Coronavirus is at my job

[dehro]

I am not a scientist or particularly knowledgeable in the medical field. I did write something on facebook.
I am going to post it here in spoilers, on account of it being a wall of text.

map tracking the spread of the virus in real time with the official updates

Spoiler: wall of text

Show

Considerations that are mostly for my international friends, who, I believe, do not fully grasp the situation that is going to hit them.

Currently the Italian government has taken the stance that it has closed all non-essential state-run services, keeping public transportation,
mail services and little else beyond the national health system running at a reduced capacity.
All B2C business concerns are closed by decree, and financial support is being set in place for the people in those sectors (horeca,
leisure industry and so on). Most shops are mandatorily closed as well, with exceptions made for stores that sell food and other
goods that are of absolute necessity, such as pharmacies).
This measure is however not applied for B2B companies, the industrial sector and all areas of production of goods and services.
What this means is that it is up to the owners of those companies to take the step to voluntarily close shop and send their workforce
home for a few weeks. Most companies choose not to do this, because there is no expectation of financial relief for those companies.
So, business as usual as long as possible, with the spectre of recession looming and encouraging to keep going.
One more reason for this appears to be that, should Italy actually put the entire country on hold and halt all production activity, the
country would go into automatic economic default. I Unless some form of assistance or break can be negotiated between Italy and it's
EU partners, it is very unlikely that the government will ever put pen to paper and force the country in a real total freeze.
The example of Wuhan seems to indicate that this is not enough; that keeping at least part of the population working and on the
streets, will counter all measures taken to defeat the spread of the virus.
Also in Italy a case could be made that this is true, because we have seen that in the original red zone villages, where everything
and everyone were asked to stay home and not go to work, 2 weeks later, no new notifications of COVID19 cases are appearing.
My personal expectation is that Italy will not see the decline that Wuhan is now experiencing, at least not at the same descent rate,
and this will negatively impact the economy for a longer time than would be strictly necessary.

The reasons for me writing about Italy instead of France, the market I work with, or the Netherlands where I currently live, aside
from the obvious personal connection (EDIT: I am half Italian and most of my immediate family lives there), is that everything seems to
indicate that the rest of the world is not following the example of Wuhan, just like Italy is still not committed, at least not fully… and they
are also not learning from observing what is happening in Italy.
Initial studies indicate that this lack of action is replicating the spread of the virus at virtually identical rates in every country affected. The
distinction being a matter of time and available medical facilities (specifically ICU units and assisted breathing equipment).
The numbers are the same, if one allows for a couple of weeks delay.

