LIFTING THE LOCKDOWN!

[Lord v]

1 hour ago, AVB said:

I don’t have a problem with this sort of ‘tracking’. It was the proposal made on here that you should only be allowed to stay within your allocated zone and active tracking used to monitor people going outside of ‘their zone’.  

Ah OK, I have seen a lot of misconceptions over the app recently so lose track of who thinks what... 

 

 

[Retsdon]

On the topic of the tracking app - https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/05/05/uk_coronavirus_app/

[AVB]

1 hour ago, Old farrier said:

Well the topic title is lifting the lockdown 

your quite happy to have a coach load of people down from the city for the weekend? 

Rather than having movements actively tracked as you propose, then yes. Once you start doing that you are on a slippery slope. 
 

Just make it simple and let anybody go anywhere. It’ll soon sort itself out. 

[Old farrier]

11 minutes ago, AVB said:

Rather than having movements actively tracked as you propose, then yes. Once you start doing that you are on a slippery slope. 
 

Just make it simple and let anybody go anywhere. It’ll soon sort itself out. 

Thanks for the suggestion I’ll pass it on on Thursday morning 
 

it was a obvious waste of time and money having the lockdown 

[wyn]

Professor Neil Ferguson has resigned due to breaking his own lockdown rules.

[AVB]

1 hour ago, Old farrier said:

Thanks for the suggestion I’ll pass it on on Thursday morning 
 

it was a obvious waste of time and money having the lockdown 

At least we agree on one thing then. 

[Lord v]

49 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

On the topic of the tracking app - https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/05/05/uk_coronavirus_app/

There are quite a few issues with that article. 

Firstly it's not balanced, it doesn't truly examine the approaches side by side. 

Typhoid Mary and John Snow examples behind the extended data collection aren't really as rubbish as the author would like to make out. No credible counter argument to this exact issue is given as the author then immediately leaps into why the app won't work on phones. 

Risk rating individuals as spreaders is not a horrible idea and gives additional nuance to the app that a decentralised approach won't have. 

(also pretty sure apple and Google are logging that API (or will have access to it as anonymous as it apparently is, I also have issues with the amount of information that ends up embeded in the OS with this approach.) 

Overuse for the word 'probably' for an article that is supposedly pointing out technical issues. 

NHS work around to the Bluetooth problem. Some Legitimate criticism here, although the author handily dodges that it's prolonged contact that's the issue. Also from a privacy point of view I would prefer that the transfer of information is kept minimal (and is in fact one of the primary tennant of data use) . The AG (apple/Google) approach records everything, even a momentary 'walking the other side of the aisle' to someone. 

Although this information is decentralised so not immediately available to authorities, what would a court order do? This opens up a whole host of interesting future uses. (some of which would not please privacy campaigners) 

The point of a critical mass of users also applies to the decentralised approach. 

Battery hog - possibly a legitimate critisim, although the author skips by this so they clearly have little clue either. 

I would agree that the NHS approach is a 'blunter' tool in this case, but could potentially be sharp enough. I would have concerns that the AG approach is a little too sharp for the purpose. 

Maybe I am missing something but I cannot see this being true: "the truth is that it will only work as promised if that data is not kept private and location data is stored and attached to individuals" and is a huuuuuge leap of logic by the author and inadequately supported. 

They attempt to back this up by saying the app asks for your postcode. Locality data, yes, location data no. My postcode is centered conveniently at my front door. My best mates takes you to the middle of a field. Another friend shares his postcode data with an entire village. 

Actually I think the post code data is very handy. It indicates local uptake and can give a confidence level of the information received. It also gives a broard brush look at how people travel and how connections are made. (remember location data is already available to authorities on a lag) 

The assertation that it maybe possible to id a person from the ID numbers needs work. Both from the author (they have never seen one so have no idea whether this is possible, plus it's encrypted as they admit in the article) and the government to make sure it's not. 

I would be interested to see how AG are generating their Ids, there must be some protection against duplicates and multiple app loads etc especially if they are generating a new one each day. These must also be stored somewhere (even if only internally - see above on court orders). 

The actual data exchanged will be broadly similar to the AG approach, so dressing that up as an issue is a bit of a stretch. 

Everything being connected via FB etc to other datasets.... Possibly a point here. Even is we ignore the encryption issue realistically I would be more concerned about AG changing the T&Cs on me in the future and monetising this than I am the government (not to say the government wouldn't... But marginally less worried) 

Sharing and ownership of data. Yup the data never being deleted is pretty lame. The counter point is obviously that that allows the government to build very accurate models for future epidemics. The current ones have been shown to be a little inadequate. With the AG approach other countries will not (apparently) have this option. This is a valid counterpoint and one that is glossed over by putting research in quotation marks. 

This obviously has to be weighed against the government knowing my phone number and postcode plus the people I meets phone number and postcode. Possibly. Or half a postcode and the make of phone I have. Author isn't quite sure. 

Personally I am OK with that if it means we can behave in an evidence based proportionate manner next time. I realise not everyone will be. 

The quote from the human rights lawyers. The quote contains lots of maybes. It also handily cuts out the last bit of the quote:

"We note that there are epidemiological reasons that may support the need for a centralised 
system, but the uncertainty as to the efficiency, uptake and utility of a centralised system 
would have to be addressed with sufficient evidence before its introduction could be 
justified."

Although I agree that a centralised system does require more justification the seemingly adverse legal opion is based (rightly) on the current level of information the government has provided, which is not much. 

It does not say about the app and the data sharing that such a justification is impossible. 

To give the author some credit they have given themselves some wiggle room on this with the use of the word 'may'. Again.

Lastly once again the author jumps back to the point that a lot of people need to use the app for it to be useful. Again ignores that this is true of any app centralised or decentralised. 

