9 ms·

I'm sorry but I'm finding it very difficult to see how this isn't straight up propaganda from the BBC. >The number of deaths from coronavirus in Iran is nearly

I'm sorry but I'm finding it very difficult to see how this isn't straight up propaganda from the BBC. >The number of deaths from coronavirus in Iran is nearly triple what Iran's government claims, a BBC Persian service investigation has found. This is false. There is a very important distinction between confirmed deaths due to coronavirus, and deaths of people who may have shown some coronavirus symptoms. One is clearly an undercount, one is clearly an overcount and they aren't measuring the same thing. So to publish on your state broadcaster a story deliberately mis-representing that fact is a bad move. The data even shows that the confirmed coronavirus deaths track proportionately to suspected coronavirus deaths - actually showing that it's highly unlikely that the numbers are being manipulated. If you go here: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ the UK government gives the exact same measure that Iran uses as their official number.

pasabagi 6y ago
To be fair, the BBC is about as independent as your average non-state media company, and definitely less entangled with the past five governments than anything owned by Murdoch. That said, it is a bit awkward, given the UK's own undercounting.
- seamyb88 6y ago
  > To be fair, the BBC is about as independent as your average non-state media company, and definitely less entangled with the past five governments than anything owned by Murdoch. Absolutely not true. From propagating the idea that life-long advocate of equality, Jeremy Corbyn, is antisemitic, to sending well-fed journos out on boats to chase migrants (never people, migrants) around asking them what they want, the BBC is a Conservative mouth-piece.
  - nickcox 6y ago
    Not to mention _literally_ portraying the chancellor as Superman. [1] [1] https://www.thenational.scot/news/18620765.bbc-slammed-portraying-rishi-sunak-superman/ https://www.thenational.scot/news/18620765.bbc-slammed-portr...
    - seamyb88 6y ago
      The downvoters are thick as pig sh!t
    - phatfish 6y ago
      And Corbyn was Lenin. I think that tells you all you need to know about the BBC. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jeremy-corbyn-newsnight-denies-photo-photoshopped-a8262351.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jeremy-corby...
  - 9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago
    BBC seems to get about as many accusations of left-wing and right-wing bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC ...which in my book means they must be doing something right. Their reporting certainly seems less rabidly partisan than pretty much anything in the US.
    - phatfish 6y ago
      Fence sitting does not automatically make you right. Half way between two falsehoods is still wrong. For the BBC they HAVE to keep the government happy to continue to exist, or they will be legislated away. Same as any other state owned broadcaster. Although the threats from the current government against the BBC seem empty. Why would they destroy the most successful government controlled media operation in the world?
      - fault_lines 6y ago
        The right controls the non-government media organizations just as well, what's the difference? The BBC is harder to control because it legally is supposed to be impartial.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    Find me one instance of the BBC directly calling Jeremy Corbyn an antisemite.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      Why would anyone do it directly when you can just insinuate? "Critics say..."
      - mhh__ 6y ago
        So you can't.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        Correct. You have slain the strawman! Congratulations.
  - pasabagi 6y ago
    I dislike the BBC as much as anyone, but I think the fact is, they are neither anybody's mouthpiece, nor do they have any particular agenda. Simply, it is staffed by well connected, wealthy people who live in and around London, and as such, represents their views - warts and all.
  - andybak 6y ago
    I find it comforting that both the left and the right in the UK is convinced the BBC is hopelessly biased against them. They must be doing something right. (I'm being slightly flippant - I am aware how it's possible to be wrong on both counts. However I do think calling the BBC a "Conservative mouth-piece" when many on the right of the Tory part think the BBC is left-wing and beyond repair is a little unfair)
