BBC decision to stop airing the daily briefings

[Srictlybakeoff]

Just as things start to get more worrying again, the BBC have decided to stop showing the First Ministers daily briefings. There is an implication that the decision is political. It seems o me to be a very biased move.

@Hangingbasketofdoom this site gives a terrific breakdown of both Scottish and English figures www.travellingtabby.com with ability to break down the local area information into a good level of detail.
I look at that plus skim read BBC summary of output to determine current situation.

There is also the SG figures here:

public.tableau.com/profile/phs.covid.19?fbclid=IwAR3Tg72fOtz2puVUhGSTWlh8hVaW1LIey_8W0npTmmtR8vzhaEw9l5E9Qgk#!/vizhome/COVID-19DailyDashboard_15960160643010/Overview

Those are good sights. I work in a school and am genuinely concerned as I can see how quickly the virus could spread around us. I don't feel being relaxed about it yet is an option for me, and I fear the autumn term and the general reduction in health it brings.
But I will survive with or without Nicola, I hope

sites

@WaxOnFeckOff

But instead of the news deciding the highlights, you have NS and team deciding the highlights.

That's what is political, its not about whether the SNP is actively promoting independence or slagging off Westminster, it's that they are deciding what facts and how they are presented that gives bias in itself.

I think when we had an imminent and serious ongoing crisis then the announcements were needed and an element of continuity was good.

So from your POV a leader can never run a press conference because that's them deciding the highlights in any given situation?

Don't be daft. It's also not really true. She does give an overview at the top but then it's open questions from journalists for at least 45 minutes or so - I'm listening now and that's been the case today.

@WaxOnFeckOff

There is plenty of detail about the numbers, people feel they are in a crisis because of the fear being spread in the briefings and the notion that vivid has a mind and is actively watching for folk to slip up to unleash its evil plan.

I wonder why we still aren't being given the split of hospital cases to show who are positive but in for other reasons and who are I'll with covid. I appreciate that there may be a slight crossover where it may not be clear, but this info will be available but they are choosing not to tell us.

That number was discussed today. See how useful the briefing is!

Well no, they can run a press conference but you have to understand that it is never unbiased.

And yep, saw the figures on the news on-line... not sure what your point is?

Political bias...haven't seen much of that really unless prodded into it by stupid 'are you cancelling Christmas like Boris' type journalistic questions.

Numbers, facts, explanations behind decisions...seen plenty of those every day.

I was only letting you know that the change in hospitalisations had been discussed today as you said this morning it hadn't been yet.

the point is that the bias exists because they are choosing what and how to present it and when, that is in itself biased even though it might look like just facts.

Yes I mentioned earlier that the info wasn't being given, I replied to show that despite not watching the briefing, i still had the information. Do you think it's proportionate to have a briefing from the FM for under 50 people from 5.5 million in hospital?

@WaxOnFeckOff

the point is that the bias exists because they are choosing what and how to present it and when, that is in itself biased even though it might look like just facts.

Yes I mentioned earlier that the info wasn't being given, I replied to show that despite not watching the briefing, i still had the information. Do you think it's proportionate to have a briefing from the FM for under 50 people from 5.5 million in hospital?

Yes I do as we're dealing with an ongoing pandemic which will not always stay at low levels, and the restrictions for which need high levels of engagement and transparency in order to be understood and so adhered to.

Interesting that actually the "number in hospital" is still not clear.

AFAIK the new definition is people who tested positive for Covid 2 weeks or less prior to hospital or subsequent to going into hospital up to 28 days.

This is different from a split between going into hospital with as opposed to because of Covid BUT is important as it demonstrates the impact of infection control measures to isolate them on hospitals and healthcare services.

So under the new lower definition there could still be people with a broken leg who happen to test positive for Covid and at the opposite end people who became unwell due to Covid over 28 days ago but who have not recovered.

(happy to be corrected if I have misunderstood)

I catch up via the one para on the BBC website.

That was my take as well Dinna.

It's obviously a better stat but still not the whole story. I've no idea why this is being made so difficult other than to try to hide the truth. I appreciate with small numbers and the likelihood of some crossover cases it may never be 100% but really what is the issue here?

I don't really get the ins and outs of it either, but then I work in marketing so why would I.

I think the new number certainly looks a lot closer to accurate than us having more than 200 people every day for months on end, even over the time period where we were down a a handful of new cases a week.

And she's at it again today, banging on about the furlough scheme and how the westminster government should be doing x, y and z. And if she had the borrowing power yadda yadda yadda.

The info just given on mask wearing and washing is really valuable- think this should be on public information films as well.

I missed that bit, what was said about masks?

The chief nursing officer talked about disposal of single-use masks (in a bin - people here seem to think the pavement will do - and cut the loops because of risk to animals, which I hadn't thought of) and for washables ideally wash in the machine at 60 but if not possible then under the tap with soap.

Ah ok, thanks!

Looks like BBC Scotland has seen sense and is to continue showing daily briefings.

www.scotsman.com/health/bbc-scotland-vows-keep-showing-coronavirus-briefings-tv-over-coming-weeks-after-backlash-2975689

I think there’s a happy medium between the infrequent public briefings by Westminster and the daily briefings from Nicola Sturgeon which is all a bit Mother Russia for me.
Does she have nothing else to do with her time?

Received an email from Edinburgh Book Festival and clicked on the link to the interview with Bernadine Evaristo only to discover Nicola Sturgeon is conducting the interview.
There really is no escaping the woman.

Does she have nothing else to do with her time?

Received an email from Edinburgh Book Festival and clicked on the link to the interview with Bernadine Evaristo only to discover Nicola Sturgeon is conducting the interview

Seems you've answered your own question.

There really is no escaping the woman

I find statements like this completely bizarre. I am generally in favour of NS and SNP policies, yet I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen her in the media over the past week, and on each of those occasions it was either a photo in a news article, or she was on screen for a few seconds at most.

It appears that people who are most critical of her go out of their way to encounter her, and actually maximise the amount of time they spend listening to or watching her, which is totally odd behaviour no matter how you look at it. You can switch the channel/put down the paper/click on something else. It is allowed.

Hardly, I clicked on a link to the Edinburgh Book Festival to an author whose book I am currently reading.
I did not expect the First Minister of Scotland to be interviewing her during the coronavirus pandemic.

I have not watched a single briefing by Nicola Sturgeon because I choose not to but many of my relatives punctuate their day by tuning in to it.
It’s become habitual which I don’t think is a good thing.
When I grew up in Scotland, prior to the dominance of the SNP and the Curriculum for Excellence, I was taught HOW to think, not what to think.

Lol BusyDreaming - the whole point of the CfE is that children are taught to not to learn and then regurgitate facts parrot fashion but to have the knowledge and also the skills to evaluate and analyse. Look up Bloom's.
Also the CfE is being implemented in Wales so they obviously very much like what they see.

*taught not to just learn

No idea what you’re talking about Scotslassie.
What does ‘taught to not to learn ‘ mean ?