She had a perfectly good tone! He needs to watch his attitude, his dishonesty and his privilege.
They've set up their MPs for this by the tone they have adopted in opposition -- Hancock's come back was that she should adopt the tone of the Shadow Secretary of State.
Well, count discrepancies remain but worldometer shows the UK has now passed Italy in total deaths to date. Now second only to the USA. Still 4th in deaths per million for countries with more than a thousand total deaths.
Matt Hancock criticised the “tone” of Labour MP Rosena Allin-Khan, a serving A&E doctor, when she questioned the his strategy in tackling coronavirus on Tuesday.
Allin-Khan, the shadow mental health minister, told the Commons today the government’s testing strategy had “cost lives”.
“Frontline workers like me have had to watch families break into pieces as we deliver the very worst of news to them, that the ones they love most in this world have died,” she said.
“The testing strategy has been non-existent. Community testing was scrapped, mass testing was slow to roll out and testing figures are now being manipulated.”
Allin-Khan, the MP for Tooting, who has been working in a hospital in her constituency during the coronavirus outbreak, added: “Many frontline workers feel that the government’s lack of testing has cost lives and is responsible for many families being unnecessarily torn apart in grief.”
I think I'm in love.
She's spot on. And Hancock is a [non-purgatorial language]
What was wrong with the tone of the questions? Were they too politely and cogently expressed for him, and he wanted her to engage in the usual theatrics that marks the tone of debate in the Commons? Would the tone have been better if she needed to speak over the jeers and shouts that usually emanate from the government benches?
What is your concern, chrisstyles? What if anything is wrong with the specific report I linked?
Your breaking news link is well open to criticism since the figures have been proved to be manipulated. And I thought Robert Cuffe's article was pretty unimpressive for a Head of Statistics.
What is your concern, chrisstyles? What if anything is wrong with the specific report I linked?
Your breaking news link is well open to criticism since the figures have been proved to be manipulated. And I thought Robert Cuffe's article was pretty unimpressive for a Head of Statistics.
Two brief crap articles don't invalidate a good one.
The opposite also applies. Doing a brief 'on the one hand, on the other hand' style diagnosis on a figure that can largely stand alone, while swallowing the government line on something that was obviously gamed has the actual practical effect of tilting news coverage. Especially when a more considered examination is relegated to a longer article that most people won't read.
The other interesting thing is that the topline figure has just been changed from UK wide figures to English figures in what looks to be a sleight of hand to keep the numbers under 30 000. The Guardian has been consistently showing the UK number with a breakdown showing how this breaks down across the different countries, so I know we've had UK numbers headlined for a while.
There are differences of timing, collection standards and collation between the ONS weekly published data and the NHS daily published data. The NHS daily data is the daily source used in briefings and incorporated into the global stats published by Johns Hopkins and worldometer. Both websites provide a lot of more detailed information about the figures they produce. They are transparent about their methodologies.
And in any case there is nothing magical about the 30,000 number. The UK will almost certainly cross that threshold tomorrow under the NHS daily counting protocols. It has indeed probably crossed it already. I've no reason to doubt the ONS figures; they just aren't used daily because they aren't produced daily.
There we agree! I tend not to be too much influenced by headlines; I prefer more reflective articles. I think 24/7 broadcasting has produced less considered journalism but you can still find it if you look.
There is a discrepancy between the ONS figure for deaths in Scotland (1576) and the Scottish government figure for deaths in Scotland (1620). Moreover there is a caveat with the Scottish figures that they are an underestimate, as some people have died without being tested.
United Arab Emirates - 15,192 (11,893 / 3,153 / 146)
Poland - 14,431 (9,435 / 4,280 / 716)
Romania - 13,837 (7,542 / 5,454 / 841)
Ukraine - 12,697 (10,506 / 1,875 / 316)
Indonesia - 12,071 (9,002 / 2,197 / 872)
Bangladesh - 10,929 (9,343 / 1,403 / 183)
South Korea - 10,806 (1,218 / 9,333 / 255) 2.7%
The listings are in the format:
X. Country - [# of known cases] ([active] / [recovered] / [dead]) [%fatality rate]
Fatality rates are only listed for countries where the number of resolved cases (recovered + dead) exceeds the number of known active cases by a ratio of at least 2:1.