The stunning fact that governments other than that of Italy are still reacting very slowly to the situation, refusing to take draconian action
in a preventive manner, is the result of a sense of being removed from the situation, and of the misguided notion that “we will cope better,
our infrastructure is better” and that the damage on the economy would far outweigh the loss of life and medical emergency that might, or might not, occur.
The numbers say that it will occur. That hospitals will have to go from being prepared to survival mode and choose who to help by triage.
It is only a matter of time. This time would give other countries the opportunity to enact strict rules to counter as much as possible the speed
at which the contagion spreads. This would allow to, at least partially, slow the rate of infection to such a speed as could be more manageable
and would allow the hospitals to cope with the numbers.
Why this is not being done is a matter of political expediency and an attempt to avoid panicked reactions to a large scale.
However, the situation is confusing and the issue of personal responsibility arises. How much can one let this situation affect the daily course of
life and business? Where lies the balance between “I’m feeling ok, I might already have the virus but hey… I’m not in danger and I am being considerate” and
“if I go outside there is a good chance that I will interact with someone who might get the virus from me, someone who in turn might get in touch
with someone who has a compromised immune system and who might suffer long term damage or even die because of it.”
Where does our responsibility stop?
From Italy, the answer is becoming clearer by the day. The #Istayhome tag is what rules the debate and everybody is starting to realise that all
non-essential activities and contact with others is costing lives every day, maybe not ours, but someone’s, most likely not even that far removed from us.
I hear many people talk about natural selection, about the virus affecting those who are already of compromised health. This is not true. The triage
numbers are now such that they are taking in otherwise healthy patients in their forties. Anybody older than that gets turned away.
I would invite you to consider that Coronavirus is not the only issue. When hospitals are at full capacity and they have to select and treat the patient
with more chances of survival, those who do not make the cut die, whether it is from Coronavirus or something else that they could handily survive if
they were to receive the proper treatment. They die.
That is the crude reality of it. Furthermore, consider this: Coronavirus is not a clean death. People do not enter a coma and waste away painlessly,
assisted by painkillers. Instead they are lucid and die coughing and wheezing, knowing that the breaths they are counting are going to be their last
ones. Knowing their bodies will be buried hastily, that the best they can do to say their goodbyes is a quick videochat.
Do not justify going for a pint, to the gym, going running in crowded streets, or not wanting to disturb your routine or put up with your smelly housemates,
by saying that it is natural selection at work. Please.
If you can, make the choice to stay home. Do your bit to stave the spreading of the virus, whether by not catching it or by not spreading it should
you be infected but asymptomatic. You will never know for certain, but you might just save a life.
You will never know, because only serious cases are being tested and will be tested, whether that cough you had/have was just a cough or the
virus. Your government will most likely not tell you to stay home until the time comes when they have run out of room in the morgues (this is
currently happening in Italy, where hospitals are being improvised in public spaces such as trade centers). Your government will not help your
big or small business stay afloat, and it will not tell you to close for a few days, or weeks. If your country is not yet overrun by the situation,
consider what you can do as your government drags it's feet.
It is up to you.
Can you work from home? Then do that. Can you afford to miss out on a few weeks of work? Or classes? Then do that.
Can you refrain from going to visit your elderly parents for a while? DEFINITELY do that!
Can you do without going to the pub for a few weeks? Please do.
No, keeping the schools closed is to stop the spreading of the virus, not to give your children an opportunity for sleepovers, private parties and
other forms of group activity.
And when this all blows over, maybe consider spending some of your holiday money in Italy. It's a nice place to visit, and it can use the help.

Finally, maybe consider not to use half a roll of toilet paper every time you go for a wee… those empty shelves in the supermarket are just a ridiculous sight.

Despite everything, stay positive, keep smiling and stay safe.
A.


According to the official data, Germany was in line with the mathematical model, yesterday.

P.S., my SO, who lives in what is now the epicenter region of Italy, just informed me that requests are being made for people to bring tablets with simcards to the main hospitals,
so people can say goodbye to their loved ones..

[Peelee]

The example Tarmor gave is from the Daily Mail - and if that's not an example of "the media" then what is?

I'm not British, but it's my understanding that the Daily Mail is a tabloid, roughly on par with The Sun over there, or Weekly World News or National Enquirer over here. None of which I view as "the media," as tabloids are inherently (and arguably be design) unreliable and sensationalistic.

[Aedilred]

I'm not British, but it's my understanding that the Daily Mail is a tabloid, roughly on par with The Sun over there, or Weekly World News or National Enquirer over here. None of which I view as "the media," as tabloids are inherently (and arguably be design) unreliable and sensationalistic.

The tabloid/broadsheet distinction is no longer particularly useful in the UK, as only two daily newspapers still come in broadsheet format and one of them is the FT.

The Mail is widely disliked, but that is largely by way of reaction to its influence: it's website is the most-visited English-language news site worldwide. It presents itself as a serious paper and frequently wins newspaper awards. It still does proper journalism, even if people criticise its editorial angle. Wikipedia categorises it as "middle market", and it's not really comparable to the true red-top tabloids like the Sun/Enquirer etc.

When identifying the "traditional/mainstrem print media" in this country it would probably be the first title on the list, now that the Times is no longer widely taken as the paper of record.

[Xyril]

The example Tarmor gave is from the Daily Mail - and if that's not an example of "the media" then what is?

Context matters.

Quote from Tarmor, emphasis mine:

I feel that the internet in general is full of fearmongering, less so actual TV and radio stations, etc. Only a week ago there were heaps of unverified videos of of doors in China being welded shut, supposedly with Covid-19 sufferers within. Where else but media is most of the fear and panic generated by?

He then linked a Daily Mail article--a typical representative of a lot of online articles--that cover the reaction to videos that started circulating before the article was published. It acknowledged that the videos were unverified, but they've also already been spread around so much that the reaction to them is very real. The fear and panic was caused by those videos, and even without--and at this point, let's just stipulate to your generous categorization of the Daily Mail as "the media"--a legitimate media outlet covering it, those videos were already widely disseminated through other outlets.

