UK Infection numbers

[Mowsehowse]

I am not sure if this is a good place to put this link for today's Guardian article?

Talk about manipulation!!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/19/over-1000-deaths-day-uk-ministers-accused-downplaying-covid-19-peak

[LizzieL]

The trouble is that at that time they were only counting deaths in hospital after a positive test. The general public knew that there were more than the government stated, but didn't know just how bad the discrepancy was.
The Downing street briefings always try and present a bit of good news every day, even if it means recycling something from a few days earlier with a slightly different slant. So many of the questions from the press are side-stepped without any real answer given, and frequently you can see that the journalist wants to ask a follow-up but is cut off.
If the government had really emphasised the seriousness of the situation in early April, there would possibly have been better compliance with lockdown in the early stages. If lockdown had come in a week earlier coupled with closing borders, it could have been much shorter. As has happened in many other countries.

[Mowsehowse]

If the government had really emphasised the seriousness of the situation in early April, there would possibly have been better compliance with lockdown in the early stages. If lockdown had come in a week earlier coupled with closing borders, it could have been much shorter. As has happened in many other countries.

Yes, YES, YES, so agree with your comments about daily briefing and late taking of action, because truly the foreign office MUST have had an inkling about the gravity of the situation before xmas if not in November, and I maintain it was criminal negligence to have allowed all the massive public events in March. 

Exactly how has it helped to lie about the mortality rate?  Although I do suspect a breakdown of the true statistics would only serve to make a stronger case that younger people are not particularly vulnerable and don't need to be cautious.

[Nick_Ips]

Exactly how has it helped to lie about the mortality rate?

Nobody has lied about the mortality rate.

The Guardian (and the BBC) themselves clearly reported the figures were only for deaths in hospital for people who had a positive test result.

The reasons why that measure was being used were explained, and minutely pored over by the media at the time.

The only "manipulation" here is in the Guardian's historical negationism.

[Skoosh]

When you have a glove-puppet Prime Minister who lies as a matter of course, nothing surprises with this crew.

Skoosh.

[Jomot]

Lets not forget though that the Guardian is equally as capable of misleading as anyone else.

For a start, their claim that over 1,000 people a day died of Covid is blatantly false.  Figures include those who died with Covid on the death certificate but not necessarily the primary cause and in many cases not confirmed. 

Also the figures announced by the Government are those that have been notified that day, not those that have happened that day.  Separate figures are released daily showing when the notified deaths actually occurred - often weeks earlier, although this is improving.

I'm no fan of this government, but I do think they've been reasonably open about what exactly they report on each day, and anyone wanting more detailed information can find it fairly easily online.  Being in England I use the reports on the NHS England site, along with those released by the ONS.

Personally I've taken comfort in reading the NHS/ONS reports as they are factual with no 'agenda', unlike politicians or the press, who will spin things according to their political allegiances.  As the saying goes: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

[Nick_Ips]

Personally I've taken comfort in reading the NHS/ONS reports as they are factual with no 'agenda', unlike politicians or the press, who will spin things according to their political allegiances.  As the saying goes: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

Agreed.

On a site used by people with an interest in family history you'd think it might be well understood that the central recording of deaths is not an exact art, and expecting to have accurate figures of all the people who have died from a specific cause reported, collated, checked and published by 4pm the next day (weekends included) is an expectation beyond reasonable or practicable.

I think the people involved in gathering and processing the data have done a remarkable job in the circumstances, and articles like the one in the Guardian just denigrates the effort that has been put in to keep us informed.

[Gadget]

Seem to be an awful lot of opinions here.  The figures are estimates and will only ever be so.

[Greensleeves]

On BBC Any Answers today, the first member of the public to be called to ask a question was a woman claiming to be 'a doctor' and her question was why we couldn't get all the children back to school immediately.  It wasn't clear from what she said as to whether she had children herself; however, she said that social distancing for children was unnecessary because it was proved that they didn't become seriously ill with Covid-19, and if they did get it, their parents would be young and strong enough to be able to cope.  I'm not sure what her plans were for teachers in all this. 

I was horrified that someone claiming to be from the medical profession could say such a thing, but of course the 'panel' all thought it was a jolly good idea  ...  at which point I switched off.   It  did make me wonder if she was actually a real doctor, or a propaganda plant.  Certainly, the GPs I know would be appalled at being asked to manipulate people into believing their children would be safe if infected with coronavirus - particularly as in the past two days there has been publicity about the deaths of a 13 day old baby, and a 12 year old child.