    - flir 6y ago
      The BBC are biased towards the status quo - left-leaning social policies, right-leaning economic policies and a (currently) Conservative government. The right-wingers get upset about social pieces, the left-wingers get upset about economic and political pieces. But it's not even possible or desirable to be utterly unbiased, so one of our broadcasters being "the voice of the Establishment" doesn't seem like that bad a thing to me. It's not like other broadcasters aren't avaiable.
- plouffy 6y ago
  I'm struggling to see how this article is awkward for the BBC. It's not as though the BBC has not reported the situation in the UK: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53592881 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53592881 .
- fault_lines 6y ago
  The right wing in the UK has been inserting their own people into top BBC positions for years. The BBC has a history of working with the security services to deny employment to anyone 'too left wing'. Some of the most well known faces on the BBC are Conservative supporters - Nick Robinson was chair of the Oxford University Conservative Association, Andrew Neil was the editor-in-chief of the Conservative supporting fascist rag The Spectator and remains chairman of its publisher. Its function over the last 10 years of government has been increasingly, and highly visibly, to propagandize for the Conservatives and smear the left.
  - pasabagi 6y ago
    I'm aware of this, which is why I said 'about as independent', rather than 'independent'. I think the point is, the BBC is representative of a certain group of people, many of whom are from the same milieu as parts of the conservative party, and parts of the labour party. However, that could be said of most (all?) large media organizations in the UK.
- tankenmate 6y ago
  The BBC also reports on the UK's undercounting, so it doesn't appear to be playing favourites; but a deeper independent investigation would be needed. Also, the BBC has News Watch which is an independent group within the BBC that responds to and tracks criticisms of its output.
  - pmachinery 6y ago
    > The BBC also reports on the UK's undercounting, so it doesn't appear to be playing favourites Does it refer to that as a "British government cover-up"?
    - justicezyx 6y ago
      Right, there is always a use of "mistakes" and "cover up". It's like they always believe authoritarian leaders are much competent than democratic leaders, any mistakes in authoritarian nations must be cover-up. Meanwhile, they also believe authoritarian nations are bound to collapse, because their leaders capabilities are eventually not a match to the complexity of managing the state. Then, why isn't this the moment where the authoritarian leaders over reached their capabilities?
    - tankenmate 6y ago
      Well the ONS (which is a part of the UK govt) has been detailing the all cause mortality rate and detailing how and why those numbers differ from the official PHE numbers. The ONS releases its findings to the press, and the BBC is just one of many that report on these figures. As far as I am aware there is no such thing happening in Iran. So in the case of the UK the BBC is saying that UK govt response has been poor, and in the case of Iran that there is a "cover up". I would have thought that was bordering on a reasonable job of reporting the facts.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
jibbit 6y ago
This is government data that says 451,024 people tested positive and the figure they released was 278,827. Are you reading the same article?
- Traster 6y ago
  Okay, so let me lay out why I'm suspicious of those numbers in the context of the article. The paragraph before that states: >The number of deaths from coronavirus in Iran is nearly triple what Iran's government claims, a BBC Persian service investigation has found. The government's own records appear to show almost 42,000 people died with Covid-19 symptoms up to 20 July, versus 14,405 reported by its health ministry. Now those two things aren't the same - the number of deaths of people who could possibly have had coronavirus isn't the same thing as the number of deaths of people who were actually confirmed to have coronavirus. The first is a quite expansive definition which is what the BBC is using, and the second is the number the Iranian regime publishes. And that second definition is a perfectly reasonable