Do we Cancel Everything? You still Travelling??

[birdguy 3,943]

59 minutes ago, MartinRex007 said:

Not completely true, there was great economic hardships for sure, but the Federal Government did step in with some major programs, and most were under the Great New Deal put in place by FDR. These were mostly job creation programs but not all of them.

You're right Martin.  Those were jobs programs.  I don't think there were dirt payments to everybody like the stimulus checks most of us got.

Noel

[Alan_A 1,650]

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

My only concern deals with testing and tracing.  I worry that in order to improve our ability to conduct testing and tracing, we will lose our privacy and be required to have location monitoring and some sort of verification that we've been tested, and that without these we lose our right to travel, to enter some establishments, go to work, etc.  This could really happen.  I suppose one could say it's necessary to prevent another large-scale outbreak and the subsequent awful consequences, but it's scary nonetheless to be monitored like that and give the govt. even more surveillance powers. 

That's a very real concern - I share it.  It really takes us to the heart of the public health vs. civil liberties debate (as outlined in those articles I linked to yesterday), and adds a new dimension, because we've never before had technology that allowed us to track individuals' movements in real time.  It's hard to feel at ease about that because you have no idea how the data could be used or abused.  At the same time, the aggregate (i.e. not individual or identifiable) data about patterns of movement is one of the best ways to detect the patterns that could lead to transmission - quickly enough that you can do something about them.  And the old-fashioned way of contact tracing - with paper and shoe leather, the way John Snow did in the 1850s - is a proven way to find and stop a transmission that's actually in progress.  The argument in favor of real-time data, testing and contact tracing is that if you do it effectively, you won't need a blunt instrument like a total lockdown except in select places where there's a big outbreak.  So you'd be trading a big, broad loss of civil liberties for a narrow, targeted one.  It's probably a winning argument - or maybe the least-bad of a bad set of alternatives. But it only works if the tracking and monitoring end when the pandemic ends.  The public health model for government interventions is that you do them acutely but quickly, to prevent a bad outcome, and then pull them off as quickly as possible.  If they linger, it becomes a problem.  With luck (and a lot of determination) we might be able to get the benefit now and shut them down as fast as we can. Not saying it's going to be easy, though.

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

51 minutes ago, Alan_A said:

That's a very real concern - I share it.  It really takes us to the heart of the public health vs. civil liberties debate (as outlined in those articles I linked to yesterday), and adds a new dimension, because we've never before had technology that allowed us to track individuals' movements in real time.  It's hard to feel at ease about that because you have no idea how the data could be used or abused.  

I’m sure criminals or people who are up to no good are not interested in being tracked or having the local, state, or federal gov having a sample of their DNA on file, as well as a lot of the general population who’s never done anything wrong.

I wonder if any of these gov agencies have considered using the samples for DNA tracing on open criminal cases that they are lacking matching data for? 

[Alan_A 1,650]

@cmpbellsjc - All related to the reason Tony Soprano never used the EZ-Pass lane. 😎

I always try to stop myself short of, "if you're innocent you have nothing to worry about," because in practice we know that's not always true.  To your point about the DNA data pool - there's bound to be some person or agency that would like to go fishing there.

I'm not a privacy fanatic - I try not to be one-sided about anything, for me it's about balancing interests.  But unintended consequences do happen.  Let's just call it a nagging worry - sort of hovering in the background.

 

[KevinAu 441]

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Forgot to mention: I wonder what percentage of those 3% and 8% of Covid-19 ICU patients under 64 have underlying health problems like diabetes, heart disease, asthma, etc? 

Need more data.

Dave

I would be cautious of choosing to use ‘better’ numbers without cause. I always tend towards conservatism without knowing anything more, and in matters like safety, it would be wiser to lean towards erring on the side of caution. Unless you know from the data, that the 10% was from houston where the land is wide and the people are wider, and where you live, the people are fit and trim, how do you know that  your real chances of ending up in a permanently life altering condition from covid is not the 10%? And do you really want to conduct your life thinking you have a 5% chance of something bad when it is really 10%?

