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?

Is he usually a science writer?

I'm unsure of his background, but he does seem to specialise in this kind of dramatic writing style about covid. In particular during times of lockdown.

The other one mentioned, Nick Triggle, seems a bit better in terms of balance and tone.

Interesting. There has been a complaint by the ME association about him and the BBC

meassociation.org.uk/2016/11/formal-complaint-from-the-countess-of-mar-to-bbc-director-general-about-coverage-of-the-fitnet-story-13-november-2016/

"This is brought to your personal attention because it is such a serious matter.

The BBC is required to be accurate and impartial, but James Gallagher (the BBC News website Health and Science reporter who was responsible for the item that made the BBC headlines from 5.30am on 1st November 2016) was neither accurate nor impartial."

(goes on to mention serious problems) then

"It is disquieting that James Gallagher is in fact a member of the SMC’s Advisory Panel (www.sciencemediacentre.org/about-us/governance/), so he had an undeclared conflict of interest.

He was clearly promoting the SMC’s agenda and his story was nothing more than an unwarranted advertising campaign for Professor Esther Crawley’s FITNET study of behavioural interventions in children and adolescents with ME/CFS."

Quite concerning really.

"The item was described thus: “the BBC and their scientifically illiterate journalists imaginatively and dishonestly....."

yeah, the Covid piece is definitely creative. So I'm assuming its his writing style. Well, the link describes him as a BBC science writer. If they are happy for him to make overblown claims or try to engender fear then we have to ask why that is. The BBC are not impartial anymore. So I assume the government can not use the rate of mortality (by that i mean the percentage of people who die from covid) to create consent for stricter restrictions ahead of the curve in death rates (number of actual deaths) so we have to be appraised of other risks. But then,.......long covid and long term complications are being studied. So I go back to the way in which the virus is described as having a different character in its behaviour. Along with the picture on the header it could be seen as quite dark and threatening. Its unfortunate that any facts we should read and take seriously are lost to us because the writing style is too creative and narrative. I'm still not certain it hits its mark if it meant to create fear. You might be right that fear was the intended outcome though.

The thing which makes me angry, is that it is basically written to provoke fear. I don't want to think of a young student reading it, being worried and away from home, or a person living alone with anxiety, with no-one to share worries with.

When it is actually a small proportion of people who get that ill.

And we pay for it with the licence fee. Expect it to be a certain standard

James Gallagher has been a disgrace throughout the whole pandemic. How he has the gall to call himself a science correspondent or whatever, I really don't know....he consistently cherry picks the 'science' to suit his narrative, and fails to provide anything in the way of a balanced argument at all. It's not science when you ignore half the evidence. His articles are all in this style, and rarely reflect anything approaching balanced and rational discussion or comment.

It seems to be now they have worked out the young people are more aware they are not so much at risk of dying, they are trying to frighten them with 'long covid' instead.

So do you have a problem with how the article was written - any implicit bias - or its content? You come from a place of bias yourself, so unavoidably the article will challenge you.

I completely agree OP. It's normal BBC toeing the gov line fare.

And I also agree, Nick Triggle is a lone voice and has very balanced articles.