Coronavirus

[rocket_scientist]

All inbound flights to be quarantined now. More reactive Tory policy, behind the curve from day one.

[TheDeeDon]

All inbound flights to be quarantined now. More reactive Tory policy, behind the curve from day one.

 

I had assumed incorrectly, that all people coming to the country were put in quarantine for 14 days and was shocked to discover not the case yesterday. I believe most other places, including the US, have been doing this for some time.

 

Still plenty people seem to think the Tories are doing an excellent job of managing the situation.

[donsdaft]

Fuck flying, they are going to make it nearly impossible.

 

The channel tunnel trains are still operating (they'll forget about them)

 

I've always fancied driving to Budapest, just a case of persuading Mrs Donsdaft.

 

I'll wait until the third bottle of wine to try to persuade her to let me book the train.

[rocket_scientist]

https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/security-behind-nhs-contact-tracing-app

 

Pretty comprehensive overview of the app here. Worth reading, it's not too technical. It seems to me that the decision to choose a centralised app over a decentralised one is entirely correct for the UK. This is because the decentralised model wouldn't really work with such low testing. The key being self-reporting and the ability to do this with a decentralised app. The true/false nature of infected or not can only be established via wide scale testing. The app seems like it'll be secure enough in this form. Remains to be seen how it'll evolve over time and how transparent changes will be.

 

It seems that the government might not agree with you now, as they consider yet another U-turn;

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/07/uk-may-ditch-nhs-contact-tracing-app-for-apple-and-google-model?__twitter_impression=true

[RicoS321]

It seems that the government might not agree with you now, as they consider yet another U-turn;

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/07/uk-may-ditch-nhs-contact-tracing-app-for-apple-and-google-model?__twitter_impression=true

 

Good news, the decentralised option would be the one I would choose if we were a normal country too, it's the best all round and the one I'd be most likely to download. I still don't think it's best for the UK, however, as it has to come hand in hand with rigorous "manual" contact tracing, which it doesn't seem we're even remotely set up for. I can see them sticking with their original choice. I think Scotland should have done it's own thing months ago and ordered its own testing and it's own app.

[rocket_scientist]

I think Scotland should have done it's own thing months ago and ordered its own testing and it's own app.

 

If we could have, we would have. But like New York City in relation to the federal government, there is a limit to how much autonomy we actually have. If Scotland could have negotiated a 10% (roughly, a per capita one) payment of the UK costs of testing, PPE, the App and all other Covid expenditure, to extricate ourselves from the shit show clown show, that would have been ideal even despite the actual advantages of a bigger purchasing power. But alas, it was never an ideal world.

 

Good on Miriam Margoyles speaking out. She'll get slaughtered by the snowflakes and the Tories and the MSM but she only said what many of us were thinking, or at least what I was thinking. I was hoping that BlowJob would die rather than come back a better person, an exercise in futility given his insane parents, his upbringing and his privileged otherworldly view on life, the universe and everything (which may or may not have been 42).

[tom_widdows]

Good news, the decentralised option would be the one I would choose if we were a normal country too, it's the best all round and the one I'd be most likely to download. I still don't think it's best for the UK, however, as it has to come hand in hand with rigorous "manual" contact tracing, which it doesn't seem we're even remotely set up for. I can see them sticking with their original choice. I think Scotland should have done it's own thing months ago and ordered its own testing and it's own app.

 

So apparently much like the 'brilliant' settled status application App, this new CV-19 tracing one will also have issues working with certain phones.

 

The UK’s coronavirus contact tracing app, being developed as part of the government’s pandemic response, may not work with either Apple or Google phones.

 

Dr Michael Veale, lecturer in digital rights and regulation at University College London, said the UK is “really going against the grain” in its development of the app.

 

Comparing the government’s app with the app his team is working on, Veale said: “We’ve been working in a way where all of the matching between people happens on a user’s device, not in a central server, and that’s generally considered to be more privacy preserving. Whereas the UK has taken a different approach, which builds a social network of people in the cloud.”

 

“The problem is that Apple and Google, Apple in particular, have stated that they won’t allow this kind of central system to be created, it doesn’t work with their operating system,” he said. “And so the UK is really going against the grain and therefore it’s finding problems on both Google and Apple phones.”

 

He said he does not think the app will be up and running in the UK before June.