Is this sort of thing news? Personally, I think if it relates to something important enough and has a big enough impact, unverified videos and pictures spread online might be legitimately newsworthy. However, even if you assume that this fits into that category, I find that the way the DM covered this was somewhat irresponsible. They didn't emphasize the unverified nature of those videos and contextualize what it means in an obvious way. Normally I don't feel like it should be media's job to dumb down reporting with the sole purpose of making sure that the laziest and the dumbest of us don't miss any important points--despite their best efforts to do so. However, in situations where those uncritical readers are likely to create a strong ripple effect in the public response, it would be responsible to take them into account.

[Peelee]

The Mail is widely disliked, but that is largely by way of reaction to its influence: it's website is the most-visited English-language news site worldwide.

I tried to verify this and couldn't one way or the other, but suffice it to say that I would be flabbergasted to find out that it's more visited than BBC News or Fox News (which I would otherwise assume are the biggest news organizations in the UK and US, respectively, let alone worldwide). Like, if you said it was more visited than The Guardian, I'd be surprised but not overly so, but against the media juggernauts?

Granted, I could be surprised by BBC News, and you did specify the website only, but still. Imean, at this point I'm prepared to be flabbergasted... but I'd still be flabbergasted.

[Aedilred]

Context matters.

Quote from Tarmor, emphasis mine:


He then linked a Daily Mail article--a typical representative of a lot of online articles--that cover the reaction to videos that started circulating before the article was published. It acknowledged that the videos were unverified, but they've also already been spread around so much that the reaction to them is very real. The fear and panic was caused by those videos, and even without--and at this point, let's just stipulate to your generous categorization of the Daily Mail as "the media"--a legitimate media outlet covering it, those videos were already widely disseminated through other outlets.

Is this sort of thing news? Personally, I think if it relates to something important enough and has a big enough impact, unverified videos and pictures spread online might be legitimately newsworthy. However, even if you assume that this fits into that category, I find that the way the DM covered this was somewhat irresponsible. They didn't emphasize the unverified nature of those videos and contextualize what it means in an obvious way. Normally I don't feel like it should be media's job to dumb down reporting with the sole purpose of making sure that the laziest and the dumbest of us don't miss any important points--despite their best efforts to do so. However, in situations where those uncritical readers are likely to create a strong ripple effect in the public response, it would be responsible to take them into account.

I think we're in agreement here?

I tried to verify this and couldn't one way or the other, but suffice it to say that I would be flabbergasted to find out that it's more visited than BBC News or Fox News (which I would otherwise assume are the biggest news organizations in the UK and US, respectively, let alone worldwide). Like, if you said it was more visited than The Guardian, I'd be surprised but not overly so, but against the media juggernauts?

Granted, I could be surprised by BBC News, and you did specify the website only, but still. Imean, at this point I'm prepared to be flabbergasted... but I'd still be flabbergasted.

The articles I can find on the subject are on the old side (take this one, for instance) but SimilarWeb lists the Mail Online as #9 as of this February for visits. Three of the top eight are foreign language sites and the remainder are news aggregators from non-news organisations (like MSN or Yahoo) that principally act as gateways and collations ofnews from other sources and don't do original journalism or comment.

The BBC website is #10, CNN #11 and Fox #19.

I suspect that the BBC news page used to be more popular but in the UK at least there were some changes made about ten years ago, some of them partly in response to complaints about competition, which I suspect have made the site less attractive.

[Xyril]

I think we're in agreement here?

Umm, no, not really, but I don't disagree with you strongly enough to spend much more time on it. I made a stipulation because I acknowledge that exactly where the line between legitimate media and tabloid is pretty subjective, and I am ambiguous enough about the Daily Mail that I didn't particularly feel like advocating either way. However, it's precisely because I think it's in such a grey area that I find it a bit disingenuous to hold it up as representative of the mainstream media.

And like I said, even if we pretend what the DM does is any sort of fair reflection on how entities like the BBC does business, I don't think it would be fair to say that they are the "source" of all the fear and panic. People are already spreading those rumors and videos on social media and through other networks without any sort of gate keeper. I've said that I thought the Daily Mail did a terrible job walking that fine line of reporting on all of the reaction to that news while not implicitly endorsing the credibility of that news. However, refusing to acknowledge those videos and rumors, their widespread dissemination, and the major response to that news isn't necessarily a great option either, and could in its own way stoke panic.

