Evaluate The coverage of sports responsibilities by the media in relation to the covid-19 pandemic
Answers
Answer:
These are extraordinary times. Less because we are currently in the midst of a global pandemic; humanity has been here multiple times in the past, sometimes with even more devastating results (the ‘Black Death’ of 1346–1353, or Cocolitzli Epidemics in the 16th Century, for example). Rather, these are extraordinary times due to both the huge shutting down of industry, travel and borders, and the enormous level of coverage and discussion of the crisis through both traditional and social media formats (Stevens & Prins, 2020). Moreover, global, regional and national comparisons and discussions have become commonplace with regards to everything from healthcare preparedness and the social response to financial pressures, work-life balance considerations and environmental concerns. Perhaps as a consequence, pop-up ‘experts’ on the characteristics of the virus, its real (and imagined) socio-economic, cultural and social impacts, and what it might mean for the future have filled our television and computer screens, the airwaves and social media feeds. Experts, professionals and others from fields as diverse as psychology, economics and politics continue to provide such commentary, and a frankly enormous volume of ‘COVID-19′ related content has begun to fill the print and electronic pages of our existence. Such content is also now beginning to focus upon the implications of the virus for sport, exercise and physical activity.
Nevertheless, we note whilst much has been said about the present and future impact of this pandemic, much less is known.
Indeed, biomedical, socio-cultural, economic and political trends associated with the response to the pandemic are only now beginning to emerge. At the time of writing, much of the global workforce sits in -or is beginning to emerge from- isolation. According to the regular press conferences and updates provided by the governments of our countries, politicians, scientists and others are currently attempting to manage a response to the pandemic. One key consideration has been how to maintain balance between interdependent health and economic risks, resulting in an ongoing debate about how long the shutdown can be maintained before economic collapse becomes inevitable. This debate has been particularly vociferous (even bordering on civil disobedience or social unrest) in countries with minimal welfare support for the most needful. Such discussions have been characterised by increased urgency as the contagion has caused many industries to slow, move online or even come to a full halt for a period of weeks, if not months. What’s more, the personal impact of this 'lockdown' is also only just now beginning to emerge. Whilst some people continue to attempt to balance working from home with childcare and other responsibilities, others have had their income reduced or even lost their employment. Conversely, many people in ‘essential jobs,’ including medical professionals and those working to maintain the food supply, continue to risk their health in an attempt to limit the impact of the pandemic and to support the wider population. The Academy has raced to respond, particularly in the fields of medicine and economics. Multiple ‘rapid reviews’ of medical evidence have been conducted as evidence about the effects of the virus has emerged in order to maximise treatment effectiveness and risk management (e.g. Greenhalgh, 2020; Mullins et al., 2020; Thornton, 2020), and governments continue to use scientific evidence in their attempts to construct a response moving forward. The production of such evidence will doubtless continue to proliferate for some time into the future.
And yet, this disruption has been uneven, unequal and frankly at times, unjust. Shocking stories have circulated about how the wealthy can ‘skip the queue’ in order to be tested for the virus, sometimes even ahead of at-risk and essential healthcare workers (e.g. Schaffer, 2020). Similarly, whilst some celebrities reportedly complain about being stranded in their mansions (e.g. Lee, 2020), deaths within care homes remain uncounted, sometimes unnoticed, for days after the fact (e.g. Dickie & Plimmer, 2020). Surely, the pandemic has once again highlighted the economic and cultural inequalities that beset our societies, placing them under increased scrutiny.
Answer:
gkfmlmckv vk singh dilbagh you are not the intended recipient you are not the