 

Cabinet minister Robert Jenrick denied the government was already working on a second coronavirus app, but said ministers would move to a different app if necessary.

 

“As far as I’m aware we’re not developing a second app but we are paying attention to the other apps that exist elsewhere in the world,” he told Marr. “And if we need to adapt our app or move to a different model, obviously we will do.”

 

Im looking forward to the tories releasing a public information film on Betamax & Laserdisc

 

 

 

[RicoS321]

So apparently much like the 'brilliant' settled status application App, this new CV-19 tracing one will also have issues working with certain phones.

 

Im looking forward to the tories releasing a public information film on Betamax & Laserdisc

 

Rock and a hard place for NHS though (or nhsx, or whatever they're called, that specified the app). They need the data that a centralised app would provide, which the UK's testing approach is not. The decentralised model offers the NHS absolutely no assistance in controlling the virus, it just helps individuals. Unless the extensive use of testing and tracking occurs, there is no data on any hotspots, any second waves etc. It looks to me like the NHS are trying to mitigate the government's ineptitude in testing through the app, so I feel a bit sorry for them on this one.

 

Interesting that "protect the NHS" doesn't seem to appear on the new slogan for retards. No point pretending I suppose. Thankfully, the US model available post-brexit won't even pretend to give a fuck.

[rocket_scientist]

I think there's a danger in "mixing metaphors" here. We are not experts in App building. We, like the NHS and like the government, haven't built a national system before nor have we faced a virus on this scale. All we can do is learn and observe and by applying some basic critical thinking, we can identify some of the core issues.

 

It was obvious more than three months ago that data was needed. John Snow would have turned in his grave (the doctor who pinpointed cholera to the water pump in Broad Street, London rather than Jon Snow of Channel 4) at the UK government's decision to abandon the common-sense strategy of testing and tracking. And the NHSX App is not an NHS initiative, having been farmed out to independent private parties at a cost of £250,000,000, parties that may or may not include former employees and/or associates of Cambridge Analytica.

 

The news that 50,000 tests were sent to the US was interesting. And an utter disgrace.

[RicoS321]

Not an expert, but I'm proficient and understand a lot of the jargon where I don't have first hand experience. Although, I didn't know that the app was being specified by third parties, I understood it was specified by NHS, being built by third parties, with data on NHS servers, but I don't know why I had that in my head. 

 

Aye, the testing going to the US is bizarre. This shit should have been sorted out years ago. We have heaps of testing facilities in the UK, they should all have been involved in pandemic drills and all have an action plan, and a coverage area. Instead of fucking off to yankland, we should have been hyper-localising our response and everyone in the country should have been aware of their role and what was expected of them. Instead, we're still redacting shite and not publishing data that decisions are based on. Which scientist suggested changing to "stay alert" (for an invisible virus)?

[rocket_scientist]

Stay alert is good; it means 1. Become alert, and then 2. Stay in this heightened state of awareness. Two words only, an excellent demonstration of the transparency and efficiency for which this government is earning a great reputation.

 

Staying alert at home however - as Jenrick uttered today - is unfathomably stupid and in one fell swoop, may well have tarnished the reputation irreconcilably. The fact that he broke the isolation rules didn't cost him his position however, unlike the Edinburgh posh wifie and Stat Ferguson's dalliance into Staats. This may be an indication of the loyalty that this government embraces and their sporting nature, giving Jenrick more chances to come back from the Landet editor ripping his arse off on Question Time.

[tom_widdows]

There used to be a sign behind the bar in a pub back home

 

'Be alert! Britain needs Lerts'

Sort of slogan I can see above a BJ version of the Kitchener poster.

 

Guardian is claiming part of tonight's speech to the nation was recorded yersterday which hasnt gone down very well with the cabinet.

[donsdaft]

I don't expect anything to make any actual sense from now on.

 

This 14 day quarantine thing?

Do you just promise to stay in for 14 days?

Ha!

 

Anyway, regarding my proposed car journey to Budapest, I went to sleep last night thinking " no quarantine for me" because the twat had said air travel only.

I woke this morning to find that it didn't include France anyway.

As far as I am aware the tunnel doesn't go all the way to Hungary.

Now this means I get to not quarantine twice, not that I would have anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

[tom_widdows]

'Stay at home if you can. Go to work if you must'.