I would think that the percentage of those in icu with some kind of condition being taken advantage of by covid is around 100%. And if it is less than that, then that would be cause for additional worry, wouldn’t it? And considering that about 10% of americans are diabetic, 33% have hypertension, and 44% are overweight, is it really a worthwhile argument to still say that ‘only’ people with some kind of common underlying condition need to worry about having up to a 10% chance of having your life gravely altered if you catch the disease? Are we really trying to innuend that we worry too much when 44% of americans have a 10% chance of ending up gravely ill in an icu if they catch this disease?

Edited May 22, 2020 by KevinAu

[birdguy 3,943]

3 hours ago, Alan_A said:

My only concern deals with testing and tracing.  I worry that in order to improve our ability to conduct testing and tracing, we will lose our privacy and be required to have location monitoring and some sort of verification that we've been tested, and that without these we lose our right to travel, to enter some establishments, go to work, etc.  This could really happen.

My concern is that once it starts will it ever end?  We've lost a lot of privacy in the tech revolution.  Governments are loathe to ever give up monitoring once the system is in place.  Like Real ID.  The last time I renewed my driver's license I had to provide a birth certificate (an official one with the embossed seal.  Copies were unacceptable).  A utility bill to prove where I lived.  Now I'm in the national Real ID database.

How much liberty and privacy are we willing to surrender for a bit of safety?

Noel

[KevinAu 441]

53 minutes ago, birdguy said:

How much liberty and privacy are we willing to surrender for a bit of safety?

Noel

That is actually a question that can be quantitatively answered by epidemiologists. If we had such a program here, like they do in some of the asian countries, it can probably say, hold down the next wave to maybe xxx deaths. If there was no such program, there may be xxx,xxx deaths. If maybe there was 50% participation, xx,xxx deaths. So on and so forth. Your question was born from the post 9-11 efforts. We are not facing a terrorism threat here. Whatever success against terrorism we gained by giving up liberties and privacies, was never quantifiable. Thus, we can deride it as ‘a bit of safety.’ The only sign of success against terrorism was that nothing happened today. Was there supposed to have been something? Who knows? No one will ever. However, with such a tracking app for tracing and quarantine, you can actually ask yourself is giving up this privacy worth the lives of say, 500,000 of my fellow citizens, neighbors, friends and family?

[MartinRex007 390]

2 hours ago, birdguy said:

How much liberty and privacy are we willing to surrender for a bit of safety?

Here is a good summary of what would be at stake. The follow on video is also worth a watch with Amy Webb Professor from NYU Stern School of Business talking about technology and the future.

"As the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak spreads across the world, some governments are deploying or exploring the idea of deploying privacy-intrusive solutions for tracking the disease's spread."

https://www.zdnet.com/article/us-israel-south-korea-and-china-look-at-intrusive-surveillance-solutions-for-tracking-covid-19/

 

Martin

Edited May 23, 2020 by MartinRex007

[Bob Scott 7,716]

Hey, we've already solved this problem.  The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) protects Americans who have their communications intercepted incidental to legal wiretapping of foreigners...their names are masked in the reporting and kept secret to ensure that our intelligence apparatus cannot be used to spy on our own people.  You can rest easy knowing that you are protected by the law.  I'm sure that any surveillance done for as good a cause as public health would be done with the same kind of trusted safety mechanisms in place.

Oh, wait a minute...

[HiFlyer 9,343]

No shirt, no shoes, no mask, no service

[Alan_A 1,650]

If we're able to draw distinctions - which, given technology, we may not be - I'd rather sacrifice privacy to gain something in infection control than to let Google and Facebook turn me into a product. I switched from Chrome to Firefox for a reason.

Preventing needless death is another matter.

The persistent worry, of course, is mission creep.

1 hour ago, w6kd said:

Hey, we've already solved this problem.  The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) protects Americans who have their communications intercepted incidental to legal wiretapping of foreigners...their names are masked in the reporting and kept secret to ensure that our intelligence apparatus cannot be used to spy on our own people.  You can rest easy knowing that you are protected by the law.  I'm sure that any surveillance done for as good a cause as public health would be done with the same kind of trusted safety mechanisms in place.

Oh, wait a minute...

Thought we weren't getting political.

