Generic Virus Thread

[Jareth]

PMQs was quite good - I get the impression Starmer is using it to create the terms of the inevitable inquiry - the questions were all to elicit a response for future use. I suppose that's what a former director of public prosecutions would do - very bad timing all of this for Boris. 

[HanoiVillan]

42 minutes ago, Jareth said:

PMQs was quite good - I get the impression Starmer is using it to create the terms of the inevitable inquiry

Good lord. He will have been out of his current job for about a decade before any inquiry reaches a conclusion.

[HanoiVillan]

Genuinely makes me angry:

I get it, she's got a new book out (which sounds like complete garbage). I don't get why the Guardian and the Independent feel the need to promote her terrible-sounding book, and presumably pay her for the privilege, but whatever, it's their money and/or column inches. It just makes me more determined not to ever pay them for news.

But it cannot be right for the Independent to run such an utterly misleading quote as the headline to a piece in the paper, during a public health crisis.

[VILLAMARV]

I don't know about you lot but authors are never high on my go-to list when I want some statistical analysis. 

It's an advert.

**** Lionel Shriver. And not in a good way. 

Ah well at least a few of our posters at vt have a new poster girl.

 

[HanoiVillan]

10 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

I don't know about you lot but authors are never high on my go-to list when I want some statistical analysis.

Indeed not, which is why you might hope that a] the journalist would challenge and/or correct the claim in the body of the article, which does not happen here, and b] that the newspaper would not run with the massively inaccurate and inflammatory quote as a headline, which did.

Piss poor from both parties.

[VILLAMARV]

I agree (obviously) it's just I've been doing a lot of that and I'm out of likes

[HanoiVillan]

2 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

I agree (obviously) it's just I've been doing a lot of that and I'm out of likes

Yes, sorry, I realised you were agreeing. I probably sound tetchy because I've got steam coming out of my ears.

[Xann]

26 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

But it cannot be right for the Independent to run such an utterly misleading quote as the headline to a piece in the paper, during a public health crisis.

It's owned by a 'former' Russian spy. It likes to agitate, though not to the same extent as Russia Today.

Like Russia Today it has its uses, ie sometimes punches aimed at our heirarchy shouldn't be pulled.

When much of our press is nobbled or broken by the tax evading rich, this is what we have. 

[Mozzavfc]

Got caught out

Edited May 6, 2020 by Mozzavfc
Edit - fake news

[OutByEaster?]

7 hours ago, Genie said:

Scheme was only initially for 3 months wasn’t it, I’d see anything beyond that (even at 60%) as a bonus.

For me in the events industry, it probably means redundancy. We're not likely to have any resumption of trade until the new year at the earliest, and even then it's not likely to be at anything like normal levels - it'd be nice if there was some recognition of the impact on different industry sectors within the plans to end the scheme, but I suspect that won't be the case.

[OutByEaster?]

2 hours ago, villa89 said:

Spectator

Very interesting article.

The Spectator seems to be leading the charge for economic interest over health interest - they've published a whole series of articles on the cost of lockdown and on the relative merits of Swedens approach. The Barclay brothers have been bankrolling much of the anti-lockdown media and would like you back at work - anything else is secondary.

[blandy]

56 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't get why the Guardian and the Independent feel the need to promote her terrible-sounding book, and presumably pay her for the privilege, but whatever, it's their money and/or column inches. It just makes me more determined not to ever pay them for news.

But it cannot be right for the Independent to run such an utterly misleading quote as the headline to a piece in the paper, during a public health crisis.

Well that’s one take. It’s miles away from mine. Mine is based around crediting their readers with some intelligence. Actor says “[stupid thing]”. She did say a stupid thing. Readers can see for themselves it’s a stupid thing. Readers do not see an actor plugging a book, who says something untrue, and think, “ you know what, I’m going to ignore all the evidence that led me to the view that “most people wouldn’t have died anyway” and instead of thinking for myself, I’ll go with Pam shriver’s take on it from now on.”  
Secondly, it’s absolutely right to go with a stand out quote for a headline. I would also doubt they paid her for the interview, it’ll be part of her contract with her publisher to actively do media interviews to promote the book.

