Coronavirus Thread

[WigstonWanderer]

On 01/05/2021 at 02:08, Fox92 said:

More positive news

 

 

You’ve got to laugh at the comments to that article in the Mail. Infested with anti-vaxers. I suppose you’d expect that from Mail readers.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

47 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

You’ve got to laugh at the comments to that article in the Mail. Infested with anti-vaxers. I suppose you’d expect that from Mail readers.

I thought the Mail's readership was full of Tory sycophants who'd lap up what the Govt tells them ie get yourself a vaccine done.

(Sorry if I've misunderstood your point, WW.)

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

I thought the Mail's readership was full of Tory sycophants who'd lap up what the Govt tells them ie get yourself a vaccine done.

(Sorry if I've misunderstood your point, WW.)

Yes, there is a misunderstanding here, viz. Daily Mail readers align with this current government on the way the Covid crisis has been handled, even though they do align with them on many other issues. The anti-vax/anti-lockdown sentiment from among them (and even such sentiment on here) is reasonably obvious to see.

 

But then, I'm guessing someone as astute in matters of public opinion would know this and you were just making a point.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm guessing someone as astute in matters of public opinion would know this and you were just making a point.

No, was absolutely not making any point, was a genuine question, hence why I added the 'misunderstanding' bit in brackets.

I'm not familiar with many Mail readers but I wouldn't have had them down as anti-vaxxers, not that I'd given it much thought anyway.

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

No, was absolutely not making any point, was a genuine question, hence why I added the 'misunderstanding' bit in brackets.

I'm not familiar with many Mail readers but I wouldn't have had them down as anti-vaxxers, not that I'd given it much thought anyway.

Fair enough.

 

Given that the Mail played a very, very large part in kicking off the whole anti-vax craze in the first place (taking Wakefield seriously enough to put him on the front page more than once) then I would absolutely make the assumption that at least some of their readers then and now harbour anti-vax sentiments. And seeing as the Mail also leans somewhat libertarian on some matters of personal freedom (depends on the demographic you belong to, though), there's some anti-lockdown sentiment there too.

 

Hope that clarifies matters some.

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

People in England urged to be patient amid reports hugging may soon be allowed
 

 

🤗 

[Buce]

 

Wtf is it with people and hugging?

 

I don't want anyone invading my personal space, with or without Covid.

[SpacedX]

13 hours ago, Samilktray said:

Foxestalk’s doom mongers and curtain twitchers are very quiet amongst this good news 

"Doom mongers and curtain twitchers"??? - who would they be? No use simply saying it. If you think that then have the balls to call it out. Reminds me of the comment a few weeks ago about 'lockdown freaks' which was similarly unsubstantiated. 

 

Personally, when I saw the post I was tempted to comment on the appalling journalism but didn't wish to taint some positive news on here for a change which speaks for itself. "Admitted"???? You expect nonsense like that on Social Media/twitter not from the print press. Actually, it's the Daily Mail, so perhaps you do. "Admitted" implies culpability. Transmission in hospitality, retail and leisure has been found to be less significant than postulated as an attributable fraction of the population - and it is the job of science to question itself - unlike the populist opinion and confirmation bias that some on this thread have peddled and staunchly adhere to. Not sure if you actually read the article, but it is correct that closing hospitality was essential to prevent indoor mixing - the biggest driver of Covid spread - but also that the number of outbreaks in the sector may be artificially low due to sustained closure of venues. I've suggested before that the workplace is far more significant in terms of outbreaks and transmission but those infections may well stem from socialising at the weekend. 

 

Not sure what point you're making - hospitality is a few weeks away from reopening whilst the vaccination programme has been an overwhelming success, which is tremendous news for business owners - but many are simply keen to reduce their losses from the terrible prolonged damage that has been done. It's the independents that I fear for - already under threat from the chains that dominate our identikit high streets across the nation. I've made every effort to support some of my local small businesses during lockdown over their larger rivals and look forward to doing so in person. It's getting people back in the premises which will help revive these businesses - not sitting outside in a pub garden. The sooner the better. 

 

As I've said before, my job is very vulnerable right now - this was the case simply due to Brexit alone. Added to that, it is an order of magnitude harder to do from home. I desperately need to be back in person...and I'm not even sure it'll be there to go back to. International travel is also relaxing. What I don't need is the same ****wit elements of the UK population that denounce and deny the value of social distancing/preventative measures and precautions as we emerge from lockdown forcing yet more restrictions upon me. Neither does the hospitality sector.