Italics indicate authoritarian countries whose official statistics are suspect. Other country's statistics are suspect if their testing regimes are substandard.
If American states were treated as individual countries twenty-one of them would be on that list. New York would be ranked at #2, between "everywhere in the U.S. except New York" (#1) and Spain (#3). New Jersey would be between Russia and Turkey.
No countries have joined the 10,000 case club since the last compilation.
While Ferguson obviously done wrong am somewhat suspicious of the Telegraph's motives.
(Ferguson being associated with the lockdown, the Telegraph explicitly on the expendable side)
I do think at times, our (British) implemention of the lock-down have set it up to be unsustainable and fail*. (Explicitly so in the case of America). Although I'm also not sure what can be done sensibly.
*one example being the weak support for self-employed. Single parents can't win, and even regular parents need a breather.
If you look at the telegraph front page and the relative physical size of their coverage of someone’s affair vs Vallance stating we didn’t test enough on the day our death toll became the largest in Europe - you get a sense of their agenda.
If you look at the telegraph front page and the relative physical size of their coverage of someone’s affair vs Vallance stating we didn’t test enough on the day our death toll became the largest in Europe - you get a sense of their agenda.
Question is, are the prioritising their campaign to offer a blood sacrifice to the Invisible Hand or are they clutching their pearls at the open marriage of Ferguson's partner?
Perhaps they simply thought the Ferguson story might sell more copies if more space was devoted to it.
Possibly.
However, as has been discussed ad nauseum the print media has disproportionate power to shape the debate (compared to their circulation figures) because the BBC news coverage follows the front pages. For example, as I sit at my desk working, I have Radio 2 playing. In their news bulletin today there is no mention whatsoever of the most important story that more testing earlier would have avoided thousands of deaths.
I don't really care what their motivation is, although in recent years the Telegraph has descended from a quality newspaper with a particular political perspective (which I would read from time to time) to a propaganda rag. I do care that the media coverage consistently leaves our population uninformed and misinformed.
There are differences of timing, collection standards and collation between the ONS weekly published data and the NHS daily published data. The NHS daily data is the daily source used in briefings and incorporated into the global stats published by Johns Hopkins and worldometer. Both websites provide a lot of more detailed information about the figures they produce. They are transparent about their methodologies.
And in any case there is nothing magical about the 30,000 number. The UK will almost certainly cross that threshold tomorrow under the NHS daily counting protocols. It has indeed probably crossed it already. I've no reason to doubt the ONS figures; they just aren't used daily because they aren't produced daily.
Sorry, yes, you're right. The Guardian published a misleading headline over a more balanced story. And I shouldn't try to post more complicatedly from a phone.
I do care that the media coverage consistently leaves our population uninformed and misinformed.
I think there's a much broader debate to be had about the role of the media, one that intersects with the kinds of discussion about free speech that have been going on elsewhere here.
I'm not sure most people open their papers to find out what's actually going on these days, I think the expectation is more one of entertainment and reinforcement of their own prejudices. Most people don't want to be informed, and many of those who do are very lacking in discernment, which takes them into tinfoil hat territory very fast.
On top of all that, describing the struggle against Covid-19 as a 'war' is controversial, but I think there are some parallels. One is the 'fog of war' due to which, in the heat of the action, reliable information is hard to come by. Another is the accepted use of propaganda for the purposes of morale-boosting. Is that unethical? I'm not sure. Would any government do it? I think they would.
While Ferguson obviously done wrong am somewhat suspicious of the Telegraph's motives.
(Ferguson being associated with the lockdown, the Telegraph explicitly on the expendable side)
I do think at times, our (British) implemention of the lock-down have set it up to be unsustainable and fail*. (Explicitly so in the case of America). Although I'm also not sure what can be done sensibly.
*one example being the weak support for self-employed. Single parents can't win, and even regular parents need a breather.
