Main Edition
US
FR
(Photo by Zach Gibson/Getty Images)
“Yikes,” I thought this morning. “My profession is trying to kill us.” The front pages — as they now had been for a few days — were full of the “dilemma” facing the Prime Minister: to ease or end lockdown or to keep it going. Explainers neatly carved the cabinet into “hawks” and “doves”. I know that we should resist the temptation for journalists to peer into the linty navel of journalism itself, but bear with me: in this case it could really matter.
If we do end or ease the Covid lockdown, it probably won’t end up being on the advice of epidemiologists or even economists — it’ll be because the way the media shapes the story brings an irresistible pressure to bear. “How we end lockdown” is now the main topic of conversation. And though there’s a range of views represented in the conversation, the fact that we’re having the conversation at all creates its own momentum.
The idea of the Overton Window — a term minted to describe the range of acceptable opinion within a given community — is relevant here. At present the parameters of the debate are “stay the same”, which is by default the extreme left-hand curtain on the Overton Window, and “open everything back up for business” which is by default the other end of the scale: meaning that “moderate opinion” is, rhetorically at least, somewhere in the middle.
Why are we having this debate now? It’s because we need to have a debate and that’s the only one in town. That applies to social media as well as the so-called MSM — and there’s an argument that the news reflects public impatience as much as it shapes it. But with “stay as we are” as the dreary old fixed option at one end of the scale, the moderate middle will only be pulled further out as contrarians and freethinkers push the other end of the window further and further in the hope of having something fresh to say.
I don’t make, or pretend to make, any judgment on the science. It may, for all I know, be the case that we should long since have galloped out of lockdown and even now be handshaking and air-kissing our way back to prosperity. But, for all I know, it could equally well be the case that we should continue doing exactly, but exactly, what we’re doing now for the next six months. And if the latter is, objectively, the case, it’s going to be near to impossible for politicians to argue for it — and to keep arguing for it.
The problem I point to isn’t to do with virology. It’s narratological: it’s to do with the shape of storytelling and the weird metabolism of the media cycle. News has its own imperatives, and they are nearly completely independent of the real world. Every news editor’s question is: “How do we take the story on?” The answer can never be: “We can’t.” If there are no new facts, there’s got to be a new analysis, a new spin, a new controversy, a new debate. A story big enough to stay on the front page needs to find a way of staying on the front page.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe telegraph reported the care homes crisis well, but so much else was utter rubbish. Nightingale was criticised as a “white elephant” by the Sun, even though the government succeeded in keeping hospital capacity at manageable levels.
“Have we saved the NHS yet?”
I am not sure but 150,000 are dead (ONS April 2021)
We have to come out of lockdown because we just can’t live like this. Dying is part of life, trying to stop life to stop dying is not a feasible plan in the medium or long term. Children need to meet their friends to play, adults need fresh air and activities that challenge them and make their brains work. Right now most of the country is in a vegetative state and soon it will start to hurt!