thing to publish, it's what the UK publishes and reasonable people know that's likely to be an undercount. Now, given that the BBC is already comparing apples to oranges, comparing the suspected cause of death with confirmed. Let's look at the claim you're quoting. >The number of people known to be infected is also almost double official figures: 451,024 as opposed to 278,827. So what I'd want to see, before I took the second quote seriously, is a defintion of what the numbers refer to. Because if you read it in context, that sounds to me very much like it could be the BBC is doing exactly the same thing again, comparing the official figures which are the number of people actually tested confirmed cases, with the unofficial figures, which are simply people presenting with symptoms but not comfirmed. Testing capacity is a worldwide issue, but apparently with Iran we're going to try and literally tie this to the Iranian revolution.
  - tankenmate 6y ago
    But obviously there is a spectrum, some countries (like Belgium) have very little difference between their all cause mortality rate and their reported rates due to effects (not just direct) of the crisis. Other countries (and going by this report that would seem to include Iran) are heavily underreporting to the tune of 60%. And then obviously you have countries that are somewhat underreporting like the UK, where they have reported covid deaths of approximately 46 thousand, but excess deaths of 64 thousand giving an approximate underreporting in the order of 25+%. As to the revolution, it's not likely the cause as merely another example of a tightly controlled society that is sensitive to criticism; a reflection of their fear of "losing control". "Beware of him that would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
chiefalchemist 6y ago
> There is a very important distinction between confirmed deaths due to coronavirus, and deaths of people who may have shown some coronavirus symptoms. Yes. Correct. Agreed. If that's the measuring stick the USA has been overcounting. Healthcare has been authorized by the CDC to count suspected but unconfirmed (i.e., no test) as positives. Add in the fact that healthcare facilities are compensated more for Covid-19 case, and most of those facilities are for-profit...what could go wrong?
- DanBC 6y ago
  No, they're undercounting. You can't get away from the piles of corpses, and only a small number of these are explained by the increases in other deaths.
  - chiefalchemist 6y ago
    No. They're not. The tradition and standard of comorbidies has been _completely_ abandoned. It's absolutely unscientific to say that ever death with C19 present was caused by C19. That's not how it works. The fact that this ruse has been normalized doesn't make it right. The truth is, at this point, the data is in such shambles that it can't be used to produce accurate information to drive intelligent decisions. That's what we've been seeing, and continue to see. Believe what you want but the absence of comorbidies should be a red flag. Either you see the danger in that slight-of-hand, or you dont.
    - DanBC 6y ago
      How many corpses are there? How did they die? If you're claiming they died of cancer or heart attacks or cardiac arrests or stroke you still need to explain why there are so many more than normal.
      - chiefalchemist 6y ago
        The smartest thing for me to recommend is to find someone who understand comorbidies and how they have traditionally worked in healthcare, cause of death, and so on. They'll explain it quicker than I can. You're also more likely to listen to someone you know. That aside, you're assuming that any incremental death can be attributed to Covid and only to Covid. That's a false and unscientific assumption. Futhermore, in a country with the obesity rate of the USA's it's foolish to believe that Covid is the only thing leading to death. There's a reason it's called morbidly obese.
DanBC 6y ago
The UK government also has the ONS data measuring excess mortality (the most accurate numbers) and these are freely easily available online here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19roundup/2020-03-26 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan... Does Iran have similar numbers easily available? (Obviously, these don't have to be in English.)
- knolax 6y ago
  Why would you expect a country under international sanction to make their data easily available to some random Westerners? Maybe with researchers but I really don't see how it would benefit Iran to spend resources on a website accessible by Joe Shmoe in England.
