Corona Virus

[nnfox]

9 hours ago, Lionator said:

For sure, however the phone stuff is interesting as this is likely to be one of our tactics going forward to keep levels low.

 

Is the population going to be ok handing over their personal and GPS data to the government in order to track cases?

 

9 hours ago, foxile5 said:

Do I smell an Orwellian dystopia? 

 

I really don't like the idea of giving them any more data than they already have. 

South Korea used this type of technology to great effect.  There, people downloaded an app and you received notification if you had been somewhere where there had been a confirmed case and instructed you to get tested.

 

The technology is there and imo this is a brilliant example of how it can help society.  It should be embraced.

[WigstonWanderer]

57 minutes ago, simFox said:

Masking up the entire country would have been a great way of ensuring the NHS go short. 

Reread what I said. Some form of home made face covering until sufficient supplies are available. 

[SpacedX]

5 hours ago, swanlee said:

Asians wearing masks have long been the butt of jokes and entirely misunderstood by us enlightened [sic] westerners.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you'll find that the origin lies more the concerns about urban pollution than hygiene. 

 

5 hours ago, swanlee said:

I'm not sure if you could of got a bunch of tube travelling Londoners to don masks. If you want inconsiderate, ill-mannered & invasive, then you'll not meet a more ingracious & self-centred bunch of specimens. 

What does this even mean? When was the last time that you travelled by the London Underground? You are surely aware that London is one of the most cosmopolitan cities on the planet? Obviously, this varies according to which tube line you are on, but the notion of an indigenous Londoner is fast becoming anachronistic. 

[WigstonWanderer]

47 minutes ago, simFox said:

All of a sudden everyone was an expert and saw it coming. You only need to read the start of this thread to understand the general sentiment.

 

EVERYONE who dismissed the signs and failed to understand the seriousness of what was unravelling is just as guilty.

 

You didn't need to be told, you could have took your own precautions. People were still going on holiday in march, attending big gatherings and neglecting hygiene. 

 

Almost everyone was ill prepared, but as usual are now looking for someone to blame for it.

 

The government at the time got a lot of flack from the SARS preparations that came to nothing, they didn't want to make the same mistakes.

 

This virus was coming whether you liked it or not, the response was only ever going to be reactive, maybe you still don't realise that either? Just be glad about the well organised responses we have made.

 

We now need to make sensible forward looking economical decisions, because it won't be long until your blaming the government for that too. 

Whilst I agree that a great many people were guilty of not taking this whole issue seriously from the start (FYI I wasn’t one of them), ordinary folk are not in a position to plan for what might happen during a pandemic that many institutions and high profile figures had predicted and for which there was ample warning with SARS, MERS, etc. Governments can be rightly criticised for a lack of planning and for complacency at the start of the crisis.

Edited 9 April 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[StanSP]

25 minutes ago, nnfox said:

 

South Korea used this type of technology to great effect.  There, people downloaded an app and you received notification if you had been somewhere where there had been a confirmed case and instructed you to get tested.

 

The technology is there and imo this is a brilliant example of how it can help society.  It should be embraced.

The reluctance or ability to get tested though hinders the idea of that happening here. 

 

I remember at the start people were unable to get tested even if they were potentially showing symptoms. Whether that was to do with lack of testing facilities I don't know. But people would sometimes go on the NHS site, fill that questionnaire out and be told to stay inside as opposed to get tested somewhere. 

[Bellend Sebastian]

Not sure how much actual science there is in this article but it's interesting all the same, and perhaps contains some pointers as to the sort of things that won't be allowed for a while even when the lockdown is eased:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/09/the-cluster-effect-how-social-gatherings-were-rocket-fuel-for-coronavirus

[yorkie1999]

6 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Granted, but why was there so little planning for ramping up production quickly in the event of a pandemic? There have been plenty of warnings from near misses like SARS and MERS to various studies, and from people like Bill Gates and others. This really isn’t a case of “who could possible have known?”. This is not just the UK (although they have been particularly slow off the mark), but applies to governments around the world.

It comes down to funding. The research centres and universities would have done studies on world wide pandemics etc and no doubt put their recommendations to the government, that doesn't cost anything because it's already funded. The government department  involved would have probably sat round a table and looked at the data and said, right, in the event of a global pandemic we're gonna need 5 new hospitals with morgues, 100000 ventilators, 100000 intensive care beds, 50000 nurses and doctors, 500,000,000 masks, aprons, visors, gloves etc and we're gonna need all of that stuff in readiness just in case Or, we could just pray we don't have a pandemic. How do you think that meeting went?

   One other thing. We see all these stats and all these graphs and forecasts, projections etc, which no doubt paint a terrifying scenario, so all of these models must have been worked on for years with a lot of time and effort (and money), but when it comes down to it, it's all useless data because the whole point of predicting something like this is so we are able to react to it, which we've obviously not done, or been able to, so in the end , it's pointless.