[dehro]

{scrubbed}

[Aedilred]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

When you say "both", which two of Tarmor, Palanan, me, Peelee and Xyril are you addressing?

[Bonecrusher Doc]

I think there's plenty of information out there for anyone who wants the information.
And plenty of uncertainty which leads to debates... and anxiety.

As per the title of the thread, I also could use some support for the coronavirus being at my job.

I was asked to guard the building and screen everyone coming in for possible symptoms.
One employee, looking sick, coughs near me in the hallway and then asks which way to Employee Health. I tell him and offer him a mask, but he declines and walks off. I contact his supervisor to let her know that she has a sick person in her area and she says "I can't believe he came to work! He said he had a fever yesterday!" I say I won't let him back in.

The employee comes back, I tell him he can't come in because his supervisor said he had a fever, and he walks past me anyway. I call security on him. Now he has filed a complaint against me and my actions will be subject to a fact-finding investigation.

I'm not really worried about the outcome of the investigation; my boss already says he's got my back, but the whole situation makes me upset. We actually have a nursing home on our campus - different building, but still - if anybody should be taking things seriously, it should be my coworkers. I hope this guy isn't at work when I get back tomorrow

[Sermil]

As per the title of the thread, I also could use some support for the coronavirus being at my job.

I was asked to guard the building and screen everyone coming in for possible symptoms.
One employee, looking sick, coughs near me in the hallway and then asks which way to Employee Health. I tell him and offer him a mask, but he declines and walks off. I contact his supervisor to let her know that she has a sick person in her area and she says "I can't believe he came to work! He said he had a fever yesterday!" I say I won't let him back in.

The employee comes back, I tell him he can't come in because his supervisor said he had a fever, and he walks past me anyway. I call security on him. Now he has filed a complaint against me and my actions will be subject to a fact-finding investigation.

I'm not really worried about the outcome of the investigation; my boss already says he's got my back, but the whole situation makes me upset. We actually have a nursing home on our campus - different building, but still - if anybody should be taking things seriously, it should be my coworkers. I hope this guy isn't at work when I get back tomorrow

Ugh, sounds like a major jerk. Hope you don't get anything from him. Good luck!

[Xyril]

I'm not really worried about the outcome of the investigation; my boss already says he's got my back, but the whole situation makes me upset. We actually have a nursing home on our campus - different building, but still - if anybody should be taking things seriously, it should be my coworkers. I hope this guy isn't at work when I get back tomorrow

Make sure you document the incident in all of the ways your company policy requires or recommends, and if at all possible, make sure to e-mail his supervisor, your supervisor, and anyone else you interacted with when deciding what to do... just something like "I just wanted to confirm, as per our discussion on the phone yesterday morning, that you said jerkface reported feeling unwell previously and was instructed not to return to work yesterday." etc.

Basically, make sure there's a paper trail to fall back on that proves that somebody in authority gave you information that justified every action you took. You don't absolutely don't want to prematurely out this individual, since that could run afoul of some company policy or rules, but you should make sure that when his complaint is investigated, the main outcome is that even more people find out that he violated orders and endangered everyone else in the company.

[Eldan]

Our university has delayed the semester start, for now students have to stay home. For us, there's no difference except we don't have to teach.

Bigger problem... I'm stranded on the wrong side of the border and can't see my family for the foreseeable future.

[ben-zayb]

I’m a healthcare worker at a hospital in NJ.

We just had a confirmed case here.

I’m scared. I have kids at home. My parents were supposed to visit this weekend. I didn’t have any direct contact with this patient but I know I walked past their room without being told.

My father is immune-compromised and I’ve cancelled my parents visit this weekend.

I know I’m probably safe (I’m 49, in decent health), but it’s the older people and kids I’m most worried about.

I have nothing but utmost respect for the dedication of people who are at the forefront of this crisis.

I'm sending all positive vibes from half the world away, and hoping for the best for all of us.

The national CFR here sits at a terrible ~8.4%, so I sure as heck am taking it seriously

[Clistenes]

This evening I heard health workers are running out of equipment in some parts of my country, and that they are starting to run triage on coronavirus patients... It has made me realize what a {scrubbed} up mess we are in...