newacct583 6y ago
> One is clearly an undercount, one is clearly an overcount In practice they're both very likely undercounts. In the developing world, many people die from illness without ever having been seen by a health care professional at all, or counted as anything. It will be years before we have a good model for real infection rates and excess death statistics.
- scottlocklin 6y ago
  Significant numbers of excess deaths are really, really easy to count. No complex model needed.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    In the industrial world, sure. In Iran? I really doubt it. And even given good morgue and hospital reporting, there are confounding factors: we're dying more to covid but less to other causes due to the lockdowns. Or alternatively some conditions are harder to get treatment for and less likely to be well-diagnosed, etc... I think I stand by "years" until we have a good consensus model for how the pandemic spread and what the effects were.
    - scottlocklin 6y ago
      I'm pretty sure Iranians can count dead people, and they absolutely count as "industrial world." I've known a few Iranians in my day, and they didn't strike me as particularly incapable of things like counting the dead. People could do this before computers and heavy industry. You tend to notice dead bodies; they smell bad. That's really all you need; a historical time series of dead people. Frankly, the US, Europe; it's the only data for Covid I look at any more because the rest of it is politicized and site specific, and a changing process over time. For example: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/ https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/ https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/04172020/nchs-mortality-report.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidvi...
      - 6y ago
zaroth 6y ago
All the COVID tracking is essentially propaganda. Like calling a marathon at Mile 5, but even worse, because there really isn’t just one metric that can tell you how you’re doing. Sweden, for example, was pilloried because their policy had them run their marathon through all up-front. Now they get to essentially return to life as they once knew it, having never had to strictly lockdown like what you see in Australia right now. So it’s not just death rate, because you have to adjust for whether you can reasonably say you’ve finished the race, or whether your running on a treadmill at Mile 1 just hoping the race gets “canceled” (effective vaccine in widespread deployment) before you run out of stream.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  Yep, I cringe when the media talks about ‘covid cases’ instead of noting that the only way to properly compare is with per capita testing statistics in hand.
amiga_500 6y ago
You cannot trust the BBC on the big stuff where the UK has policy interests.
- james412 6y ago
  You can't trust the BBC whatsoever since they started trying to compete with commercial media a few years ago. "BREAKING: Iran is evil! UP NEXT: beach babes who like to grow moustaches" Total shitshow
  - GordonS 6y ago
    Yes, BBC news has gone way, way downhill over the past 10 years or so. Titles have gotten more and more click-baity, and the subject matter more and more pointless and/or designed to cause outrage. The language of writing definitely changed too - you shouldn't need to read a dictionary to read an article, obviously, but it's like they're writing for a target market of either 7 year olds or imbiciles.
    - amiga_500 6y ago
      There is the whole dumbing down thing, sure. But the main issue is that the BBC is ultimately state TV. The UK establishment have influence on the stuff that really, really matters. Corbyn is a great example. The BBC accumulate political capital on smaller stuff that is unbiased, then spend that to keep people who want systemic change that impacts vested interests.
mc32 6y ago
Whether he’s credible or not is debatable, of course, but the Iranian President himself announced 25MM infections[1] in Iran. Health officials downplayed the number. So there’s that. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-iran/iranian-health-officials-play-down-presidents-figure-of-25-million-people-infected-idUSKCN24K0E3 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-iran/i...
m3kw9 6y ago
Wouldn’t be surprised there is incentive to undercount as much as they can.