Meanwhile, as my radio alarm went off this morning I thought I heard the newsreader saying that President Trump is going to disband the US covid19 task force. I put that down to the sleep-fuddled early morning effect, and I'd misheard the story. Afterall, the hard work of deciding if it's possible to relax movement restrictions, and if so how to do so, without a second wave of infection is only just beginning. But, no that's definitely been reported on the BBC News at Breakfast as well. Which is a decision that seems to defy all common sense.
Rumours that call centre staff will be used for test and trace. Well, they will get a day's training, and they may be on minimum wage, so what could go wrong? This was in the Times originally, but there is a version on Richard North's blog.
If you are over 60, do you feel written off? Paranoid, moi?
I mean, he probably is disbanding the task force but whether that will make much substantive difference is open to question. In an unusual burst of clarity, Trump himself seemed to be saying they'd be continuing to address the issue in a different format.
I'd hesitate to draw any direct conclusions about strategy implementation from that; what it's really trying to do is send the message that America should be getting back to work (though of course that policy will undoubtedly have strategy implications too).
Meanwhile, as my radio alarm went off this morning I thought I heard the newsreader saying that President Trump is going to disband the US covid19 task force. I put that down to the sleep-fuddled early morning effect, and I'd misheard the story. Afterall, the hard work of deciding if it's possible to relax movement restrictions, and if so how to do so, without a second wave of infection is only just beginning. But, no that's definitely been reported on the BBC News at Breakfast as well. Which is a decision that seems to defy all common sense.
I thought that he's giving up thinking about the virus, and wants to open up the economy now. Presumably this is a calculation that this is the best way to win the election, and people will tolerate 6 figure deaths, but not mass unemployment.
I do care that the media coverage consistently leaves our population uninformed and misinformed.
I think there's a much broader debate to be had about the role of the media, one that intersects with the kinds of discussion about free speech that have been going on elsewhere here.
It is probably worthy of its own thread (or belongs on one of the other pre-existing threads) but I post it here because it is extremely pertinent to this discussion.
I am so sad when I see well-meaning people regurgitate the we must pull together line or the now is not the time to criticize one. It is precisely this lack of accountability of our government that is literally killing people. And the depravity of sections of the media pushing their reckless agenda is obscene. But I am sure someone will be along shortly to defend free speech. Oh the irony.
Yes, that's bothered me a bit. I think the slides are clearly selective. You can get better, more comprehensive, data from the NHS and ONS websites, and the worldometer site is full of graphs. Mind you, the slides are often difficult to see.
Although the concentration on the death numbers is understandable, the new cases numbers (which I'm sure still don't tell the full picture) are the most important for gradual relaxation. Test, track, trace, treat are still the key words.
If you look at the telegraph front page and the relative physical size of their coverage of someone’s affair vs Vallance stating we didn’t test enough on the day our death toll became the largest in Europe - you get a sense of their agenda.
I'm sure you're right, but this is weird. Unless the 'Wierdo Barclay Brothers' (thanks Ian Hislop) have decided that their circulation is terminally fecked anyway, and so annihilating their remaining (sorry, not Remaining) elderly readership is neither here nor there?
If you look at the telegraph front page and the relative physical size of their coverage of someone’s affair vs Vallance stating we didn’t test enough on the day our death toll became the largest in Europe - you get a sense of their agenda.
I'm sure you're right, but this is weird. Unless the 'Wierdo Barclay Brothers' (thanks Ian Hislop) have decided that their circulation is terminally fecked anyway, and so annihilating their remaining (sorry, not Remaining) elderly readership is neither here nor there?
I don't think they want to kill all old people. I suppose there is an acceptable limit, although I have no idea what it is. Toby Young talks of several hundred thousand deaths being OK, to get the economy moving. However, this suffers from the error discussed above a few times, how do you "freeze" deaths at a certain number, and tell the virus to play nicely? You can't. I suppose Trump has given up.
If you look at the telegraph front page and the relative physical size of their coverage of someone’s affair vs Vallance stating we didn’t test enough on the day our death toll became the largest in Europe - you get a sense of their agenda.
