi
in terms of transmission and asymptomatic or long latent phase means its likely moving through populations much quicker. We have very narrow testing criteria, which has fed into the idea that without these symptoms its just a cold. We don't know yet if mild cases or even asymptomatic cases might be left with some long term damage. It might only have a mortality rate 00.3% but the long term economic and public health costs could be huge.

Its obvious though that this piece is ideologically driven to create a new narrative around Covid to stoke up some fear, because cold hard data on death rates cannot be employed when deaths are still pretty low.

The piece is full of quite clever writing devices that paint the virus as clever, cunning and sneaky, it takes on an almost comical guise of being a vampire or something similar. The writer has given this non sentient biological phenomena an almost human character, or attributes to make it more tangible or accessible for people.

Is he usually a science writer?

Nothing new. Newspaper front pages were proclaiming Swine flu would kill 65,000 back in 2009.

It sells, or in the modern era generates clicks.

Its interesting so many people have said the writing style is off putting.

I sort of agree. The writing style doesn't appeal to people who want to read about the latest research. The writing style may appeal to people who like a more creative and narrative form of writing, but then those people often prefer to gain understanding from a more subjective, or pragmatic writing style with examples of individual peoples experiences.

so who was this aimed at? I'm struggling to see how this will actually work to stoke up fear. If that was its aim I think its failed.

yanbu It's irresponsible, callous and flippant journalism, certainly not objective and impartial.

Why is coronavirus so deadly?

Master of deception

(cells are) "screaming with virus" and this is just one of the "joker cards" the virus can play.

Coronavirus can be running rampant in our lungs and airways and yet our immune system thinks everything is a-ok.

It behaves like a 'hit and run' killer

So the virus is like a dangerous driver fleeing the scene - the virus has moved on to the next victim long before we either recover or die.

And we're fatter than we should be

Covid is worse if you are obese, as a generous waistline increases the risk of needing intensive care, or death.

Maybe 'James' would be better off at the Mirror?

Scaremongering. Very irresponsible.

I really don't think the BBC are scaremongering generally at all.

I think that years ago there was a style of investigative reporting that was quite challenging. There would quite often be programmes like Panorama that would take the lid off scandals of various sorts.

However, a lot of aspects of government seem to pass unchallenged.

For example

• Dominic Cummings and his various escapades / Durham/ no planning or council tax/ unelected supremo

• all the contracts for PPE that have gone to unsuitable cronies who haven't delivered

• the late decision to lock down in March and consequent excess deaths, surprisingly little on the BBC criticising that

• the August schools results fiasco

• children are back to schools with very little mitigations to protect them from covid, in crowded classrooms. Oh look this coincides with a rise in cases, especially in the UK, where we have relatively large class sizes and not many mitigations compared with other Europeam countries.

• the " oven ready" Brexit deal. Enough said.

• the process going through Parliament about these "illegal" modifications to Brexit that even Conservative politicians think break international law

I could go on longer. There is very little criticism in the media, including the BBC. In fact, the BBC has been threatened in various ways, regarding funding or having a patsy put in charge like Osborne/ Dacre, or so on.

So no. Not scaremongering, An old lion sadly muzzled by pipsqueaks,

Appallingly written article.

People seem to use the phrase scaremongering when they are presented with information which makes them feel uncomfortable