pasabagi 6y ago

To be fair, the BBC is about as independent as your average non-state media company, and definitely less entangled with the past five governments than anything owned by Murdoch. That said, it is a bit awkward, given the UK's own undercounting.

seamyb88 6y ago
> To be fair, the BBC is about as independent as your average non-state media company, and definitely less entangled with the past five governments than anything owned by Murdoch. Absolutely not true. From propagating the idea that life-long advocate of equality, Jeremy Corbyn, is antisemitic, to sending well-fed journos out on boats to chase migrants (never people, migrants) around asking them what they want, the BBC is a Conservative mouth-piece.
- nickcox 6y ago
  Not to mention _literally_ portraying the chancellor as Superman. [1] [1] https://www.thenational.scot/news/18620765.bbc-slammed-portraying-rishi-sunak-superman/ https://www.thenational.scot/news/18620765.bbc-slammed-portr...
  - seamyb88 6y ago
    The downvoters are thick as pig sh!t
  - phatfish 6y ago
    And Corbyn was Lenin. I think that tells you all you need to know about the BBC. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jeremy-corbyn-newsnight-denies-photo-photoshopped-a8262351.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jeremy-corby...
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago
  BBC seems to get about as many accusations of left-wing and right-wing bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC ...which in my book means they must be doing something right. Their reporting certainly seems less rabidly partisan than pretty much anything in the US.
  - phatfish 6y ago
    Fence sitting does not automatically make you right. Half way between two falsehoods is still wrong. For the BBC they HAVE to keep the government happy to continue to exist, or they will be legislated away. Same as any other state owned broadcaster. Although the threats from the current government against the BBC seem empty. Why would they destroy the most successful government controlled media operation in the world?
    - fault_lines 6y ago
      The right controls the non-government media organizations just as well, what's the difference? The BBC is harder to control because it legally is supposed to be impartial.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Find me one instance of the BBC directly calling Jeremy Corbyn an antisemite.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    Why would anyone do it directly when you can just insinuate? "Critics say..."
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      So you can't.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        Correct. You have slain the strawman! Congratulations.
- pasabagi 6y ago
  I dislike the BBC as much as anyone, but I think the fact is, they are neither anybody's mouthpiece, nor do they have any particular agenda. Simply, it is staffed by well connected, wealthy people who live in and around London, and as such, represents their views - warts and all.
- andybak 6y ago
  I find it comforting that both the left and the right in the UK is convinced the BBC is hopelessly biased against them. They must be doing something right. (I'm being slightly flippant - I am aware how it's possible to be wrong on both counts. However I do think calling the BBC a "Conservative mouth-piece" when many on the right of the Tory part think the BBC is left-wing and beyond repair is a little unfair)
  - flir 6y ago
    The BBC are biased towards the status quo - left-leaning social policies, right-leaning economic policies and a (currently) Conservative government. The right-wingers get upset about social pieces, the left-wingers get upset about economic and political pieces. But it's not even possible or desirable to be utterly unbiased, so one of our broadcasters being "the voice of the Establishment" doesn't seem like that bad a thing to me. It's not like other broadcasters aren't avaiable.
plouffy 6y ago
I'm struggling to see how this article is awkward for the BBC. It's not as though the BBC has not reported the situation in the UK: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53592881 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53592881 .
fault_lines 6y ago
The right wing in the UK has been inserting their own people into top BBC positions for years. The BBC has a history of working with the security services to deny employment to anyone 'too left wing'. Some of the most well known faces on the BBC are Conservative supporters - Nick Robinson was chair of the Oxford University Conservative Association, Andrew Neil was the editor-in-chief of the Conservative supporting fascist rag The Spectator and remains chairman of its publisher. Its function over the last 10 years of government has been increasingly, and highly visibly, to propagandize for the Conservatives and smear the left.
- pasabagi 6y ago
  I'm aware of this, which is why I said 'about as independent', rather than 'independent'. I think the point is, the BBC is representative of a certain group of people, many of whom are from the same milieu as parts of the conservative party, and parts of the labour party. However, that could be said of most (all?) large media organizations in the UK.
tankenmate 6y ago
The BBC also reports on the UK's undercounting, so it doesn't appear to be playing favourites; but a deeper independent investigation would be needed. Also, the BBC has News Watch which is an independent group within the BBC that responds to and tracks criticisms of its output.
- pmachinery 6y ago
  > The BBC also reports on the UK's undercounting, so it doesn't appear to be playing favourites Does it refer to that as a "British government cover-up"?
  - justicezyx 6y ago
    Right, there is always a use of "mistakes" and "cover up". It's like they always believe authoritarian leaders are much competent than democratic leaders, any mistakes in authoritarian nations must be cover-up. Meanwhile, they also believe authoritarian nations are bound to collapse, because their leaders capabilities are eventually not a match to the complexity of managing the state. Then, why isn't this the moment where the authoritarian leaders over reached their capabilities?
  - tankenmate 6y ago
    Well the ONS (which is a part of the UK govt) has been detailing the all cause mortality rate and detailing how and why those numbers differ from the official PHE numbers. The ONS releases its findings to the press, and the BBC is just one of many that report on these figures. As far as I am aware there is no such thing happening in Iran. So in the case of the UK the BBC is saying that UK govt response has been poor, and in the case of Iran that there is a "cover up". I would have thought that was bordering on a reasonable job of reporting the facts.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

jibbit 6y ago

This is government data that says 451,024 people tested positive and the figure they released was 278,827. Are you reading the same article?

