General / Off-Topic The safest place

[Morbad]

True, yet here we all are spilling the beans, freely avaiable for anyone with an ISP Those days of privacy are dead. Even if you try to.

Absolute privacy may not be practical, but we still have a significant degree of control over what we expose. Some privacy is better than no privacy and I personally avoid putting excess chinks in my armor, especially in exchange for convienences I don't find to be worth the trouble (a smartphone for example).

 

[Patrick_68000]

Interesting data observation:
View attachment 171775

Certainly, we can say the same for Italy, Spain and France.



----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Northpin]

Interesting data observation:
View attachment 171775

If the numbers seem outrageously skewed... what is the likelihood that they were manufactured to achieve an agenda? Go figure!!

The numbers are skewed mostly because the other countries didn't do mass testing

 

[ZeroAi]

We knew. While there are some notable exception, most illnesses of this sort hit the elderly the hardest, and the earliest credible data out of China clearly showed that COVID-19 was no exception. Indeed, the perception that it was only old people dying and that they were probably going to die anyway is probably significantly responsible for a lagged response.

A quicker response on containment would have saved a lot of lives. Carefully considering what's done next will save, or condemn, a lot of lives.

The problem is not that we don't know the Elderly as susceptible to disease, the problem is health care workers brought the disease into the elderly homes where so many deaths have occurred.

So what I was saying was, if we had known early that people could be completely asymptomatic and still contagious, I think we could have saved more of our older population by taking more precautions earlier.

But hindsight is 20/20.

Hope the world figures out a better way to handle pandemics going forward.

 

[Para Handy]

I figured but the others aren't countries.

Depends on your definition I suppose - they all have their own government. Scotland for example is very definitely a country but is even more keyed-in to the UK than those two channel islands which are not actually part of the UK for example (let's not go down the Gibraltar rabbit-hole ).

 

[Morbad]

the problem is health care workers brought the disease into the elderly homes where these people live.

Most elderly in most places aren't in elderly homes and are exposed to far more than health care workers.

I'd wager the overwhelming bulk of elderly were infected by the same routes most other people were...their own actions and the actions of those they were personally close to. Normal, casual, social contact.

So what I was saying was, if we had known early that people could be completely asymptomatic and still contagious

We did.

Asymptomatic carriers are not uncommon in these types of illnesses, with medical knowledge of them going back well over a century; had long been demonstrated in related coronavirus diseases (notably the 2003 SARS outbreak); and were specifically suggested with COVID-19 in January, with significant evidence backing such conclusions it by mid-late February.

But hindsight is 20/20.

This is another example of where foresight has largely matched the hindsight.

 

[Synkreto]

The numbers are skewed mostly because the other countries didn't do mass testing

Only 4 countries on that List have a lower per 1mill people test rate than UK . A few have about double or more the rate of UK .

 

[znôrt]

So what I was saying was, if we had known early that people could be completely asymptomatic and still contagious, I think we could have saved more of our older population by taking more precautions earlier.

But hindsight is 20/20.

asymptomatic contagion was known in early january during the first stages of the wuhan breakout already. we discussed this and predicted global spread in this very forum as it happened, and we're not rocket scientists (at least i'm not). the information was there and conclusions were pretty straightforward.

besides clear warnings, most of the world has chosen to screw up royally the response to this, because of overconfidence and political pusillanimity. hindsight has nothing to do with this, except it serves now as a rhetorical excuse for all kind of bigots.

 

[Wotthe Dickens]

asymptomatic contagion was known in early january during the first stages of the wuhan breakout already. we discussed this and predicted global spread in this very forum as it happened, and we're not rocket scientists (at least i'm not). the information was there and conclusions were pretty straightforward.

besides clear warnings, most of the world has chosen to screw up royally the response to this, because of overconfidence and political pusillanimity. hindsight has nothing to do with this, except it serves now as a rhetorical excuse for all kind of bigots.

Sounds right.
But had to look up pusillanimity!
Ta for new word.

 

[Stealthie]

True, yet here we all are spilling the beans, freely avaiable for anyone with an ISP Those days of privacy are dead. Even if you try to. The only "safe" place to keep a secret is in your brain, and honestly I'm not even sure that I like secrets in general. I'm more of a truth-guy (with an urgent demand for privacy). Those paradoxes can drive you to the edge of insanity once in a while.

That might be true but it's not a reason to accept further erosions of our privacy.

 

[Synkreto]

That might be true but it's not a reason to accept further erosions of our privacy.

How about think about accepting tools to improve national health ?

 

[Patrick_68000]

How about think about accepting tools to improve national health ?

Good idea and take the opportunity to pollute less, produce less and consume less in the future for the health of the planet and our health.



----------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Stealthie]

How about think about accepting tools to improve national health ?

I guess that'd depend.

I mean, it'd be possible to inflict all sorts of authoritarian nonsense on a society under the pretense of "improving national health".
Clearly there IS a balance to be struck between what might be considered to be in people's "best interests" and their civil rights.
With that in mind, it becomes a subjective issue of what different people consider to be an "acceptable" intrusion into their privacy.

Personally, I consider an app' that tracks and archives people's movements to be unacceptable.

 

[Synkreto]

I guess that'd depend.

I mean, it'd be possible to inflict all sorts of authoritarian nonsense on a society under the pretense of "improving national health".
Clearly there IS a balance to be struck between what might be considered to be in people's "best interests" and their civil rights.
With that in mind, it becomes a subjective issue of what different people consider to be an "acceptable" intrusion into their privacy.

