Re: Is the QR code check part of the app in a legal requirement for venues?
Marketing are always the worst problem.
40432 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
Hand-washing was part of the early instructions here along with lock-down but not masks. The package as a whole resulted in transmission rates falling abruptly
From a population point of view its a matter of numbers. If a given set of precautions is sufficient to bring R below 1 in a given situation then it will reduce the numbers of infections. If that happened in Vietnam for one particular set of precautions, fine*. Another set worked here in the UK.
From an individual point of view things are different. Family in my generation and our friends are at heightened risk due to age and possibly other health conditions. Mere hand-washing probably wouldn't have sufficed for us so we have had very limited contact with others and by-and-large are maintaining that.
I think what's happening now is much the same as the aftermath of Y2K. Then we had people saying it was a false alarm because nothing went wrong when we know that nothing went wrong because a genuine alarm was heeded. We now have people thinking that because they caught nothing up to now it was a fuss about nothing.
Yes there are idiots of all ages. The OP's comment, however, singled out young people and a group of older people of a certain attitude. The latter are at risk because of a combination of their age, which they can no more help than I can, and their attitude which they can do something about. If they choose to act foolishly my sympathy lies entirely with those to whom they pass on infections.
* I wonder what the age distribution is in Vietnam. In a predominantly young population the level of illness, if not of actual infections, might be lower n any case.
Remember that humans are a novel environment for this virus. It hasn't had the evolutionary time to adapt that older respiratory viruses have. What's more, the availability of medical treatment will have greatly reduced the deaths of individual hosts so the selection pressure is much reduced. The likelihood is that it will evolve.
I should point out to the downvoters that I'm very definitely an older person (as is my wife who has the additional risk factor of type 2 diabetes). I also have an aversion to being told what to do which goes back at least to compulsory Latin in school.
OTOH I recognise serious warnings and advice for what they are. I also spent half my working life as a biologist well able to look at things from the point of view of the species rather than the individual.
So when, the other day, I heard some nuppit probably the best part of a decade younger and possibly with drink taken, effing and blinding to the door attendant at Morrisons about restrictions I had no problem placing him as part of the problem, not the solution.
The downside of this, of course, is that a Darwin award for such individuals is that it's too late to have a real effect on the gene pool.
"Any data gathered via the QR coding cannot be pinpointed to an individual (supposedly)"
The way it works is that the device retains the QR code and the system periodically broadcasts a list of QR codes for tainted (in absence of a better word) premises. The app then matches this list against the codes it's gathered and warns the user so the data gathered from the QR codes never leaves the device. Allegedly. And by now I think HMG is well aware that it would never weather the consequences if it proved to be otherwise.
In fact I think they're missing a trick here. The app registers the user's home postcode and the system broadcasts lists of postcodes which are considered to be hotspots so it can warn the user if and when their own postcode is put on the list. There's no mention of the QR codes including the premises postcodes; if they did it could alert the user tot he fact thet they're now in a hotspot even if the particular premises aren't tainted.
"I believe that humanity has never previously developed immunity to a coronavirus previously"
That's not a testable hypothesis. If it has the virus will now be extinct and we'd be none the wiser.
We do, however, have several coronaviruses that cause mild diseases*. What's the nature of this interaction? Did they start off as equally lethal and evolve to respond to some sort of control from the host so as not to kill off the latter?
* And the current coronavirus, like others, is not lethal in its original host.
Point taken. Nevertheless I think the Cummings incident and failure to deal with it was a turning point. Call it authority, respect, credibility or whatever; up to that point public opinion was supportive. Now Covidiots have a certain degree of licence. It will take a massive increase in death toll to get that support back.
"Based on every I read and hear from the UK, there is no second wave, it is still in the ups and downs of the first wave."
I think this is a reasonable interpretation. Apply various mitigation measures, R goes down, disapply them R goes up. In this context "waves" seem to be more PR than anything else. AFAICS what's happening is that the govt. is trying to apply such measures and work out which have least adverse economic and political effects. The feedback from any change is sufficiently delayed that the level of infections will go up and down.
"This is the nature of contract work"
It sounds more like breach of contract. In their position I'd be taking a careful look at contract terms, getting a legal opinion, reviewing how much in the lurch BT would be and then terminating ASAP, preferably with no notice at all. Then opening new negotiations.
Its only a matter of time before someone starts looking at working from home as "transferring a part of the business to a residential address".
Just acting on government instructions. They can be referred to Michael Gove if they want to argue.
"it appears the consultancy wanted to demonstrate to youngsters how much money they could be making if they went for a career in IT (and, conveniently enough, consulting.)"
Hmmm.
If by "in consulting" you mean "working for a consultancy company" than that amount is going to be what the consultancy company makes whilst youngster gets paid minimal wage.
If you mean as freelance then things are better but don't forget that until the youngster's well enough established to get repeat business and new business by word of mouth there'll be a pimp agency taking a cut, general costs of running a business, such as an accountant and insurance, and HMRC trying to rip them off by pretending it's not actually a business they're running.
Be very careful what you wish for. You might get it.
Do you really want a BoJo, a Cummings, a Corbyn*, a Gove, a Rees-Mogg or any of the rest of the rogues gallery running the internet in the UK?
Various governments have wanted to get their hands on the net, usually via the ITU. Fortunately the ITU has managed to fend them off. Read about it by searching for el Reg's articles on it.
The existing governance might bot be ideal but there seem to be commentards here who want something worse. A lot worse.
* Under your idea it could have come to that.
Private companies are owned by their members. They must have an AGM at which members can vote. If a majority of the holders of membership voting rights choose to vote the old board out of office and vote in a replacement that's the end of the old board and all its policies. The board can dismiss company management including the CEO if they wish.
Unless one member controls most of the votes that's a long way away from being a dictatorship.
But don't let facts get in the way of an internet post.
As you say, it's answerable to its members and the members have an opportunity to vote on the board at the next AGM. They also have the right to propose their own candidates as replacements for the board. Of all the companies in the UK it's harder to think of any that have a better ability to get together online behind the managements back to do just that.
But should this really be a government function? On the whole I think that the less governments have their hands on the net the better.
"In general the older employees cost more and tended to be harder to control."
Certainly after a few trips round the (de)motivation course most people with a working brain recognise the BS for what it is. They also are experienced in whatever it is they do and don't really need control. The only people to whom this is a problem are those whose salaries and/or self-esteem depending on controlling them.
"Younger employees lack inexperience"
Oops"
"but they tend to have more energy and lower wages."
Energy is a trade-off with the efficiency that knowing the job brings and wages for them are a trade-off with the payments for the manglers whose sole role is to tell those who already know what they're doing what to do.
"If I were running a business with an aging workforce, I'd probably be tempted to swap them out too."
I wonder.....
"The market, the whole market and nothing" but the market has been UK Govt mantra since the Adoration of the Blessed Maggie in 1979.
It might have escaped your notice but your favourite hate figure is the only UK prime minister we've ever had (one one of only a few ministers overall) with a STEM background.