I'm sure you're right, but this is weird. Unless the 'Wierdo Barclay Brothers' (thanks Ian Hislop) have decided that their circulation is terminally fecked anyway, and so annihilating their remaining (sorry, not Remaining) elderly readership is neither here nor there?
I suspect their readership are more affluent than average and if they are of retirement age have the material resources to cope with a self imposed lockdown - and any minor blip is made up for the fact that they retain support for the government they had a large hand in putting into power.
The Telegraph is touting for business, hard. I am signed up to the point I can read the occasional article free, but no more, and am suffering from a tsunami of special offers in my inbox, which is proving counterproductive. How soon depends on how irritated I get, but currently it's imminently.
Their hope lives in the uncertainty between whether that 100,000 deaths would have been part of the 500,000 deaths we have every year or is ‘merely’ 100,000 people dying in May who would otherwise have died in September.
We don’t know.
It’s entirely possible the overlap could be very small, or the survivors’ ongoing challenges could be much greater than their initial recovery led us to believe - but people *want* to believe that the overall death rate will not be much increased, and the survivors will be largely fine. If so, then the costs of lockdown start to look like a more damaging imposition than the alternatives.
I don’t look at the spanish flu global pandemic and share that assumption.
Interesting that Boris is announcing new measures on covid on television. Granted, parliament is a ghost ship, but maybe it suits Boris to govern via the media.
Their hope lives in the uncertainty between whether that 100,000 deaths would have been part of the 500,000 deaths we have every year or is ‘merely’ 100,000 people dying in May who would otherwise have died in September.
We don’t know.
It’s entirely possible the overlap could be very small, or the survivors’ ongoing challenges could be much greater than their initial recovery led us to believe - but people *want* to believe that the overall death rate will not be much increased, and the survivors will be largely fine. If so, then the costs of lockdown start to look like a more damaging imposition than the alternatives.
I don’t look at the spanish flu global pandemic and share that assumption.
The right wing view is that the lockdown costs more, obviously, but also costs more lives. I doubt if any of them has seriously estimated any of this, but they are scornful of modellers, virologists, etc. They don't like such large state intervention, especially from a Tory govt. Don't stay at home, bugger the NHS, and save my portfolio.
Interesting that Boris is announcing new measures on covid on television. Granted, parliament is a ghost ship, but maybe it suits Boris to govern via the media.
For announcements, a statement on TV is adequate and fits with the new paradigm of doing all you can from home - a paradigm that is one of the up sides of this emergency, and we'll do well to continue working from home where possible to reduce the environmental impact of transport.
Of course, this does remove the scrutiny of Parliament on the announcement, but there's very little scrutiny in Parliament at the time of an announcement anyway - ideally the scrutiny happens in the development of the announcement, or in select committee scrutiny after the fact.
Playing the man, not the ball. As if the quality of professional advice was determined by moral consistency. If it was, I think the category of professional advice would be empty.
Matt Hancock's public reaction was surprising, coming from a man who had played ducks and drakes with normal counting so he could assert his 100,000 target had been reached. What sort of moral code was in play in his mind to justify that?
The Ferguson story tells us more about whoever outed/denounced him than it does about the validity of his advice.
It makes no difference to the validity of the advice. The problem is with the enforcement of them - when we're seeing people congregating in parks and beaches, people driving away from their immediate neighbourhood to take a walk or bike ride, moving from their main residence to live at a second home, or visiting people for reasons other than medical it damages the message that these are important measures that we all need to follow when senior people telling us to do that are not following their own advice.
The Ferguson story tells us more about whoever outed/denounced him than it does about the validity of his advice.
I guess it means that the long-lens photographers and Benji the Binman are classed as essential workers.
The 'What the papers Say' segment on Today went from 'scientist meets married lover' to 'otters like to play with stones' and one had to go to the foreign press to find the other big stories.
Have you entertained the idea that CNN might have an editorial agenda too? It's hard to find a news outlet in any country that doesn't regularly play the "look at how much worse everybody else is doing" card.
Have you entertained the idea that CNN might have an editorial agenda too?