There are only three confirmed cases in my town, and it has been a few days since lockdown started here, so I have hope that it won't get too bad around here... But if some of my elderly relatives gets it, they may be left to die in agony due to shortage of equipment... This sucks...

[Vizzerdrix]

Well. The sister in Florida has it, and my dad in Maine is such a high risk person that his doctor has quarantined him (71. Diabetic. Ex smoker. Lost 1/2 a lung to cancer). He lives out in the country so hopefully he will be okay.

I did a thing that may be stupid. I am getting over strep, and I brought him out 30 lbs of rice. I wiped everything down with clorox wipes, and told him to let the rice (in sealed buckets) sit on his porch for 4 days so anything on them can die. I heard that wu flu can survive outside a body for 3 days, so I told him not to touch it for 4.

I just started a new job, and I don't know if they will be closing down. I hope not. I can think of a few things I could get still. Im good on food for myself and the ferrets, and tp isn't an issue, but I could use some duct tape and a tent in case I have to go.

[Lemmy]

In my country, the Corona Virus hasn't been quite that severe, at least for now...

We have around 200 cases (most of which were in my city) and had our first death this week.

However, many companies (mine included) have either temporarily suspended activities or moved as moved as many employees as possible to home office. The government is advising self-isolation, but isn't forcing anything yet. Markets are still well-stocked. Luckily, panic and hysteria haven't spread.

Yesterday I left home for the first time in 3 days in order to buy cat litter. There are definitely fewer people on the streets, but things seem fine otherwise.

I'm more worried about my father and his wife, but they live in a small town and can stay home, so they are relatively safe. I planned to visit them, but had to postpone it for obvious reasons.

There has definitely been some hyperbolic alarmism from mainstream media, national and international. But so far, thing have been mostly under control.

At least here, in a huge city in an enormous third world country, things are serious but not world-ending. It seems to me that panic and misinformation might be more dangerous than the illness itself.

So... Take care, everyone.

Follow the CDC advice, avoid crowds, practice good hygiene and, if you feel the need to stock up goods, don't overdo it. Don't let fear make you leave your neighbors without food or TP (seriously, the TP scarcity going on in some regions is super dumb even by hysteria standards).

[2D8HP]

I first walked into the Dark Carnival bookstore in 1979 when it was on Telegraph Avenue across the street from my junior high school (the first book I bought there was A Princess of Mars), it's location has changed a couple of times since, and I've met Bruce Sterling, William Gibson, Larry Niven, Michael Moorcock, and a very frail Fritz Leiber there (and my 1970's paperback Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser collections insisted the Lankhmar's Street of Gods was based on Berkeley's Telegraph Avenue) and now it - and all bookstores in my area - is closed due to the "shelter in place" order, I already gave up alcohol for - a thing I do for a few weeks every year around this time of year where I make a sacrifice of some sort and go without something, and I have more books hoarded than I'll likely ever get to read, plus on Saturday when I heard that the public libraries were about to close for weeks I rushed out and quickly checked out seven books an hour before closing (some medieval and renaissance "living history" books, two Ursula LeGuin anthologies, and John Steinbeck's The Acts of King Arthur and His Noble Knights), but I'm already finding the knowledge that I can't get anymore books for who knows how long vexing.

Yesterday afternoon my boss called a meeting and told us that our apprentice is being furloughed for three weeks starting tomorrow, but the rest of us are “essential City and County of San... [Lankhmar] disaster service workers” and still have to work regular shifts or more, and to carry our city I.D. badges going to and from work now as cops may start enforcement of “shelter in place”.

I had already signed out a vacation hour to buy St. Paddy’s Day fixings for the crew tomorrow, and went to Safeway and stood in a very long line along with what seemes a third of [Lankhmar] as the shelves were stripped by folks preparing for siege.

The public libraries, my favorite gameshop, my favorite bookstore, bars, and the schools are now closed, restaurants will be "take out only".

So much change, so fast, plagues are lame!

[Clistenes]

So much change, so fast, plagues are lame!

Yeah, it feels like we are back to the Middle Ages, locked up at home waiting for the plague ti run its course... I am almost expecting Plague Doctors to make a comeback.