Traster 6y ago
Okay, so let me lay out why I'm suspicious of those numbers in the context of the article. The paragraph before that states: >The number of deaths from coronavirus in Iran is nearly triple what Iran's government claims, a BBC Persian service investigation has found. The government's own records appear to show almost 42,000 people died with Covid-19 symptoms up to 20 July, versus 14,405 reported by its health ministry. Now those two things aren't the same - the number of deaths of people who could possibly have had coronavirus isn't the same thing as the number of deaths of people who were actually confirmed to have coronavirus. The first is a quite expansive definition which is what the BBC is using, and the second is the number the Iranian regime publishes. And that second definition is a perfectly reasonable thing to publish, it's what the UK publishes and reasonable people know that's likely to be an undercount. Now, given that the BBC is already comparing apples to oranges, comparing the suspected cause of death with confirmed. Let's look at the claim you're quoting. >The number of people known to be infected is also almost double official figures: 451,024 as opposed to 278,827. So what I'd want to see, before I took the second quote seriously, is a defintion of what the numbers refer to. Because if you read it in context, that sounds to me very much like it could be the BBC is doing exactly the same thing again, comparing the official figures which are the number of people actually tested confirmed cases, with the unofficial figures, which are simply people presenting with symptoms but not comfirmed. Testing capacity is a worldwide issue, but apparently with Iran we're going to try and literally tie this to the Iranian revolution.
- tankenmate 6y ago
  But obviously there is a spectrum, some countries (like Belgium) have very little difference between their all cause mortality rate and their reported rates due to effects (not just direct) of the crisis. Other countries (and going by this report that would seem to include Iran) are heavily underreporting to the tune of 60%. And then obviously you have countries that are somewhat underreporting like the UK, where they have reported covid deaths of approximately 46 thousand, but excess deaths of 64 thousand giving an approximate underreporting in the order of 25+%. As to the revolution, it's not likely the cause as merely another example of a tightly controlled society that is sensitive to criticism; a reflection of their fear of "losing control". "Beware of him that would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

chiefalchemist 6y ago

> There is a very important distinction between confirmed deaths due to coronavirus, and deaths of people who may have shown some coronavirus symptoms. Yes. Correct. Agreed. If that's the measuring stick the USA has been overcounting. Healthcare has been authorized by the CDC to count suspected but unconfirmed (i.e., no test) as positives. Add in the fact that healthcare facilities are compensated more for Covid-19 case, and most of those facilities are for-profit...what could go wrong?

DanBC 6y ago
No, they're undercounting. You can't get away from the piles of corpses, and only a small number of these are explained by the increases in other deaths.
- chiefalchemist 6y ago
  No. They're not. The tradition and standard of comorbidies has been _completely_ abandoned. It's absolutely unscientific to say that ever death with C19 present was caused by C19. That's not how it works. The fact that this ruse has been normalized doesn't make it right. The truth is, at this point, the data is in such shambles that it can't be used to produce accurate information to drive intelligent decisions. That's what we've been seeing, and continue to see. Believe what you want but the absence of comorbidies should be a red flag. Either you see the danger in that slight-of-hand, or you dont.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    How many corpses are there? How did they die? If you're claiming they died of cancer or heart attacks or cardiac arrests or stroke you still need to explain why there are so many more than normal.
    - chiefalchemist 6y ago
      The smartest thing for me to recommend is to find someone who understand comorbidies and how they have traditionally worked in healthcare, cause of death, and so on. They'll explain it quicker than I can. You're also more likely to listen to someone you know. That aside, you're assuming that any incremental death can be attributed to Covid and only to Covid. That's a false and unscientific assumption. Futhermore, in a country with the obesity rate of the USA's it's foolish to believe that Covid is the only thing leading to death. There's a reason it's called morbidly obese.