 

And yourself? 

[st albans fox]

If we don’t drop the ball then we may well be through this (in its current form) ....

 

if something fundamental changes then all bets are off .... 

 

can we trust those who are responsible for carrying the ball not to drop it ?????

[Nuneatonfox in Manchester]

9 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

You’ve got to laugh at the comments to that article in the Mail. Infested with anti-vaxers. I suppose you’d expect that from Mail readers.

Not at all. This is such a fallacy that the so called ‘gammons’ are the most vaccine sceptic. Everyone who isn’t an ostrich knows that the highest levels of vaccine hesitancy comes from BAME and young people. The amount of 50 plus white people, who have came forward for the vaccine (something like high 90s%) for the good of the whole country is one of the main reasons why the uk is in as strong a position as it is right now.

[leicsmac]

30 minutes ago, Nuneatonfox in Manchester said:

Not at all. This is such a fallacy that the so called ‘gammons’ are the most vaccine sceptic. Everyone who isn’t an ostrich knows that the highest levels of vaccine hesitancy comes from BAME and young people. The amount of 50 plus white people, who have came forward for the vaccine (something like high 90s%) for the good of the whole country is one of the main reasons why the uk is in as strong a position as it is right now.

The stats do bear you out here, it would seem.

 

That does raise two questions, however: firstly, if the comment section of the Mail Online is home to lots of people who disseminate its articles (and not, let's say, just randos who just comment there without reading), then why are there so many anti-vax comments there in the first place? And secondly, what's the reason behind the seeming disconnect between the Mail stories and attitudes regarding vaccination (like was said earlier, they were the ones to first push Wakefield and his discredited science) and their readership on the matter?

[WigstonWanderer]

9 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

I thought the Mail's readership was full of Tory sycophants who'd lap up what the Govt tells them ie get yourself a vaccine done.

(Sorry if I've misunderstood your point, WW.)

I think @leicsmac has pretty much got things spot on. I don’t have a very high regard for Mail readers. I’m sure the feeling is mutual .

 

Did you read any of the comments? Anyone who tried to speak any sense was shot down and heavily downvoted. 

Edited 2 May 2021 by WigstonWanderer

[WigstonWanderer]

46 minutes ago, Nuneatonfox in Manchester said:

Not at all. This is such a fallacy that the so called ‘gammons’ are the most vaccine sceptic. Everyone who isn’t an ostrich knows that the highest levels of vaccine hesitancy comes from BAME and young people. The amount of 50 plus white people, who have came forward for the vaccine (something like high 90s%) for the good of the whole country is one of the main reasons why the uk is in as strong a position as it is right now.

I urge you to read the comments. The Mail is full of celebrity bullshit so probably attracts certain type if person that I can well imagine would not be much interested in, or swayed by any scientific consensus.

Edited 2 May 2021 by WigstonWanderer

[dsr-burnley]

3 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Wtf is it with people and hugging?

 

I don't want anyone invading my personal space, with or without Covid.

I hug my mother every night before bedtime.  Fortunately we live in the same house, so it's legal.  There are loads of people who would love to hug their mothers, fathers, children, even husbands or wives, but because they don't live in the same house, it is a criminal offence to do so.

[yorkie1999]

3 hours ago, st albans fox said:

If we don’t drop the ball then we may well be through this (in its current form) ....

 

if something fundamental changes then all bets are off .... 

 

can we trust those who are responsible for carrying the ball not to drop it ?????

Whether people like it or not It will be international travel that will cause a possible resurgence.

[yorkie1999]

21 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I hug my mother every night before bedtime.  Fortunately we live in the same house, so it's legal.  There are loads of people who would love to hug their mothers, fathers, children, even husbands or wives, but because they don't live in the same house, it is a criminal offence to do so.

Like many people, you do this cos you ain’t a miserable sod.

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, yorkie1999 said:

Whether people like it or not It will be international travel that will cause a possible resurgence.

Given that there are very low levels of infection here, we would be v unlucky to develop a vaccine resistant new variant locally - hence any danger does indeed come from travel.  

[DennisNedry]

5 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Wtf is it with people and hugging?

 

I don't want anyone invading my personal space, with or without Covid.