I know there are many dumb people in the world, the type who chug back disinfectant because Trump says so, but you can’t tailor the media, and the use of headlines in papers to avoid simpletons getting themselves all confused. People will largely see the headline, think “she’s a clown” and move on  a few who already have the same unsupported view as her will maybe see it and think “see, told you”.

Free world.

 

[LondonLax]

15 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

The Spectator seems to be leading the charge for economic interest over health interest - they've published a whole series of articles on the cost of lockdown and on the relative merits of Swedens approach. The Barclay brothers have been bankrolling much of the anti-lockdown media and would like you back at work - anything else is secondary.

Still makes for interesting reading though and quotes epidemiologists for its basis. In an event like this we need a diversity of expert opinions, it could well be the ones who paint the bleakest picture could also be incorrect. There is significant human cost to all courses of action.  

[OutByEaster?]

4 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Still makes for interesting reading though and quotes epidemiologists for its basis. In an event like this we need a diversity of expert opinions, it could well be the ones who paint the bleakest picture could also be incorrect. There is significant human cost to all courses of action.  

True enough, but I think it's important to take into account the motivations of the author in evaluating the writing; sharks are rarely concerned with the interests of seals.

 

[HanoiVillan]

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

Readers do not see an actor plugging a book, who says something untrue, and think, “ you know what, I’m going to ignore all the evidence that led me to the view that “most people wouldn’t have died anyway” and instead of thinking for myself, I’ll go with Pam shriver’s take on it from now on.” 

Does 'readers' here include everyone who will have seen this headline while scrolling through Facebook or Twitter feeds? Everyone who will see the headline on a Google search but not click on the article?

You, me and most people reading this have a high level of media literacy. We are 'high information voters'. An awful lot of people are less engaged than you think, and they don't have to have a moment where they think 'I'm just going to outsource all my thinking to Lionel Shriver from now on', they can see it, largely ignore it, forget about it, and then have a conversation in a few days' time of the nature of 'oh, yeah, they're all saying loads of them would have died anyway'.

[Davkaus]

So on one specific day at the end of the month, they'll find some way of claiming 200,000 tests were done.

It's the same promises, failures, and lies again and again.

[DCJonah]

 

[Jareth]

8 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

 

Christopher Hoover should really have said 'in England'. 

[VILLAMARV]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

Well that’s one take. It’s miles away from mine. Mine is based around crediting their readers with some intelligence. Actor says “[stupid thing]”. She did say a stupid thing. Readers can see for themselves it’s a stupid thing. Readers do not see an actor plugging a book, who says something untrue, and think, “ you know what, I’m going to ignore all the evidence that led me to the view that “most people wouldn’t have died anyway” and instead of thinking for myself, I’ll go with Pam shriver’s take on it from now on.”  
Secondly, it’s absolutely right to go with a stand out quote for a headline. I would also doubt they paid her for the interview, it’ll be part of her contract with her publisher to actively do media interviews to promote the book.

I know there are many dumb people in the world, the type who chug back disinfectant because Trump says so, but you can’t tailor the media, and the use of headlines in papers to avoid simpletons getting themselves all confused. People will largely see the headline, think “she’s a clown” and move on  a few who already have the same unsupported view as her will maybe see it and think “see, told you”.

Free world.

 

I was intelligent enough not to assume anything about the words on THAT bus not being a written contract, or indeed to see right through that immigrants queuing up over the hill poster for what it was. I seem to recall many people, including yourself, not being entirely happy with that as a course of action, in that you felt it was rather reckless. Apologies if I'm misremembering or attributing things to you which are false, and I agree it's a free world, but it seems a little hypocritical to me.

As I've shown in a couple of threads today, ive seemingly got a bee in my bonnet over selective reasoning, so sorry about that in advance, but yeah. That. 

[Lichfield Dean]

"The NHS’s contact tracing app will fail unless sufficient numbers of Android phone users sign up, experts who have examined its trial use on the Isle of Wight have warned."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/06/critical-mass-of-android-users-needed-for-success-of-nhs-coronavirus-contact-tracing-app

So... The iPhones will stop transmitting over Bluetooth unless there are enough Android devices around nudging them to stay awake. Wow. Amazing. I mean, yes, clever idea from whoever thought of it, but surely given the alternative solution already provided by Apple and Google you have to wonder how this ever got the go-ahead.