This year has been weird...

[Bonecrusher Doc]

All the management backed me up with my documented side of the story I posted a page back, so I should be good on that. My wife is really hoping I can work from home so that our whole family can be hermetically sealed off, but I don't see that happening soon.

I'm very lucky that I'm in no danger of losing my paycheck. I feel really bad for people who are not as lucky. What can somebody do if they lose their paycheck? It's too late to retrain for another job... Start delivering groceries?

[veti]

Similarly, likely projections are up to 80% will be asymptomatic or very mildly symptomatic.

I read that as "for 80% of people it will be no worse than a regular cold". Which can still be fairly unpleasant, but not scary.

I'm not British, but it's my understanding that the Daily Mail is a tabloid, roughly on par with The Sun over there, or Weekly World News or National Enquirer over here. None of which I view as "the media," as tabloids are inherently (and arguably be design) unreliable and sensationalistic.

Bits of that are true, but vastly oversimplified. I'm not personally familiar with the National Enquirer, beyond noting that its circulation is a tiny fraction of the Mail's, but the comparison with Weekly World News is way off.

Yes, it's a tabloid. By itself that doesn't actually say anything about the content, it simply refers to the format in which the paper is printed. Some tabloids are every bit as serious as any newspaper, others are simply about catching people's eyes and getting them talking.

The Mail has a foot in both camps. It has a very strong editorial bias, which often leads it to present poorly sourced stories with undue emphasis and sensationalism, and makes it widely loathed and reviled by people who don't agree with its politics. But it also has some very good journalists, and routinely comes up with stories that no-one else has got. Most of these are pretty much trash (at the time of writing this, for instance, it has an "exclusive" tag on "Meghan demands staff follow strict hygiene protocol" - yeah, I can imagine someone in 10 years asking me where I was when I first heard that bombshell), but nevertheless - someone researched and wrote it, that kind of thing is not as easy as it looks. And they do quite often include actual news.

But more importantly, over two million people read the Mail on a daily basis and - more or less, making appropriate allowances and caveats - believe what they read. It's definitely "media" by any reasonable definition.

As for "unreliable and sensationalistic" - yes, you can certainly make that case. But you can make a similar case against most media - which I think was kinda the GP's point. The Mail may be a bit more so than some, but the difference is definitely one of degree, not of kind.

[Peelee]

I will admit to only knowing three British publications - The Daily Mail, most comments I've heard regarding it as senationalistic unreliable; The Sun, most comments I've heard regarding it as sensationalistic and unreliable; and The Guardian, which I haven't really heard anyone talk about. All my experience with TDM and TS are third-hand accounts, TG I visit on occasion and think they do a great job but I'm unfamiliar with how it's seen over there - though I would expect its received positively, if my experience is any indication.

Then again, I apparently took the complaints about TDM as a bit more extreme than it really is, so who knows.

[Waraila]

The guardian is probably the least sensationalist of the three you mentioned, honestly... although it can get quite annoying with the wall to wall coverage of current events.

BBC is a little better in that regard, but honestly the media haven't really been helping much. You get better info from the NHS website than the media (NHS is the equivalent of your CDC I suppose although it's not really a great comparison given the health systems are a tad different)

There is one thing though on the NHS website that may set people's minds a tad bit at ease. They say it is highly unlikely that the virus can spread via packages or food items. So getting food to vulnerable family members shouldn't be a problem.

As for the sun and daily mail - well.... lets just say they are well known for being part of the murdoch press empire, and as such they make mountains out of molehills on a regular basis. They are also known as gossip machines... and have all the latest celeb gossip...

[Xyril]

As for the sun and daily mail - well.... lets just say they are well known for being part of the murdoch press empire, and as such they make mountains out of molehills on a regular basis. They are also known as gossip machines... and have all the latest celeb gossip...

You've gotta respect the Sun for doing something trashy enough that an entire city pretty much unanimously agrees that they're garbage. Drumming up that sort of (politically) bipartisan unity is pretty rare nowadays.

[Aedilred]

As for the sun and daily mail - well.... lets just say they are well known for being part of the murdoch press empire, and as such they make mountains out of molehills on a regular basis. They are also known as gossip machines... and have all the latest celeb gossip...

The Mail isn't Murdoch, although the Times is.

