The front page of today's TIMES reads 'Act fast or lose control within days, coronavirus expert warns No 10: Britain may be only a few days from losing control of coronavirus, a scientific adviser to the government has warned... [A] "very sharp" increase in cases meant that immediate action was needed as the nation faced a "dangerous" moment.' This expert is Peter Openshaw at Imperial, who said 'it was vital that people realised the danger of exponential growth in infections' and 'that inevitably is going to be followed by hospital admissions and deaths.'

I criticised the TIMES for not giving the death figures, but they did this morning! Yesterday the new 'lab-confirmed' cases were 3,330 and the deaths were 5. The second leader is entitled 'Rule of Six'; it points out the rising number of infections in France and Spain, and warns that Britain is following this trend. For once, the TIMES does admit one thing; it is 'true that, so far, hospital admissions and and death rates remain much lower than in the first wave of the pandemic, though in France and Spain there is some evidence that these are rising too.' What is this 'some evidence'? I hope the TIMES are wrong. And shouldn't 'much lower than' actually be 'nowhere nearly like'?

The worst thing people can do is arguing about test results. Everyone have to realize that these "tests" are not for viruses and that comes from Kary B. Mullins himself. Yes, the inventor of those RT-PCR tests himself said that these tests are not for viruses.
https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/
https://davidicke.com/2020/09/12/pcr-test-inventor-kary-mulis-fauci-is-a-fraud-and-the-way-to-get-rid-of-aids-is-to-stop-funding-it/

There is a fact check on this here:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pcr/fact-check-inventor-of-method-used-to-test-for-covid-19-didnt-say-it-cant-be-used-in-virus-detection-idUSKBN24420X
They award a 'false' to an attribution of this statement to Kary Mullins. However, that detracts from the important point - a quote that they provide from PHE:
It is important to note that detecting viral material by PCR does not indicate that the virus is fully intact and infectious, i.e. able to cause infection in other people. The isolation of infectious virus from positive individuals requires virus culture methods. These methods can only be conducted in laboratories with specialist containment facilities and are time consuming and complex.
Too many people see the word 'false' in these fact checks and don't read further. If we can emphasise that the very people who are promoting this test recognise its drawbacks, we will be less likely to get a 'false' in fact checks and more likely to sway public opinion.

Glad others feel the same. I've been a keen Times reader for some years, mainly because of the quality of the writing and breadth of views and coverage. Though if I'm honest the fact that the mere mention of reading a Murdoch rag seems to irritate Guardian readers enormously is also a plus. However the Times has badly let us down on this one - hardly any dissenting opinion or letters, it reads like a government propaganda sheet day after day. The Telegraph has been much better as has even the Mail. Though of course the gold standard for intelligent popular journalism has to be the Spectator. A bastion of sanity in a mad world...do give it a try if not converted.

I forgot to say, yes, they've almost given up reporting deaths as the numbers don't support their narrative.

The worst thing people can do is arguing about test results. Everyone have to realize that these "tests" are not for viruses and that comes from Kary B. Mullins himself. Yes, the inventor of those RT-PCR tests himself said that these tests are not for viruses.
https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/
https://davidicke.com/2020/09/12/pcr-test-inventor-kary-mulis-fauci-is-a-fraud-and-the-way-to-get-rid-of-aids-is-to-stop-funding-it/

There is a fact check on this here:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pcr/fact-check-inventor-of-method-used-to-test-for-covid-19-didnt-say-it-cant-be-used-in-virus-detection-idUSKBN24420X
They award a 'false' to an attribution of this statement to Kary Mullins. However, that detracts from the important point - a quote that they provide from PHE:
It is important to note that detecting viral material by PCR does not indicate that the virus is fully intact and infectious, i.e. able to cause infection in other people. The isolation of infectious virus from positive individuals requires virus culture methods. These methods can only be conducted in laboratories with specialist containment facilities and are time consuming and complex.
Too many people see the word 'false' in these fact checks and don't read further. If we can emphasise that the very people who are promoting this test recognise its drawbacks, we will be less likely to get a 'false' in fact checks and more likely to sway public opinion.

Reuters can not do any fact check as they are part of corrupted system, so I personally wouldn't trust them a single word. Better fact check yourself. Direct interviews are better as then you can not be fooled by someone who is under influence. In other words, teacher will always give you a bad point if your incorrect homework been done by someone else. Never rely on someone elses opinions. Have a read through this:
https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/
And then watch this interview with Kary Mullins:
https://davidicke.com/2020/09/12/pcr-test-inventor-kary-mulis-fauci-is-a-fraud-and-the-way-to-get-rid-of-aids-is-to-stop-funding-it/
And make your own conclusion. If you can't do your homework yourself then reserve yourself from the debate about it.