The “sunk-effect bias” (See The Intelligence Trap: Why smart people do stupid things and how to make wiser decisions, by David Robson) explains well the lockdown. First the idea was being afraid of being accountable by the long-standing jargon of “no money, no investment at the NHS, bla, bla, bla…”, so they decided to save the NHS and explained to us that by doing that “we save lives”. Reality: the NHS was able to cope with the demands and the Nightingale Hospitals are empty, were never used, will be dismantled sooner than later, etc… Second the idea that you save lives. Unfortunately in spite of all the advancements in science and medicine we humans are not immortals. We died before Covid and will keep dying after Covid. The problem with the “save lives” concept goes behind medicine to philosophical and ethical questions but just from a medical perspective people need to understand that you can die with Covid or with Covid. In practice this is not the same. Reality: yes we are dying with Covid but the majority with diseases and conditions that we had previously and would probably kill us with or without Covid. The large proportion of deaths are occurring in patients where any sort of additional problem (more commonly an infectious one that can range from a common cold to flu, need to underwent a surgical procedure, etc…) would put them in a very delicate situation and very life threatening. No one is expecting a patient with motor neuron disease to live the normal expectancy of life! This patients die mostly with infectious problems. The huge mortality observed has been on the very old (care homes have been wiped out everywhere in Europe) mostly already on a borderline survival. Due to the age impaired immunity and pre-conditions they are always até risk for any infectious disease. Every year NHS makes a tremendous effort on advertising the need for flu jab because of the risk of serious condition for this same population. Question? Should we put every European country in lockdown during the flu season? In 2014/2015 flu killed according Public Health England 28.000 UK citizens. So, if we can’t save them with flu jab it is very disputable that we are going to be able “to save lives” … what we have been done is prolonging life in the ICU for more than 90% of this risk group. Now let’s go to the younger. When we talk about younger we need to separate the ones with no pre-conditions (like for example cystic fibrosis) from the healthy ones (also very disputable because obesity is difficult to include in this group). If you take out the ones with pre-conditions the others (including the obese) yes they can be saved in ICU with ventilators support including extra-corporeal circulation. The problem is that the NHS ability to cope with that group of patients has never been put in risk since the number of this cases is a small % of the other COVID19 patients. Perhaps this will be more critical in populations with large cohorts of obese males (like particularly the South of the USA) but here also we are assuming that obesity is a variant of healthy status which is not.
In summary:
1) the NHS was already saved, needed just a few time to re-adjust. This has been achieved. Fine.
2) we are saving the life’s when this is medically feasible. Don’t ask us the miracle of immortality because this only a theoretical physicist can request!
3) “social distancing” a concept that currently is based on 2 m away clash with the survival of the Homo sapiens species. If we pursue a fast anti-evolutionary pathway we will have the species extinct prior to any sort of adaptation process (they normally take thousand years). Do anyone believe that any sort of public transportation, urban life, cultural activity, etc…things fundamental in human society can be performed on a “2 meter social distancing concept”? Again only a theoretical physicist!
Finally given up on reading MSM hacks’ oh-so-valuable and essential opinions on almost everything corona. That YouGov poll that stated an overwhelming percentage (74?) of Brits held both newspaper and TV hacks in low esteem. On cue, some ‘senior’ miseryguts on Sky Views writes “This … worries him”, because our sainted yet little-loved mejia are of course beyond reproach – they’re only doing their hack’s job…
Today is the last day trying to observe the hacks present some sort of an uplift to the public mood which is so sorely needed — I see none. Merely, gloom, more gloom, doctor expert criticises baby eating Tories, Der Starmer criticises baby eating Tories, not a darn mention of course of the failings of the EU and its contempt for its suffering latin members of which form a part.
CNN, BBC, Graun, Mail, Sky Views; to heck with you and your dismal narratives.
I do not think that the governments have to right to lock us down. They should be like Sweden and tell the people what is good for them and leave it to the people. I hear all sorts of accusations about China, USA, Australia, laboratories, Gates, Fauci, etcera, etcetera. The media coverage reminds me of 9/11/2001 (USA dating) when we were brainwashed of images of planes hitting towers. Later I came to understand that buildings cannot fall down like that, there must have been bombs, as per Donald Trump on that day. Refer to YouTube Donald Trump Calls Into WWOR/UPN 9 News on 9/11.
All right – good to hear someone else remembers the 9/11 ‘terrorist’ attacks with some skepticism and applies them to the current case in point.
cheers.
I agree!
I am so glad to hear this ! Was beginning to think it was only me ! So many zealous individuals content to be locked down or is it up ? In the name of saving!
Great Content, Superhigh-quality and keep it up 🙂
http://mcxbulliontips.in/
The story that went nowhere.