DanBC 6y ago

The UK government also has the ONS data measuring excess mortality (the most accurate numbers) and these are freely easily available online here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19roundup/2020-03-26 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan... Does Iran have similar numbers easily available? (Obviously, these don't have to be in English.)

knolax 6y ago
Why would you expect a country under international sanction to make their data easily available to some random Westerners? Maybe with researchers but I really don't see how it would benefit Iran to spend resources on a website accessible by Joe Shmoe in England.

newacct583 6y ago

> One is clearly an undercount, one is clearly an overcount In practice they're both very likely undercounts. In the developing world, many people die from illness without ever having been seen by a health care professional at all, or counted as anything. It will be years before we have a good model for real infection rates and excess death statistics.

scottlocklin 6y ago
Significant numbers of excess deaths are really, really easy to count. No complex model needed.
- newacct583 6y ago
  In the industrial world, sure. In Iran? I really doubt it. And even given good morgue and hospital reporting, there are confounding factors: we're dying more to covid but less to other causes due to the lockdowns. Or alternatively some conditions are harder to get treatment for and less likely to be well-diagnosed, etc... I think I stand by "years" until we have a good consensus model for how the pandemic spread and what the effects were.
  - scottlocklin 6y ago
    I'm pretty sure Iranians can count dead people, and they absolutely count as "industrial world." I've known a few Iranians in my day, and they didn't strike me as particularly incapable of things like counting the dead. People could do this before computers and heavy industry. You tend to notice dead bodies; they smell bad. That's really all you need; a historical time series of dead people. Frankly, the US, Europe; it's the only data for Covid I look at any more because the rest of it is politicized and site specific, and a changing process over time. For example: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/ https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/ https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/04172020/nchs-mortality-report.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidvi...
    - 6y ago

zaroth 6y ago

All the COVID tracking is essentially propaganda. Like calling a marathon at Mile 5, but even worse, because there really isn’t just one metric that can tell you how you’re doing. Sweden, for example, was pilloried because their policy had them run their marathon through all up-front. Now they get to essentially return to life as they once knew it, having never had to strictly lockdown like what you see in Australia right now. So it’s not just death rate, because you have to adjust for whether you can reasonably say you’ve finished the race, or whether your running on a treadmill at Mile 1 just hoping the race gets “canceled” (effective vaccine in widespread deployment) before you run out of stream.

mensetmanusman 6y ago
Yep, I cringe when the media talks about ‘covid cases’ instead of noting that the only way to properly compare is with per capita testing statistics in hand.

amiga_500 6y ago

You cannot trust the BBC on the big stuff where the UK has policy interests.

james412 6y ago
You can't trust the BBC whatsoever since they started trying to compete with commercial media a few years ago. "BREAKING: Iran is evil! UP NEXT: beach babes who like to grow moustaches" Total shitshow
- GordonS 6y ago
  Yes, BBC news has gone way, way downhill over the past 10 years or so. Titles have gotten more and more click-baity, and the subject matter more and more pointless and/or designed to cause outrage. The language of writing definitely changed too - you shouldn't need to read a dictionary to read an article, obviously, but it's like they're writing for a target market of either 7 year olds or imbiciles.
  - amiga_500 6y ago
    There is the whole dumbing down thing, sure. But the main issue is that the BBC is ultimately state TV. The UK establishment have influence on the stuff that really, really matters. Corbyn is a great example. The BBC accumulate political capital on smaller stuff that is unbiased, then spend that to keep people who want systemic change that impacts vested interests.

mc32 6y ago

Whether he’s credible or not is debatable, of course, but the Iranian President himself announced 25MM infections[1] in Iran. Health officials downplayed the number. So there’s that. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-iran/iranian-health-officials-play-down-presidents-figure-of-25-million-people-infected-idUSKCN24K0E3 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-iran/i...

m3kw9 6y ago

Wouldn’t be surprised there is incentive to undercount as much as they can.