[Alan_A 1,650]

Here's something worth reading in full.  Jonathan Smith, a Yale epidemiology lecturer now completing his PhD at Emory, wrote this letter to his neighbors a few weeks ago, when social distancing measures were new.  It's equally relevant now - maybe even more relevant as lockdowns end and as everyone gets eager to step out.  It's a useful reminder of the public health perspective, and of what's at stake.  An excerpt:

 

Quote

 

In contrast to hand-washing and other personal measures, social distancing measures are not about individuals, they are about societies working in unison. These measures also require sustained action before results are evident. It is hard (even for me) to conceptualize how on a population level “one quick little get together” can undermine the entire framework of a public health intervention, but it can. I promise you it can. I promise. I promise. I promise. You can’t cheat it. People are already itching to cheat on the social distancing precautions just a “little” — a short playdate, a quick haircut, or picking up a needless item from the store. From a transmission dynamics standpoint, this very quickly recreates a highly connected social network that undermines much of the good work our communities have done thus far.

This outbreak will not be overcome in one grand, sweeping gesture, but rather by the collection of individual choices we make in the coming months. This virus is unforgiving to unwise choices. As this epidemic continues, it will be easy to be drawn to the idea that what we are doing isn’t working and we may feel compelled to “cheat” with unnecessary breaches of social distancing measures. By knowing what to expect, and knowing the critical importance of maintaining these measures, my hope is to encourage continued community spirit and strategizing to persevere in this time of uncertainty.

 

Read the whole thing.

[birdguy 3,943]

12 hours ago, MartinRex007 said:

Here is a good summary of what would be at stake. The follow on video is also worth a watch with Amy Webb Professor from NYU Stern School of Business talking about technology and the future.

"As the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak spreads across the world, some governments are deploying or exploring the idea of deploying privacy-intrusive solutions for tracking the disease's spread.

Disturbing article Martin.

"As some privacy groups and news outlets have already pointed out this week, most countries who have set up surveillance systems in the past have rarely taken them down after their initial purpose has ceased to be an issue, with the US and China being the best examples."

Are we to become a 'show me your papers' society?

We are willing to sacrifice lives in war to protect our liberties and freedoms.  Why are we not willing to sacrifice lives in the coronavirus war to protect our liberties and freedoms?

I'm beginning to think my military career to 'safeguard our liberties' might have been a waste of time if we are now willing to sacrifice them to a pandemic.

Noel

[birdguy 3,943]

9 hours ago, Alan_A said:

Thought we weren't getting political.

How can we not get political when talking about freedom and liberty Alan?  All of these tracking and reporting devices will be mandated by the government.  Today I start wearing a mask because our governor so ordered it with a 100 dollar fine for non-compliance.  It seems to me you can't separate politics from this issue.  Just talk about government and policies in the general form and avoid party labeling.

Ten years from now, when I'm 96 and my great granddaughters are 11 and 12 and ask me, "What was it like in the olden days grampa?"  I'll have to tell them, "Well Eliza and Layla, we lived in a free country then."

But I see these tracking devices can open up a whole new market for designer bracelets and anklets to make them look pretty.

Noel

[Bob Scott 7,716]

33 minutes ago, birdguy said:

Disturbing article Martin.

"As some privacy groups and news outlets have already pointed out this week, most countries who have set up surveillance systems in the past have rarely taken them down after their initial purpose has ceased to be an issue, with the US and China being the best examples."

Are we to become a 'show me your papers' society?

We are willing to sacrifice lives in war to protect our liberties and freedoms.  Why are we not willing to sacrifice lives in the coronavirus war to protect our liberties and freedoms?

I'm beginning to think my military career to 'safeguard our liberties' might have been a waste of time if we are now willing to sacrifice them to a pandemic.

I find myself wondering when the New Hampshire flag will be changed to a red banner with a yellow streak up the middle, with the words "Live Free or Die" replaced with "Do What You're Told"

We've already seen that creating an invasive intelligence apparatus designed to collect information that violates our most basic privacy expectations (FISA) can be, has been, and will be abused.  Any safeguards put in place to placate those concerned and to ensure "proper and limited" use are nothing but an illusion when those safeguards are placed into the very same hands of the powerful elite that would be doing the abusing in the first place.

My best friend is a retired cop.  He went through a gang policing course where the instructor asked rhetorically: "how do you kill a Tyrannasaurus Rex?"  The answer was "in the egg, before it hatches".  If you permit it to exist, it will rapidly grow to where you have no means to control it, and it will eat you and yours at the first opportunity.  Same goes here with personal surveillance in a world rife with corruption and nonaccountability...kill the monster now while it's just an idea or it will eat all of us.