This article highlights a true and very dangerous cultural phenomenon – which is that for whatever reasons (mostly commercial and political ones) those in the media and the government, and indeed in public life in general feel the constant need to “put on a show.”
i.e. there is not a lot of objective, rational, calm, cool and collected, and above all realistic thinking going on, but rather a constant “playing to the crowd.”
Because both the media and the politicians are not much in the truth business, though both like to pretend they are – the media in fact more so than the politicians claim to be our “guardians” of truth.
But the real truth is that they are both seeking “our votes”, and indeed in the case of the media, something even more desperate than our votes which is our attention.
Which of course makes them potentially even less likely than politicians to tell us the truth, or at least, not the whole truth; and selective truth can be worse than lies, because it just presents to us pieces of the picture that may not at all represent the whole picture.
Just as with a jigsaw in which we only were given pieces of the sky, but none of the sea or land, leading us to believe neither of the latter actually existed.
Because the problem with telling people the truth, is it has a tendency to be both boring and unpleasant.
So in fact, it’s not entirely fair to blame either the media or politicians, because when the public itself doesn’t like the truth very much a lot of the time (though claims to want it), it is hardly surprising when the media and politicians then don’t give it to them, but instead “what they think they want to hear.”
And sadly, this is a reality that for the moment that is here to stay.
The world as it currently is, is full of absolutely awful things like mass starvation, terrorism, wars, the nuclear threat hanging over us, and there is only so much of it any of us can take.
So we’d rather be comforted and sometimes scared too, as long as the scary stuff we don’t believe affects us much personally.
i.e. somebody starving to death in Africa every 4 seconds is awful of course, and therefore receives the “ain’t it awful” response, before we then pick up our croissant and latte (or burger and coke, depending which class you are a member of).
But if there was somebody dying of starvation every 4 seconds in Essex, it would be a national emergency, a crisis that would make covid-19 look of less import than the average lolly stick or Christmas cracker joke.
So all that said, now I am as best as I am able going to try to tell the truth – which incidentally isn’t easy, even if you try very hard. But as most people in public life aren’t much trying to tell it very often, for the above explained reasons, they don’t actually know that.
Because what they are rather trying to do is to say something people will approve or like, or believe, regardless of whether it is true or not.
So here goes, in the sure knowledge I may be ridiculed, disliked or even hated for what I’m about to say.
Firstly, though it is my personal opinion this lockdown was the height of lunacy, and the best analogy for it I can currently think of is it was like taking a sledgehammer to a gnat, when a quick spray of disinfectant would have been appropriate, the awful truth appears to be we may never know if the lockdown was the right thing to do or not, because we’ll never know how things would have panned out if it hadn’t been put in place.
This is especially true as it may not ever be possible to get reliable statistics, as these are inevitably politicised, both nationally and internationally. With national leaders not only likely to lie, due to competition with other nations to prove “who handled the virus best”, but also as they have to convince their own people (and fight their political opponents) that what they did was right.
So in fact, the chances of us ever getting the truth out of the government or even health authorities on this (who also have motives of their own likely to distort the truth, like to get more funding) are probably far less than usual, as this is such a monumental and unprecedented event.
So maybe in fact, the real subject for debate right now shouldn’t be so much as how to end the lockdown, but to ensure they never do this ever again.
That problem however may well take care of itself, when people see the possible wreckage of their lives and the society in general once this is over, just like in any “war.”
The use of the word “war” and the formation of a “war cabinet” was of course the greatest lunacy imaginable. Because that set “the tone” for what thereafter was far more likely to be desperate and hysterical action and reaction, by all of public, politicians and media.
And amidst these likely permanently indecipherable statistics which will come out in the “inquiry” about this disaster, what will also likely be impossible to gauge is how many of the extra deaths (that’s probably about the only statistic we can actually trust, that they probably will count the deaths more or less accurately, but not the reason for them) will have been simply due to scaring a significant proportion of the population literally to death.
The mind-body relationship is not well understood by doctors and science, but they accept it exists, and in particular that it affects the immune system, as it causes certain hormones to be secreted in the body which then misbehave dangerously.
