The way the media (namely the BBC) have shaped thoughts over the last year

[pinkunicornwithacatonitsback]

I work in comms and I find it utterly fascinating to see how the media have carefully used their terminology and focus to shape people's thoughts over the past year.

A clear case in point being the BBC - they are clearly terrified of criticising the government in case they lose the licence fee. For months, I've noted that when they report the daily figures on a Monday/Tuesday, they ALWAYS without daily include a disclaimer to state that low numbers are due to a weekend reporting lag. Yet, in contrast as the week progresses and numbers invariably shoot up, there's never a disclaimer to state that it's catching up on this reporting lag...

Similarly today, they've reported about the impact of lateral flow tests over the past 4 weeks.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56750460

The headline says 82% of LTF are confirmed with a PCR proving that they work correctly. It goes onto state: "There had been concerns that many would have to self-isolate needlessly.

But this data suggests these fears may be unfounded"

It then goes onto talk about the specific numbers of tests conducted and says: "18% - came back negative, suggesting the individual concerned and their household had been self-isolating for no reason. Under the current rules, a negative re-test would mean their quarantine period would be considered over immediately."

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but to me, to have almost 20% of tests false positives (aka almost a 5th) seems actually quite high and significantly concerning. Surely we can't have a society where you're forced to isolate (even if just for a day or two) based on a test with only an 82% accuracy?

But by positioning the article as "these tests are our way out" because it's the official government position seems concerning.

The one thing I've noticed heavily about the BBC over the past year is how they've lost their perceived neutrality. They are every bit as scaremongery and OTT as the tabloids.

Pretty much every tabloid and mainstream news channel has been the same.
It truly has been disgusting to see, how they purposely present information to scare people.

Headline..ASTRAZENCA NOT EFFECTIVE AGAINST ASYMPTOMATIC COVID
Reaction: Public thinking the vaccine is ineffective against Covid, worry, anxiety.

If the headline read ASTRA ZENCA EFFECTIVE AGAINST SERIOUS ILLNEES AND DEATH, YOU'LL JUST GET THE FLU"
Reaction: public would be relieved the vaccine is working against serious illness and death and have faith in the vaccines.

They have been doing this all year and are complicit in the mounting mental health and suicides.

I agree. I've noticed they are now scared to say anything negative about the government. It's been taken over by a tory guy now hasn't it? Tim Davy. So much of the media is right wing biased now.

Just googled and Tim Davy is a tory donor.

Yep 100%.

The government is now the biggest customer in terms of advertising in newspapers. Clearly papers need that advertising revenue.

There's also the bloody Ofcom pandemic guidelines that need to be ditched now as far as I'm concerned.

And don't even get me started on Big Tech.

Whereas the guardian are happy to hold the government to account

So change your media

@frozendaisy

Whereas the guardian are happy to hold the government to account

So change your media

I generally try to read a mix of newspapers so that I can get different opinions - there's nothing worse than living in an echo chamber.

But I'm genuinely shocked that the BBC are outright saying that an 82% positivity rate of LTF shows that they do not lead people to isolate unnecessarily. This to me, shows that they cannot be relied upon as an entrance barrier to certain things such as pub/cinema/theatre etc

the guardian are happy to hold the government to account

Indeed they are, but it's not the Guardian blasting out the government's own narrative through broadcast media, on the hour every hour

Unfortunately, as long as we have the licence fee, the BBC will remain the current government's mouthpiece; it really is as simple as that, despite pretence around impartiality

It's been many a year since I've seen someone say a good word about the guardian... And on Mumsnet of all places!

I recently read an interesting book BBC: Brainwashing Britain by David Sedgwick.

It's a real eye opener, you'll likely never trust the BBC again after reading it.

Whereas the guardian are happy to hold the government to account

That's actually untrue. The Guardian is so aligned with the government messaging around covid that they are just the same as any other media outlet. Labour is the same. Lefties are traditionally the side of protection for your own good mentality/nanny state etc they can't hold Tories to account. Goes too much against the grain.

You don't isolate based on a lateral flow test you follow it up with a PCR so I really don't get your point?

I don't suppose silencing and media bias during the covid years will ever be fully dissected for my satisfaction. On the Ofcom pandemic guidelines there is a list of complaints and Ofcom judgements. I clicked on This Morning (where Eamonn Holmes 'challenges' the mainstream narrative).

We considered that his statement had the potential to cause harm because it could have undermined people’s trust in the views being expressed by the authorities on the Coronavirus and the advice of mainstream sources of public health information. In assessing the potential degree of harm, we took into account that Eamonn Holmes did also state that “No-one should attack or damage” mobile phone masts. However, we considered that his statement overall potentially risked fuelling a volatile situation surrounding the 5G claims

'Harm' in this context means undermining trust in the authorities. Censorship would be a more straightforward description.

@frozendaisy

Whereas the guardian are happy to hold the government to account

So change your media

Please tell me you are being ironic

@sleepwouldbenice

You don't isolate based on a lateral flow test you follow it up with a PCR so I really don't get your point?

You have to isolate immediately following an LFT. You can choose to have it followed up with a PCR, but some people won't and may be isolating unnecessarily. And even if they do take a PCR test, it could take 1-2 days to come back as negative.

During those 1-2 days, those kids could be out of school (including their entire bubble) or the parents could be losing out on income unnecessarily.