Of course they do, but there is a usually unsaid assumption in the UK that the BBC is an exception to the general rule and the coverage of this crisis provides another data point to those who would contend that its slant is largely driven by the culture of the day as dominated by the mostly right wing press.
Comments
They've set up their MPs for this by the tone they have adopted in opposition -- Hancock's come back was that she should adopt the tone of the Shadow Secretary of State.
Complaining about 'nasty questions' is straight out of Trump's playbook.
I think I'm in love.
She's spot on. And Hancock is a [non-purgatorial language]
AFZ
I thought this was fair.
Statistics is a question of contrasts.
Your breaking news link is well open to criticism since the figures have been proved to be manipulated. And I thought Robert Cuffe's article was pretty unimpressive for a Head of Statistics.
Two brief crap articles don't invalidate a good one.
The opposite also applies. Doing a brief 'on the one hand, on the other hand' style diagnosis on a figure that can largely stand alone, while swallowing the government line on something that was obviously gamed has the actual practical effect of tilting news coverage. Especially when a more considered examination is relegated to a longer article that most people won't read.
The BBC is not having a good pandemic.
That isn't what happened.
There are differences of timing, collection standards and collation between the ONS weekly published data and the NHS daily published data. The NHS daily data is the daily source used in briefings and incorporated into the global stats published by Johns Hopkins and worldometer. Both websites provide a lot of more detailed information about the figures they produce. They are transparent about their methodologies.
And in any case there is nothing magical about the 30,000 number. The UK will almost certainly cross that threshold tomorrow under the NHS daily counting protocols. It has indeed probably crossed it already. I've no reason to doubt the ONS figures; they just aren't used daily because they aren't produced daily.
There we agree! I tend not to be too much influenced by headlines; I prefer more reflective articles. I think 24/7 broadcasting has produced less considered journalism but you can still find it if you look.
The listings are in the format:
X. Country - [# of known cases] ([active] / [recovered] / [dead]) [%fatality rate]
Fatality rates are only listed for countries where the number of resolved cases (recovered + dead) exceeds the number of known active cases by a ratio of at least 2:1.
Italics indicate authoritarian countries whose official statistics are suspect. Other country's statistics are suspect if their testing regimes are substandard.
If American states were treated as individual countries twenty-one of them would be on that list. New York would be ranked at #2, between "everywhere in the U.S. except New York" (#1) and Spain (#3). New Jersey would be between Russia and Turkey.
No countries have joined the 10,000 case club since the last compilation.
(Ferguson being associated with the lockdown, the Telegraph explicitly on the expendable side)
I do think at times, our (British) implemention of the lock-down have set it up to be unsustainable and fail*. (Explicitly so in the case of America). Although I'm also not sure what can be done sensibly.
*one example being the weak support for self-employed. Single parents can't win, and even regular parents need a breather.
Question is, are the prioritising their campaign to offer a blood sacrifice to the Invisible Hand or are they clutching their pearls at the open marriage of Ferguson's partner?
Possibly.
However, as has been discussed ad nauseum the print media has disproportionate power to shape the debate (compared to their circulation figures) because the BBC news coverage follows the front pages. For example, as I sit at my desk working, I have Radio 2 playing. In their news bulletin today there is no mention whatsoever of the most important story that more testing earlier would have avoided thousands of deaths.
I don't really care what their motivation is, although in recent years the Telegraph has descended from a quality newspaper with a particular political perspective (which I would read from time to time) to a propaganda rag. I do care that the media coverage consistently leaves our population uninformed and misinformed.
AFZ
Sorry, yes, you're right. The Guardian published a misleading headline over a more balanced story. And I shouldn't try to post more complicatedly from a phone.
However, a story in the paper today suggests that there really is some sleight of hand going on in the daily slides - Guardian story - Why No 10's Covid 19 Death Toll Slides Don't Tell the Whole Story
I think there's a much broader debate to be had about the role of the media, one that intersects with the kinds of discussion about free speech that have been going on elsewhere here.
I'm not sure most people open their papers to find out what's actually going on these days, I think the expectation is more one of entertainment and reinforcement of their own prejudices. Most people don't want to be informed, and many of those who do are very lacking in discernment, which takes them into tinfoil hat territory very fast.