Personally, I consider an app' that tracks and archives people's movements to be unacceptable.

Something to consider : What would it take "people", what would they have to be able to do ( or not ), know, understand to NOT have to outsource decisions about their "best Interests" to politicians, economy, media, you name it ? How would "people" have to behave, prioritize, decide, vote etcetcetc...if THEY wanted to be taken serious in being able to KNOW what is in "peoples" best interest ( and NO, I do NOT mean personal rights . I mean population's/humankind's best interests in general ) .

Do people, especially in the "western democracies", really demonstrate a widespread regard of "peoples best interest" ? Does the majority of people value clean water, clean air, bees, healthy food etc. highly enough to REALLY act on these things ? To really, in the majority, change THEIR opinions and behaviour, and subsequently CHANGE the systems we live in ? To vote, and hold accountable politicians who prioritize THESE things - which clearly are in "peoples best interests" in the broadest possible sense - above anything else ?

In my opinion : not at all . Following, I think a lot of people would/do not understand what REALLY is in their best interest . Also would NOT and support subsequent decision/action, let alone change their behaviour or opinions . Instead, come up with all kinds of reasons why it should not be done . And argue how it is inhibiting their personal freedom ( again, confusing "peoples best interest" with "personal freedom" ) .

 

[Stealthie]

Something to consider : What would it take "people", what would they have to be able to do ( or not ), know, understand to NOT have to outsource decisions about their "best Interests" to politicians, economy, media, you name it ? How would "people" have to behave, prioritize, decide, vote etcetcetc...if THEY wanted to be taken serious in being able to KNOW what is in "peoples" best interest ( and NO, I do NOT mean personal rights . I mean population's/humankind's best interests in general ) .

Do people, especially in the "western democracies", really demonstrate a widespread regard of "peoples best interest" ? Does the majority of people value clean water, clean air, bees, healthy food etc. highly enough to REALLY act on these things ? To really, in the majority, change THEIR opinions and behaviour, and subsequently CHANGE the systems we live in ? To vote, and hold accountable politicians who prioritize THESE things - which clearly are in "peoples best interests" in the broadest possible sense - above anything else ?

I don't believe that any collective has the right to impose any form of regulation on individuals - above and beyond what's required to allow people to co-exist together in a society.

In my opinion : not at all . Following, I think a lot of people would/do not understand what REALLY is in their best interest . Also would NOT and support subsequent decision/action, let alone change their behaviour or opinions . Instead, come up with all kinds of reasons why it should not be done . And argue how it is inhibiting their personal freedom ( again, confusing "peoples best interest" with "personal freedom" ) .

Nah.

That's just what people say when they're attempting to suggest they know better than anybody who disagrees, rather than being willing to consider that other people simply have different priorities.

If people want to spend 10 hours a day in front of a computer, skydive, race motorcycles, smoke, drink alcohol or eat fatty foods, that's up to them.
If we're going to start regulating what we consider as "acceptable" then we also need to have a conversation about how we reinburse people for what they've paid, in tax, into services that they're now excluded from.

Course, that's not a path I'd like to go down.
It's probably for the best to just leave things as they are and not try to enforce undue regulation on people either.

 

[metatheurgist]

Personally, I consider an app' that tracks and archives people's movements to be unacceptable.

Does it actually do that? Afaik the Australian version just logs who you've been around for longer than 15mins. No movement data.

Also I am very glad that the government decided that people shouldn't be allowed to poop in streets and empty "night soil" out their windows.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Depends on your definition I suppose - they all have their own government. Scotland for example is very definitely a country but is even more keyed-in to the UK than those two channel islands which are not actually part of the UK for example (let's not go down the Gibraltar rabbit-hole ).

Any sensible definition of country would not classify them as a countries given the fact that they are crown dependencies and that no other country nor themselves recognizes them as countries.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Any sensible definition of country would not classify them as a countries given the fact that they are crown dependencies and that no other country nor themselves recognizes them as countries.

Honestly, who cares. Jersey, for example, is autonomous and self-governing, with its own independent legal, administrative and fiscal systems. If that is not a country, fine. I'll call it a potato if it makes you happen. Those regions/countries/whatevers were excluded by me before looking at the data so who gives a crap if they should have been excluded for other reasons as well, it is just needlessly pedantic.

 

[Stealthie]

Does it actually do that? Afaik the Australian version just logs who you've been around for longer than 15mins. No movement data.

Honestly, I'm not fundamentally opposed to the idea of using technology to help with C19.

If the app' just creates a log-file every time 2 people who use it get close together, which could be used if it subsequently turns out that somebody's infected and then sends a message to everybody they've been in contact with, I'm okay with that.

Like I originally said, though, when a government decides that it wants to create an app' like this I will be concerned about the likelihood of it collecting extra information until it can be confirmed that no such capability exists.
When they start saying stuff like "Well, it does record location data but it's only going to be used for C19 stuff", that's when I start to worry.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Like I originally said, though, when a government decides that it wants to create an app' like this I will be concerned about the likelihood of it collecting extra information until it can be confirmed that no such capability exists.
When they start saying stuff like "Well, it does record location data but it's only going to be used for C19 stuff", that's when I start to worry.

That is why in the Netherlands a list of most promising apps was made, and the source code made available to everyone on a government website so privacy right groups and such could check whats what.