So it is quite possible in fact all the extra deaths could have been caused simply by the mass panic, more or less terror, that has been caused to so many.
Those who are young and fit and not socially isolated for example, cannot easily understand the state of deep ingrained ongoing fear that several million old people at minimum have been put into due to this lockdown.
But as one of the older people who is at least still mobile, I can give my personal anecdotal report that I have found this lockdown of extreme threatening nature.
It has threatened not only myself in an extreme manner, but also a lot of other relatives and friends of a similar age group, most of whom already have some sort of potentially life threatening condition, and so this lockdown, was “the last straw” so to speak, and so likely has pushed an awful lot of old people “over the edge.”
For example, in a state of constant fear and anxiety, one may easily forget to take one’s medication, or have an accident.
The possibilities of the more vulnerable population (which is millions) accidentally (or even deliberately) self-harming, are numerous, when they have the basics of their lives disrupted in such a threatening and unprecedented fashion, denied all or almost all of the social contact and support they normally get, just left prisoners in their own homes, without necessarily even a reliable food and toiletries supply.
Just think about it – the awful fear millions of old people have been put into of not being able to get a toilet roll or hand wash.
Many have joked about these issues – but it was no laughing matter to those in great fear of getting these essential items, in particular food.
As soon as I heard mention of “a war cabinet” and saw what was happening in other countries, I make no apologies for reporting I was so scared I stockpiled about 2 weeks before nearly everybody else, and if I hadn’t, I am quite certain I would have been in far worse fear.
This is the “real news” that rarely hits the news stands, because people don’t actually enjoy hearing about horrible things unless they are sure it is not likely to happen to them personally.
So I want to say as succinctly as I can – bearing in mind the length of this comment already – “how this lockdown should be ended.”
It should be ended bearing in mind the most vulnerable members of society, because firstly, they are far and away at most threat from the virus, whatever that risk actually is, so if they are happy with how it is ended, likely everybody else should be also.
So speaking as an older, more vulnerable member of society (though very far from being the most vulnerable, I am certain), I can say exactly what needs doing.
Firstly, social distancing has got to be ended completely.
It simply will not be possible to conduct “life as normal” without doing this.
It will leave most of the population in confusion about just what and what not they are supposed to do, creating millions of potential conflicts between members of the public and various officials and workers in shops, business, bars, restaurants, etc, that will not only annoy people pointlessly, but in cases are very likely to lead to genuine hostility, just as we’ve had with road rage.
It is openly admitted 1 in 3 people or households were having problems with their neighbours long before this lockdown, so the very last thing we need is to create further intolerance between citizens.
And the awful persecution of some totally innocent Chinese people – one of whom got his nose broken or something, at the hands of a bunch of thugs – gives an example of what may be duplicated thousands of time over, now the authorities have unwisely given the thugs amongst us – the same people who do road rage and “ASBO” behaviour in general – an excuse to pick on their neighbours or totally innocent people in the street.
Or on the tube. Or on the buses. Or in bars or restaurants.
I mean please – how on earth are we going to send everyone back to school and work on buses and the tube and trams when these vehicles at rush hour in particular are sometime more cram-packed than tins of sardines?
Could the media please have not pointed this out? I mean the “MSM”, not the “independent/alternative” media, that is not usually ever being heard by most of the public and government.
One last example – let’s take the hospitality industry – awful stories today of numerous ex-bar and restaurant staff in London now on the streets, unable to pay their rent after being sacked due to the lockdown
(you know, the people employing them wouldn’t know a furlough from a furlong)
Not only it is going to be impossible to social distance when anybody wants to go to the gents/ladies room, but by trying to limit the custom to achieve the same – and the same will be true with clothes stores, etc. – they are going to hit the margins of all these businesses, many of whom may be running on say a 10% or even less margin already.
i.e. you know, their weekly operation cost is £5000, and their takings are say £6000 say so they make £1000 a week they have pay staff and all other costs out of.