On top of all that, describing the struggle against Covid-19 as a 'war' is controversial, but I think there are some parallels. One is the 'fog of war' due to which, in the heat of the action, reliable information is hard to come by. Another is the accepted use of propaganda for the purposes of morale-boosting. Is that unethical? I'm not sure. Would any government do it? I think they would.
Yes, herd immunity all along?
If you are over 60, do you feel written off? Paranoid, moi?
I mean, he probably is disbanding the task force but whether that will make much substantive difference is open to question. In an unusual burst of clarity, Trump himself seemed to be saying they'd be continuing to address the issue in a different format.
I'd hesitate to draw any direct conclusions about strategy implementation from that; what it's really trying to do is send the message that America should be getting back to work (though of course that policy will undoubtedly have strategy implications too).
I thought that he's giving up thinking about the virus, and wants to open up the economy now. Presumably this is a calculation that this is the best way to win the election, and people will tolerate 6 figure deaths, but not mass unemployment.
Indeed.
This is a long read: https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2020/05/why-media-in-uk-and-us-has-moved-beyond.html
It is probably worthy of its own thread (or belongs on one of the other pre-existing threads) but I post it here because it is extremely pertinent to this discussion.
I am so sad when I see well-meaning people regurgitate the we must pull together line or the now is not the time to criticize one. It is precisely this lack of accountability of our government that is literally killing people. And the depravity of sections of the media pushing their reckless agenda is obscene. But I am sure someone will be along shortly to defend free speech. Oh the irony.
AFZ
Although the concentration on the death numbers is understandable, the new cases numbers (which I'm sure still don't tell the full picture) are the most important for gradual relaxation. Test, track, trace, treat are still the key words.
I'm sure you're right, but this is weird. Unless the 'Wierdo Barclay Brothers' (thanks Ian Hislop) have decided that their circulation is terminally fecked anyway, and so annihilating their remaining (sorry, not Remaining) elderly readership is neither here nor there?
I don't think they want to kill all old people. I suppose there is an acceptable limit, although I have no idea what it is. Toby Young talks of several hundred thousand deaths being OK, to get the economy moving. However, this suffers from the error discussed above a few times, how do you "freeze" deaths at a certain number, and tell the virus to play nicely? You can't. I suppose Trump has given up.
I suspect their readership are more affluent than average and if they are of retirement age have the material resources to cope with a self imposed lockdown - and any minor blip is made up for the fact that they retain support for the government they had a large hand in putting into power.
We don’t know.
It’s entirely possible the overlap could be very small, or the survivors’ ongoing challenges could be much greater than their initial recovery led us to believe - but people *want* to believe that the overall death rate will not be much increased, and the survivors will be largely fine. If so, then the costs of lockdown start to look like a more damaging imposition than the alternatives.
I don’t look at the spanish flu global pandemic and share that assumption.
Link
The right wing view is that the lockdown costs more, obviously, but also costs more lives. I doubt if any of them has seriously estimated any of this, but they are scornful of modellers, virologists, etc. They don't like such large state intervention, especially from a Tory govt. Don't stay at home, bugger the NHS, and save my portfolio.
Of course, this does remove the scrutiny of Parliament on the announcement, but there's very little scrutiny in Parliament at the time of an announcement anyway - ideally the scrutiny happens in the development of the announcement, or in select committee scrutiny after the fact.
Matt Hancock's public reaction was surprising, coming from a man who had played ducks and drakes with normal counting so he could assert his 100,000 target had been reached. What sort of moral code was in play in his mind to justify that?
I guess it means that the long-lens photographers and Benji the Binman are classed as essential workers.
The 'What the papers Say' segment on Today went from 'scientist meets married lover' to 'otters like to play with stones' and one had to go to the foreign press to find the other big stories.
Of course they do, but there is a usually unsaid assumption in the UK that the BBC is an exception to the general rule and the coverage of this crisis provides another data point to those who would contend that its slant is largely driven by the culture of the day as dominated by the mostly right wing press.