 

[Stuntman_Mike]

5 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Wtf is it with people and hugging?

 

I don't want anyone invading my personal space, with or without Covid.

Tbf this does read like someone deprived of hugs 

[Tuna]

 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

 

[Dunge]

12 hours ago, leicsmac said:

The stats do bear you out here, it would seem.

 

That does raise two questions, however: firstly, if the comment section of the Mail Online is home to lots of people who disseminate its articles (and not, let's say, just randos who just comment there without reading), then why are there so many anti-vax comments there in the first place? And secondly, what's the reason behind the seeming disconnect between the Mail stories and attitudes regarding vaccination (like was said earlier, they were the ones to first push Wakefield and his discredited science) and their readership on the matter?

In answer to this I’d say...

 

First of all, don’t equate the Mail readership with those who comment on its online forum. The Mail readership is many thousands of people who read it for different reasons. Some will be for reasons of strongly libertarian beliefs, granted. But others will simply be because the puzzles are their kind of level. And many in between. Meanwhile, the comments section will be filled with a few people who are full of their own importance in believing their opinion should be heard*, are probably not listened to elsewhere and are shouting as loudly as they can.

 

As for being the written press home of anti-vax, it perhaps suggests that the bulk of the Mail’s readership are more discerning and creditable with their own powers of reasoning that they are given credit for. I know people can be influenced by falsehoods in the paper, but I don’t think it’s an exclusive either/or.

 

*I am aware of the cyclical irony of myself writing this on a social media platform.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

In answer to this I’d say...

 

First of all, don’t equate the Mail readership with those who comment on its online forum. The Mail readership is many thousands of people who read it for different reasons. Some will be for reasons of strongly libertarian beliefs, granted. But others will simply be because the puzzles are their kind of level. And many in between. Meanwhile, the comments section will be filled with a few people who are full of their own importance in believing their opinion should be heard*, are probably not listened to elsewhere and are shouting as loudly as they can.

 

As for being the written press home of anti-vax, it perhaps suggests that the bulk of the Mail’s readership are more discerning and creditable with their own powers of reasoning that they are given credit for. I know people can be influenced by falsehoods in the paper, but I don’t think it’s an exclusive either/or.

 

*I am aware of the cyclical irony of myself writing this on a social media platform.

Thanks for the thoughts, but I'm not really sure it answers the question I asked.

 

If the readership of the Mail is indeed as discerning as all that, then why would the Mail publish anti-vax stories at all, when not giving your readers what they want would be a fast track to going out of business? Seems to be something of a contradiction there.

 

With respect to the first paragraph, I'm thinking that the suggestion is that this is a "vocal minority" of Mail readers, right?

[st albans fox]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Thanks for the thoughts, but I'm not really sure it answers the question I asked.

 

If the readership of the Mail is indeed as discerning as all that, then why would the Mail publish anti-vax stories at all, when not giving your readers what they want would be a fast track to going out of business? Seems to be something of a contradiction there.

 

With respect to the first paragraph, I'm thinking that the suggestion is that this is a "vocal minority" of Mail readers, right?

The mail has a varied readership base - all on the one side but not all thinking the same thing ..........

[Dunge]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Thanks for the thoughts, but I'm not really sure it answers the question I asked.

 

If the readership of the Mail is indeed as discerning as all that, then why would the Mail publish anti-vax stories at all, when not giving your readers what they want would be a fast track to going out of business? Seems to be something of a contradiction there.

 

With respect to the first paragraph, I'm thinking that the suggestion is that this is a "vocal minority" of Mail readers, right?

You’re assuming that the Mail have “called it right” with regards to their audience, at least on this issue. And as I say, some people will have it for a casual browse, some because they want language somewhere between the dumb-down of the Sun and the more challenging read of the Telegraph (there isn’t really that much option in the middle writing-wise) and some because they simply like the Mail’s puzzles or magazine segments.

Whatever the truth though, the Mail haven’t had a good pandemic. Specifically given they were the most vocal newspaper last year over opening society back up again. And yes, I do think their position could end up hurting them in the long run, because I can’t see them gaining many enthusiastic new readers off the back of it. Their business model looks to me like one of continuity and pensioners who will stick with them out of loyalty. This episode suggests those pensioners are more discerning than they perhaps realised with regard to believing what the Mail are saying. From a business perspective, someone at the Mail probably needs to realise this and fast.