Add into this, the government are trying to push LTF as the alternative to these fucking vaccine passports. They want LTF to be used as an entrance barrier to hospitality and social gatherings.

What happens if you've spent £££ on theatre tickets/airline tickets/cinema tickets/sports events and you turn up, are asked to take a LTF which says you're positive. You are then unable to enter the location despite there being an almost 20% chance that a positive test is incorrect.

So having such a high failure rate is actually quite concerning.

Oh so basically you are against lateral flow tests to reduce the pandemic spread and annoyed with "MSM narrative " that doesn't agree with you
Ok. At least you are being transparent now. The irony

@sleepwouldbenice

Oh so basically you are against lateral flow tests to reduce the pandemic spread and annoyed with "MSM narrative " that doesn't agree with you Ok. At least you are being transparent now. The irony

Not at all. I think there is a place for them but they aren't the ultimate solution to rapid testing

I'm concerned that in the coming weeks, the government will mandate entry into places with a rapid test but there could be huge consequences for those who receive a false positive.

I believe an almost 20% inaccuracy rate means that these tests cannot be relied upon.

They're not being relied on. That's why you have to take a PCR.

On the other hand, I'd be surprised if they were 80% accurate. The figures I've read are that they are only about 50% accurate at picking up a positive case. Its the false negatives I'm more worried about than the false positives.

@MrsHastingslikethebattle

Pretty much every tabloid and mainstream news channel has been the same. It truly has been disgusting to see, how they purposely present information to scare people.

Headline..ASTRAZENCA NOT EFFECTIVE AGAINST ASYMPTOMATIC COVID
Reaction: Public thinking the vaccine is ineffective against Covid, worry, anxiety.

If the headline read ASTRA ZENCA EFFECTIVE AGAINST SERIOUS ILLNEES AND DEATH, YOU'LL JUST GET THE FLU"
Reaction: public would be relieved the vaccine is working against serious illness and death and have faith in the vaccines.

They have been doing this all year and are complicit in the mounting mental health and suicides.

I completely agree with you.

It's absolutely wrong how the MSM have reported.

It does not make sense that we do not yet know if these tests are accurate or not. I mean ffs, how can it be that hard to find out and then issue a clear and unambiguous instead of this constant spin, bullshit and leaks to the media.

unambiguous statement

What happens if you've spent £££ on theatre tickets/airline tickets/cinema tickets/sports events and you turn up, are asked to take a LTF which says you're positive. You are then unable to enter the location despite there being an almost 20% chance that a positive test is incorrect.
Turn it back again; an 82% chance that you are joyfully contagious and about to go into a space with a load of people who haven't yet been vaccinated (under 45s, vulnerable pregnant women etc) or who didn't build sufficient immunity (some elderly, people with cancer etc). Your concern is the 18% chance of missing out on having fun for 1 day, not the 82% chance of potentially spreading covid to large numbers of people, some of whom you could make very unwell.
Your assumption is that others will all have the same view, that the 18% risk of not having fun is more important than the 82% risk of harming others. I disagree, I would personally prefer not to put others at risk for the sake of potentially having a day at home.

@MRex

What happens if you've spent £££ on theatre tickets/airline tickets/cinema tickets/sports events and you turn up, are asked to take a LTF which says you're positive. You are then unable to enter the location despite there being an almost 20% chance that a positive test is incorrect. Turn it back again; an 82% chance that you are joyfully contagious and about to go into a space with a load of people who haven't yet been vaccinated (under 45s, vulnerable pregnant women etc) or who didn't build sufficient immunity (some elderly, people with cancer etc). Your concern is the 18% chance of missing out on having fun for 1 day, not the 82% chance of potentially spreading covid to large numbers of people, some of whom you could make very unwell. Your assumption is that others will all have the same view, that the 18% risk of not having fun is more important than the 82% risk of harming others. I disagree, I would personally prefer not to put others at risk for the sake of potentially having a day at home.

Yep Cheltenham festival or Liverpool football game anyone.? I do agree with following up with a more reliable test and supporting people to afford to self isolate but this is just anti test rhetoric My daughter has had to self isolate twice from contact with pupils who were assymptomatic but identified positive from lateral flow tests I am glad she did

@MRex

What happens if you've spent £££ on theatre tickets/airline tickets/cinema tickets/sports events and you turn up, are asked to take a LTF which says you're positive. You are then unable to enter the location despite there being an almost 20% chance that a positive test is incorrect. Turn it back again; an 82% chance that you are joyfully contagious and about to go into a space with a load of people who haven't yet been vaccinated (under 45s, vulnerable pregnant women etc) or who didn't build sufficient immunity (some elderly, people with cancer etc). Your concern is the 18% chance of missing out on having fun for 1 day, not the 82% chance of potentially spreading covid to large numbers of people, some of whom you could make very unwell. Your assumption is that others will all have the same view, that the 18% risk of not having fun is more important than the 82% risk of harming others. I disagree, I would personally prefer not to put others at risk for the sake of potentially having a day at home.

Completely agree with this. If I have an 82% chance of having covid, no way am I walking into a cinema.

You need to brush up on your maths sunshine and read the article properly.

26 MILLION tests taken.
3034 false positives.

That's fewer than 1 in 8500 tests taken falsely gave a positive or a specificity of 99.988%.

Given that when they were rolled out people were worrying about up to 3 false positives per 1000 tests (99.7% specificity) the article correctly reassures that these predictions proved false.