I noticed that too suzie and wonder what her complaint is about.
There are two main schools of thought about the management of the pandemic. Gupta and Heneghan believe in "herd immunity", which would involve locking up oldies and lettung the rest infect each other. It's about survival of the fittest. Their ideas have been behind much of what the media has written about the disadvantages of lockdown. Unfortunately, there's increasing evidence that immunity doesn't last, so there can never be herd immunity.
Meanwhile, the modellers at Imperial and others believe in an approach which would almost eradicate transmission and control isolated outbreaks by having efficient testing and tracing. A virus is dead and needs live hosts, so stopping transmission would stop it.
Gupta's and Heneghan's theories support current government thinking and I've seen plenty of references to their ideas in the media.
The trouble is that lazy journalists only pick up part of the story. For example, there was a headline on the BBC this morning that Covid tests are identifying people who have tested positive, but are no longer infectious and suggested that this is inflating the reported number of cases. The headline has now been partially corrected. While it's true that the test picks up a handful people who are no longer infectious, other scientists were quick to point out that the timing of the report meant that it was highly unlikely that old cases were being contributing to case numbers. The trouble is that most people don't read beyond the headline and the BBC is keen to promote anything which makes the figures seem lower than they are.