Edited 9 April 2020 by yorkie1999

[foxile5]

51 minutes ago, nnfox said:

 

South Korea used this type of technology to great effect.  There, people downloaded an app and you received notification if you had been somewhere where there had been a confirmed case and instructed you to get tested.

 

The technology is there and imo this is a brilliant example of how it can help society.  It should be embraced.

I've lived in South Korea for three years. Their government is very much not as interested in surveillance for surveillance sake as ours. 

 

Ours is the society that Orwell warned about. There's a culture of information gathering here - it's for your safety - that just isn't present in other societies. 

[Dahnsouff]

2 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

I've lived in South Korea for three years. Their government is very much not as interested in surveillance for surveillance sake as ours. 

 

Ours is the society that Orwell warned about. There's a culture of information gathering here - it's for your safety - that just isn't present in other societies. 

Do you regard surveillance as information gathering? Or are we talking about personal intellectual property and the ilk?

[StanSP]

 

 

[foxile5]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

Do you regard surveillance as information gathering? Or are we talking about personal intellectual property and the ilk?

Good question. 

 

All of the above i suggest. 

 

Cc tv is normalised here but its nowhere near as invasive in other countries (I've been fortunate enough to live in a few.) 

 

I don't buy the 'it's to prevent crime' line, because how often does it actually contribute to the gathering of any real evidence? As my sergeant mate put it 'usually ****ing useless.' 

 

There's also a need to have your name and address logged and monitored at points where it really doesn't make sense. You can't just buy a football ticket anymore. Nor can you shop at some outlets without sharing your data. Ostensibly for advertisement purposes but I don't buy it a lot of the time. 

 

With regards intellectual property - I don't know enough to comment but I'll do a bit of looking. 

[WigstonWanderer]

35 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

It comes down to funding. The research centres and universities would have done studies on world wide pandemics etc and no doubt put their recommendations to the government, that doesn't cost anything because it's already funded. The government department  involved would have probably sat round a table and looked at the data and said, right, in the event of a global pandemic we're gonna need 5 new hospitals with morgues, 100000 ventilators, 100000 intensive care beds, 50000 nurses and doctors, 500,000,000 masks, aprons, visors, gloves etc and we're gonna need all of that stuff in readiness just in case Or, we could just pray we don't have a pandemic. How do you think that meeting went?

I understand what you’re saying, but a great deal more planning could have been done. For example, several firms have reportedly switched production lines to the manufacture of medical equipment (ventilators, PPE, etc). Planning ahead would have ensured that such manufacturers were identified in advance, standards of equipment required agreed, sources of raw materials under pandemic conditions reviewed and a thousand other things that would have made ramping up production easier.

Edited 9 April 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, foxile5 said:

Good question. 

 

All of the above i suggest. 

 

Cc tv is normalised here but its nowhere near as invasive in other countries (I've been fortunate enough to live in a few.) 

 

I don't buy the 'it's to prevent crime' line, because how often does it actually contribute to the gathering of any real evidence? As my sergeant mate put it 'usually ****ing useless.' 

 

There's also a need to have your name and address logged and monitored at points where it really doesn't make sense. You can't just buy a football ticket anymore. Nor can you shop at some outlets without sharing your data. Ostensibly for advertisement purposes but I don't buy it a lot of the time. 

 

With regards intellectual property - I don't know enough to comment but I'll do a bit of looking. 

https://www.precisesecurity.com/articles/Top-10-Countries-by-Number-of-CCTV-Cameras

 

Seems we are about 3rd, maybe 4th in terms of CCTV (Higher than I imagined tbh), and China rides very high at the top of the chart, a less surprising stat wearing my pejorative hat.

 

This feels like a very personal issue, as I personally was indifferent to the potential introduction of ID cards, maybe that makes me a fool, or just someone adopting a laisez -faire attitude to something I maintain no fear of, is unclear too me.

 

Would be curious to know if you feel "monitored" in any way? I do not, but it has been said before that I am ignorant b@stard, so....  

 

[ealingfox]

26 minutes ago, StanSP said:

 

 

 

Well said.

[bmt]

1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

Less looking for people, institutions to blame, more self reliance please!

 

Governments always get the flack, and rightly always will, but society needs to provide for itself in part and not rely on the government for every little thing.

You want that type of government then maybe a dictatorship is more your thing 

In some circumstances this is fair enough but at the point the government seemed to be pursuing a strategy of allowing people to get it at a controlled rate, everyone pursuing social distancing would have made government policy ineffective. For policy to work people have to buy into it, and therefore rely on them.

 

I still find this worrying, eg. today https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52219930 - On Tuesday, staff were told by a Home Office scientific adviser 80% of people would get Covid-19 in the end and "we can't hide away from it forever". - How can people be to blame for things when civil servant/advisors are still towing different lines?

 

Ultimately when self-reliance by members of society is required, it is unfair on those who are deprived. Being able to protect yourself is much easier for those who can work from home with a second house in the countryside than it is for zero-hours inner London workers in retail, or construction workers.