The last three paragraphs do improve the article (barely). It is adequetly summed up in the last paragraph :

"But does population control work beyond lockdown? When the economy is opened up, will a centralized approach where hotspots can be identified and dealt with from a command post be more effective than a decentralized approach where individuals are left to decide for themselves?"

I know what my answers to those questions are; and they are probably not the same as the author of the article.... However even they admit:" So far the clear evidence is that greater control of populations has worked better at stopping the coronavirus spread than a more relaxed attitude" 

Overall I give it 3/10 - needs improvement. 

 

 

 

Aaaaaaand I am now officially bored enough to chat rubbish on the Internet. 

 

 

[oldypigeonpopper]

1 hour ago, wyn said:

Professor Neil Ferguson has resigned due to breaking his own lockdown rules.

hello, yes i see that, i am sure that will have repercussions for her family

[Raja Clavata]

7 hours ago, Lord v said:

In all honesty it will record far less data than Google and Facebook generally do anyway. It maybe a bit of a ****** for crims who's phone numbers are known but they can get round that by, you know, leaving the phone at home if they are going to be naughty. 

Precisely my point 

[Dave-G]

So its common knowledge already about the lockdown being relaxed a little on Monday - with a good temperatures today and tomorrow.

I'm thinking it was in Boris's mind that weather will keep people in from Sunday for a few days but I suspect a bunch of people will break out 2 or 3 days early.

[Retsdon]

What started the lockdown was Ferguson's model from Imperial College. Heres a thought provoking article from Zero Hedge that questions Imperial's data. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/computer-model-locked-down-world-turns-out-be-shtcode

Zero Hedge can be a bit conspiracist and it's very right wing, but I read it regularly for its financial insights and info.They tell stuff that the mainstream won't and I like the style too.  Anyway.....

[Raja Clavata]

11 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

What started the lockdown was Ferguson's model from Imperial College. Heres a thought provoking article from Zero Hedge that questions Imperial's data. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/computer-model-locked-down-world-turns-out-be-shtcode

Zero Hedge can be a bit conspiracist and it's very right wing, but I read it regularly for its financial insights and info.They tell stuff that the mainstream won't and I like the style too.  Anyway.....

Interesting, I thought the original UK figure was 250k projected deaths. Anyway it doesn't take a computer scientist to work out in hindsight that the model is pants - the model predicted 20k deaths and we are already over 50% greater than that.

By any measure that renders the model useless and as the article states "garbage out regardless of input". No idea if the same kind of model was used for the herd immunity scenario.

The saving grace of the modeling is of course that the garbage that came out was at least good enough to get the government to change tack.

Perversely for me at least the real elephant in the room is whether or not the social and economic meltdown we have experienced is "justified" by the relatively small number of deaths, the point being that I can't imagine the economy being any worse if 250k or more were now dead.

Perhaps it was really a case of Fear of Political Catastrophe masquerading as Fear of overwhelming the NHS...

[Raja Clavata]

Jesus H - I just read the detailed code review - if the findings are true Ferguson could well find himself in prison or another statistic. He must be under huge pressure right now... 😞 

https://lockdownsceptics.org/code-review-of-fergusons-model/

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by Raja Clavata
added link

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Very interesting and worrying!

Amateur coding, this is looking like a cluster XXXX

Edited May 8, 2020 by TIGHTCHOKE

[mossy835]

do you think we will be aloud to shoot after monday.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

4 minutes ago, mossy835 said:

do you think we will be aloud to shoot after monday.

No, silenced weapons only!

[Smokersmith]

Some of the views on this are amazing.

We were in a situation where deaths were doubling every 3 days. That would have overran the NHS ... so we were locked down and it worked.

Then everyone in the press was clamouring for a plan.

Boris says plan coming on Sunday then everyone bleats about the lockdown ending too soon!!

I expect very little change in what we’re allowed to do from Sunday to Monday.

[lancer425]

I doubt too that  there will be significant if any change at all announced Sunday. .

[Old farrier]

Hopefully they will tighten it up on Monday it’s like a racetrack here this morning 😢

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Just now, Old farrier said:

Hopefully they will tighten it up on Monday it’s like a racetrack here this morning 😢

It was badly planned to let the cat out of the bag that the Government were considering relaxing the advice.

 

A lot of people will now just go back to what they used to do, how long till the next Covid 19 case peak?

[clangerman]

i wonder what excuse we will hear when the bodies pile up because we entertained this madness 

[Old farrier]

8 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

It was badly planned to let the cat out of the bag that the Government were considering relaxing the advice.

 

A lot of people will now just go back to what they used to do, how long till the next Covid 19 case peak?

About a week 

i despair at the mentality of some of the general population 

 

[Mice!]

51 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

It was badly planned to let the cat out of the bag that the Government were considering relaxing the advice.

 

A lot of people will now just go back to what they used to do, how long till the next Covid 19 case peak?

A week to 14 days probably?

All I was expecting Monday was travel restrictions lifted but maintaining social distancing. Hopefully hobbies can recommence again. 

A lot of firms are going back to work if they can manage the 2m rule, the NHS hasn't been over ran, the nightingale hospitals are ready if needed.

I certainly don't blame the government for waiting till after the bank holiday. 

[oldypigeonpopper]

hello, there are many people in the UK hoping to get back to work if social distancing allows due to no finances, peoples mental health, schools and shops providing we might be told to wear face mask for certain activities,    i sure Boris will weigh up the whole situation across the country and try to put a less strict lockdown once  it has been reviewed by his cabinet and medical advisors

Edited May 8, 2020 by oldypigeonpopper

[Rewulf]

57 minutes ago, clangerman said:

i wonder what excuse we will hear when the bodies pile up because we entertained this madness 

Id stay in your bunker then, and wait for it to all blow over