Spoiler: A brief and only partly inaccurate generalised history of UK print media (mainly for Peelee's benefit)

Show

In the early 80s, there were four national daily broadsheet newspapers: The Times, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, and The Financial Times (which is largely irrelevant for our purposes). The Times was considered the "paper of record" while the Guardian and Telegraph were more heavily editorialised. These contrasted with the "red-top" tabloids, the Mirror, the Star and The Sun which were sensationalist, and often had topless women on page 3. In between were the Daily Mail and the Daily Express which had adopted tabloid format in the 70s but retained their broadsheet appearance and carried out proper journalism.

This is still pretty much the shape of things now but there have been shake-ups in the interim which mean that it's less clear than it used to be.

Following Murdoch's purchase of the Times in the 80s a new broadsheet was set up, the Independent, which considered that the other broadsheets had vacated the centre ground and moved to more politically extreme positions. A price war ensued with the Times trying to squeeze out the Indy but it managed to survive. During the 80s Murdoch also aggressively went to war with the Fleet Street unions and revolutionised the production of print media (for good or ill).

This remained the pattern of things for about another twenty years until the rise of internet news. Initially all the major papers made their content available free on their website but declining print circulations bit deep. The Times and Guardian adopted a compact format, akin to a tabloid, and the Times erected a paywall. The Telegraph held out for several years before doing the same. The Independent tried a number of measures before admitting defeat, abandoning print and sacking most of its staff. It still has a website but its readership is minimal. The Financial Times, unsurprisingly, also went behind a paywall.

This left - and leaves - the Guardian as the only remaining quality major newspaper which still makes its content freely available online, and has led to an uptick in readership. It does still however have a reputation - deserved in part, as reputations often are - for, firstly, questionable proofreading and subediting (leading to its Private Eye-derived nickname, The Grauniad (or The Graun for short)) and secondly for an editorial slant that means its commentary often tries exceedingly hard to be worthy and consequently has a tendency to eat itself or disappear up its own backside. It is viewed generally as a serious paper but not without a degree of eye-rolling.

The Times remains influential but its paywall limits its reach. The Telegraph is treated less seriously these days following some unpopular editorial decisions and a mass exodus of staff which have taken a toll on its readership, but on a good day it remains a "quality" paper.

The Daily Mail markets itself as a serious paper, does serious journalism and takes itself very seriously but outside its readership (which doesn't really overlap with the Graun's at all) has a reputation for an editorial slant in the opposite direction which makes it widely disliked. This reputation is however compensated by its enormously successful website, which attracts eyeballs through celebrity gossip and the "sidebar of shame". Of the two, it is probably more influential and reaches a wider readership.

The Express is actually pretty much identical to the Mail but less successful in terms of its circulation.

[Peelee]

A brief and only partly inaccurate generalised history of UK print media (mainly for Peelee's benefit)

Mucho appreciado!

[factotum]

You've gotta respect the Sun for doing something trashy enough that an entire city pretty much unanimously agrees that they're garbage. Drumming up that sort of (politically) bipartisan unity is pretty rare nowadays.

To the extent that, even 20 years later, a union representative could tear up a copy of the Sun at a conference saying, "In Liverpool we learned a long time ago what to do.".

[ben-zayb]

I'm very lucky that I'm in no danger of losing my paycheck. I feel really bad for people who are not as lucky. What can somebody do if they lose their paycheck? It's too late to retrain for another job... Start delivering groceries?

No kidding. No work no pay policy, living space and population density that makes social distancing near impossible and living off meal to meal–these as a dangerous combination is the reality for millions of people. It is not unexpected for people who are under those circumstances to still report to work or roam to ply their trade.

Naturally, I'll leave it at that lest I type something that could get me in trouble. I firmly believe that panicking and overreacting will do no good, but for a lot of people there is a very real cause for concern, if not caution

[jayem]

The Mail isn't Murdoch, although the Times is.
...Paper summary

Spoiler: I was expecting...

Show

Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; The Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Oh and Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits.

(src from wikiquote, so ought to be ok)

rather than an well crafted description

[Xyril]

Spoiler: I was expecting...

Show

Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; The Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Oh and Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits.

(src from wikiquote, so ought to be ok)

Well, I guess Queen Elizabeth now has a way to make the monarchy suddenly relevant again. (At least to Sun readers.)