 

 

 

Edit: just reread your comment and maybe not all of this is relevant to you. Certainly society isn't blameless, just wanted to make the point that society is at least partially a reflection of strength of government. It wouldn't take a dictatorship but more one who can act swiftly and strongly in these extraordinary times.

Edited 9 April 2020 by bmt

[swanlee]

1 hour ago, Line-X said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you'll find that the origin lies more the concerns about urban pollution than hygiene. 

Well I've certainly heard some barbed comments in the past about masks used for heath reasons. And believe it or not quite recently in fact.

 

And you may well be right, perhaps the development of urban mega-cities across china has resulted in higher levels of pollution. And has thus resulted in more recent years in masks being deployed for this reason.

 

But in my understanding, it has long been common to wear masks in Asia out of consideration for others with regards health issues.

 

[bmt]

2 minutes ago, swanlee said:

But in my understanding, it has long been common to wear masks in Asia out of consideration for others with regards health issues.

 

Agree, Asian friends of mine at university wore masks when they were ill to stop others catching things. Not sure it was due to pollution, although I think they are most likely used for both

[SemperEadem]

 

[Guest MattP]

45 minutes ago, StanSP said:

BBC journalists are there to report the news and moderate debate, not give their own live editorials on air.

[Guest Markyblue]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

BBC journalists are there to report the news and moderate debate, not give their own live editorials on air.

When has that ever stopped a metropolitan liberal telling the working class how put upon we are.

[bmt]

7 minutes ago, Markyblue said:

When has that ever stopped a metropolitan liberal telling the working class how put upon we are.

 

12 minutes ago, MattP said:

BBC journalists are there to report the news and moderate debate, not give their own live editorials on air.

To be fair, none of it is opinion - apart from maybe the bit about people in flats finding it harder during lockdown. It’s just factual information.

 

I agree with both of your points usually just don't think that's a particularly good example of it.

Edited 9 April 2020 by bmt

[swanlee]

1 hour ago, Line-X said:

What does this even mean? When was the last time that you travelled by the London Underground? You are surely aware that London is one of the most cosmopolitan cities on the planet? Obviously, this varies according to which tube line you are on, but the notion of an indigenous Londoner is fast becoming anachronistic. 

Sorry if you misconstrued that phrase. The last time I used the tube was in fact three weeks ago, before my office shutdown and my consequent furlough. I've been working & living in London now for many years.

 

The daily commute, and expense it involves, being one of the least appealing features of living in the south east. I've long now, and with some reluctance, come to consider myself an adopted Londoner.

 

And I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you. In my opinion the notion of an indigenous Londoner became anachronistic years ago. (There'll be many a southerner that may well disagree with me there though!)

Edited 9 April 2020 by swanlee

[Guest Markyblue]

Just now, bmt said:

 

To be fair, none of it is opinion - apart from maybe the bit about people in flats finding it harder during lockdown. It’s just factual information.

I agree to an extent but lets leave the sermons to the politicians and the factual news statements to news readers,  to me its condescending and un needed we are not stupid we know who's on the frontlines,  my wife works for the nhs i know the score.

[Dahnsouff]

23 minutes ago, bmt said:

In some circumstances this is fair enough but at the point the government seemed to be pursuing a strategy of allowing people to get it at a controlled rate, everyone pursuing social distancing would have made government policy ineffective. For policy to work people have to buy into it, and therefore rely on them.

 

I still find this worrying, eg. today https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52219930 - On Tuesday, staff were told by a Home Office scientific adviser 80% of people would get Covid-19 in the end and "we can't hide away from it forever". - How can people be to blame for things when civil servant/advisors are still towing different lines?

 

Ultimately when self-reliance by members of society is required, it is unfair on those who are deprived. Being able to protect yourself is much easier for those who can work from home with a second house in the countryside than it is for zero-hours inner London workers in retail, or construction workers.

 

 

 

Edit: just reread your comment and maybe not all of this is relevant to you. Certainly society isn't blameless, just wanted to make the point that society is at least partially a reflection of strength of government. It wouldn't take a dictatorship but more one who can act swiftly and strongly in these extraordinary times.

Fair play. I will hold the media partly to blame for constantly looking for pursuing incendiary responses based on the questions posed, both the choice of target for the question and the very question itself, this is a little sad, as the media at large is perfectly placed to deliver an extremely motivational way of covering this crisis, but some parts would fish for shock headlines.

 

However, this type of media questioning is only viable due to the appetite of the audience.

[bmt]

7 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Fair play. I will hold the media partly to blame for constantly looking for pursuing incendiary responses based on the questions posed, both the choice of target for the question and the very question itself, this is a little sad, as the media at large is perfectly placed to deliver an extremely motivational way of covering this crisis, but some parts would fish for shock headlines.

 

However, this type of media questioning is only viable due to the appetite of the audience.

Completely agree. I think the 'power vacuum' chat at the moment in the media is ridiculous too. Completely undermines politicians who (in the right or wrong way) are trying to do their job and keep people safe.