So suppose their takings drop to £5,100. They can’t pay their staff or even their rent and then they go out of business.
Or let’s picture a city centre in which there are hundreds of shops in a mall, and banks also, and people are all trying to queue two metres apart all over the place.
It’s going to be utterly ridiculous, and it will also cause endless arguments between people accusing others of jumping the queue, etc, etc.
A lot of people will find it so unpleasant to shop out again, they won’t bother and will go back to shopping only online.
And then those profit margins which may be so slim, will disappear, and then our high streets, currently ghost towns, will turn into potentially permanent ghost towns, because there won’t hardly be any shops open there any more.
It will be horrible, post-apocalyptic.
We mustn’t surrender to a “new normal” – we must insist on (as far as possible) a return to “the old normal.”
I am aware the governments can’t easily do that (out loud).
So what they must do is pretend they are still taking some measures to protect people, but in practice not actually do anything.
Tell people to wear face masks if they feel vulnerable, but make it clear that it’s a choice, and they are safe from others if they wea4 them, whether others do or they don’t.
(in reality of course there’s no absolute safety, but pretend there is for those who can’t handle the truth).
Likewise, those who feel threatened, should still be allowed to self-isolate, but they can’t expect everyone else to – life must resume as normal, or the catastrophe and death will be far worse.
For nobody is going to come out of this as “a knight in shining armour.”
Let’s just get on with life, and learn to “forgive and forget.”
But above all, not be stupid enough to ever consider doing this again, lest we are utterly convinced this is a Bubonic plague sized plague, with a death tally of 33%, not 1% or even 5%.
We prepare for any future event by greatly improving NHS capacity and equipment, not by putting millions of innocent people in effective prison, who never committed any crime, and in millions of cases literally scaring them half – or even in lesser numbers fully – to death.
OK Bill, but should we have the right to walk free and infect / kill other people as an acceptable cost for doing so?
We have a right to live our lives, not be slaves to politicians and bureaucrats. There are many diseases and causes of death, we all die eventually. There are some statistics that show this virus is less dangerous than many other diseases that are tolerated. I wish more concern was shown for the accuracy of the statistics used to justify this psyop being used to attack are basic human rights.
Maybe you should seek to stop the people behind this whole psyop. There people behind this, people with deliberate malice who masquerade as being benevolent. They say this virus is from laboratories, if so, they say many countries are involved, not just China, but USA, Australia etc. Are these rumours true? One thing for sure this is a psyop.
Normally if you have severe contagious disease you are put in a quarantine situation, as an analogy “in jail”.. In this case, as expressed by the video on YouTube “How Sweden is Responding to the Coronavirus | with Johan Norberg”, this virus is being treated the normal way in Sweden, but not the rest of the world. Most of the world is quarantining healthy people. To use an analogy, the locking up all the non-criminals in jail in the world because there are some criminals in and out of jail????? That is more than an analogy, because you have locked up the healthy people with laws that forbid normal movement.
Do we have the right to stand up against people in positions of power who peddle scare tactics? I say we have a right to oppose oppression.
Fact. The only people with the potential to kill are infected, coughing and sneezing. Unforgiveable to be out. Presumably they conforming to the stay in directive. Keep social distance means the rest of us are safe.
And maybe all of the critics should shut the f**k up. So much second guessing and so much meism – Im not at risk so its OK. If Johnson fully releases the lockdown and we get an even bigger catastrophe, who will be in line screeching the loudest – the politicians and the media. Government can only work on the advice of experts in an area where little is still known. All countries have the same issues and the great majority are dealing with it in the same way. Mostly the signs are good. What do all you moaning critics want, to lose your job or lose your life?
Shut up the yourself. Many people, and myself included, think this is another hoax with a real SARS2 (possibly man made), brought to you by the elite who run this world, and behind most terrible man made events.