Re: "The BBC is selling Beeb as a privacy-friendly option"
I'm not sure how it can be considered as compatible with being Windows only.
21267 posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"Driving 260 miles to Durham while your wife has the virus is not safe"
Driving 260 miles when you yourself might be infected is even less safe. There have been reported cases where individuals started out feeling fine on shorter drives than that and were in a state of collapse by the end of it.
"1 - he didn't write it"
He did sit in on several meetings of SAGE who originated - despite being unqualified.
"3 - the deputy CMO explicitly stated that childcare was an exceptional situation"
Yes. And suggested that if there were no suitable alternatives, contact local social services. Of course social services are only for the little people.
"If you were 10 years older you'd probably have heard from them."
I'm 10 years older than you probably think Will is (well over 60 is stall a valid statement, of course). So is SWMBO with additional criteria and neither of us have been contacted. I suppose it's possible someone might have attempted to send her an SMS but it's not an effective way of contacting her - she hardly ever has her mobile on unless she wants to make a call. Plain old letter would be more effective.
As a techie i find it staggering the the govt appears have just given up on a tracing "app"
I don't think they have. They just realise it won't be sufficient (assuming it works) because ..... not everyone has a smartphone to run it on. And not everyone who has a smartphone can be arsed to carry it everywhere or even keep it charged up; I certainly can't.
I always refused point blank to believe that they were my bank on the basis that I'd already made clear to my bank that I couldn't accept such calls without caller verification and I wasn't even prepared to indicate whether or not they'd guessed right. It was followed up by a miffed letter from the bank saying they couldn't get in touch to sell me something I wasn't looking for (I paraphrase).
It only happened with my business account. I suppose I could have simply said discussing financial matters with unsolicited callers was contrary to company policy.
"The financial industry is better at providing contact details and extra information to verify that a communication is genuine."
Shall we settle for "just about as bad"?
I've certainly never experienced any branch of the financial industry providing any verification of their contacts. Emails purporting to be from them arrive at the appropriate unique address but that's not intentional verification on their part.
"They think they'll actually have any data?"
If somebody who's tested positive names you as a contact then they'll have data on you. You didn't give it to them but they'll have it. A bit like Facebook and the rest rifling through subscribers' devices' contacts and grabbing data about 3rd parties.
It drives a coach and horses through data protection legislation. About the one hope is that the EU turns round and denies equivalence to GDPR unless it's changed. Just about every aspect of this has a red flag flying over it. It would help if someone in charge had a really solid reputation for safeguarding PII. What we have instead is Dido Harding.
I had a client whose flagship product was made on a system which included a system provided by a third party pulling in files across the LAN by FTP from another server provided by a 3rd party. The FTP server was replaced and it transpired the 3rd party client was more fussy about the exact format of the file listings from the FTP server than FTP server writers were. Fortunately the new server ran SuSE so I got the trivial job of rebuilding the daemon with a change of the fprintf argument.
Just "overdose" on its own is quite ambiguous. If someone were gullible enough to believe the rest of the sales pitch for this they might well believe it would protect them against overdose of some drug and try to benefit from that. I wonder what 3rd party liability insurance they have.
Sort of. The problem is that a contact is assumed to be an infection.
Just a little while ago when various testing methods were being assessed and dismissed because they didn't meet quality criteria in terms of false negatives and/or positives. What quality criteria have been attached to this process? What impact assessment has been made on the consequences of people spending time in self-isolation for 14 days as a result of the false positives which will occur?
In a couple of weeks time we're going to hear the first complaints. In about six weeks time we'll be hearing the complaints from those who've gone through two periods of self-isolation with no symptoms. In eight weeks or so the whole shambles will be thoroughly discredited unless Hancock does what should be blindingly obvious now: test all contacts, with an initial isolation needed only until the test result is available and continued isolation only for positive responses.
The Beeb sometimes displays three versions: deaths with a +ve Covid test, deaths with Covid on the death cert regardless of tests and total number of deaths over and above the typical level. Not surprisingly they are ranked in magnitude in that order. The last, it should be added, takes into account any such effects as other diseases not being treated and less fatalities due to RTAs.
It's worth remembering that the standard response of any politician faced with the consequences of their own ineptitude is to find some foreign enemy to blame. "Chinese virus" fits right into this pattern.
What's unusual about this one is that he started this sort of behaviour in his initial campaign - Mexican walls & all that. Thank goodness no politician in the UK would resort to such tactics.
"Why is it that only corona deaths matter, not all the deaths that our response to corona causes?"
This article demonstrates that for most age groups Coronavirus introduces the same risk as all other causes of death put together. All other diseases, traffic accidents, fire, murder, the lot. Take all those together, add in coronavirus and, if you're over 30 - 40 your chances of dying are doubled:
"Sweden is in it for the long haul, and they are going to have one of the lowest death rates of any country when this is finally over,"
It looks as if this is not going to be the case:
Do they have an estimate of the number of false positives, as a percentage of the presumed contacts and as a percentage of the total population condemned to self-isolation. That would be essential to judge the impact of this? I haven't seen an impact assessment of UK version, manual or automated. I suppose it's just one more of those things to be discovered the hard way to be blindingly obvious.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020