 

That sounds like something from a passive aggressive domestic argument. Perhaps it was the last thing he heard before he headed off to Westminster this morning

[rocket_scientist]

Starmer playing a stormer

 

[rocket_scientist]

https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

 

I thought from the start there was something fishy about this virus. Now I'm hoping it was (and is continuing to be) government incompetence rather than something more sinister.

[RicoS321]

Starmer playing a stormer

 

Aye, but can he eat a bacon roll?

[rocket_scientist]

Aye, but can he eat a bacon roll?

 

Ed: Millions ban together to avoid pig eating, for reasons not known to me. Perhaps they fear that their ancestors were fed to them. Perhaps that should've been millions banned.

 

Edit: Millions band together... That's it.

[RicoS321]

https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

 

I thought from the start there was something fishy about this virus. Now I'm hoping it was (and is continuing to be) government incompetence rather than something more sinister.

 

Interesting, but some fairly flawed arguments in there for something supposedly working against propaganda. Citing a rate of 0.2% is a little misleading. That 0.2% is inclusive of a lockdown. Giving the example of South Korea as an example of a country not in lockdown doesn't really tell the whole picture, and their approach directly opposes their other point on privacy. The flippant suggestion along the lines of that the old were going to die anyway sounds like something Cummings thought up and has been debunked elsewhere. The suggestion that kids are safe and should be at school is bizarre; as if kids aren't in contact with adults and couldn't spread the disease.

 

I'm all for seeing the other side, but these aren't balanced arguments and raises questions about the swprs and who they represent. I'm guessing that they're probably correct in many of their assertions but it's lack of nuance is difficult to look past. Also, I expect the government to take a cautious approach to something that isn't fully understood. If only they'd do that with other things, such as chemicals, antibiotics etc.

[rocket_scientist]

Rico, given that your comments on the piece aren't even half an hour old, are you sure you've researched both the organisation and the many cited sources sufficiently in order to be so disparaging?

 

It's a debate I've been following from day one and tweeted a month ago that Hitchens may have been right all along. Even Trump came out with the cure can't be worse than the problem. As someone with no epidemiological expertise, I'm personally not qualified to strategise on the major crisis. I am qualified to observe however and I see incompetence - mostly of management and communication - and fear-mongering. This "media-epidemic" may have contorted the truth, adversely influenced our weak government and may have resulted in a disproportionate response. I don't know. All I do know is that nobody I know personally has been infected far less died of Covid-19 or with it (the distinction being absolutely key).

[RicoS321]

Rico, given that your comments on the piece aren't even half an hour old, are you sure you've researched both the organisation and the many cited sources sufficiently in order to be so disparaging?

 

Nope, that's why I said it raises questions, rather than provides proof. I had a look at a few of the sources (Sputnik etc), but I was commenting on the lack of balance in the article, nothing else. It presents very basic arguments that raise very basic questions that should have been addressed in a good article. There is no good reason to over-simplify an article if you're confident of its accuracy and don't have an agenda. Countering one perceived agenda with your own isn't necessary. I'm just saying that the article isn't helpful, balanced or one I'd trust off the bat. I'll definitely look through it though.

[rocket_scientist]

Nope, that's why I said it raises questions, rather than provides proof. I had a look at a few of the sources (Sputnik etc), but I was commenting on the lack of balance in the article, nothing else. It presents very basic arguments that raise very basic questions that should have been addressed in a good article. There is no good reason to over-simplify an article if you're confident of its accuracy and don't have an agenda. Countering one perceived agenda with your own isn't necessary. I'm just saying that the article isn't helpful, balanced or one I'd trust off the bat. I'll definitely look through it though.

 

Nope, you haven't researched it sufficiently and yet you are very disparaging? That doesn't make sense to me.

 

I don't think "proof" of much pertaining to this crisis is available generally but I don't agree that the presentation of a wide collection of opinions needs to be "balanced" when it's putting forward a particular argument, for which some (starting with 25) relevant facts are being provided in support of this view.

 

Edit: please ask three questions raised from reading this article?

[RicoS321]

Nope, you haven't researched it sufficiently and yet you are very disparaging? That doesn't make sense to me.

 

I don't think "proof" of much pertaining to this crisis is available generally but I don't agree that the presentation of a wide collection of opinions needs to be "balanced" when it's putting forward a particular argument, for which some (starting with 25) relevant facts are being provided in support of this view.

 

Edit: please ask three questions raised from reading this article?

 

I wouldn't say I was very disparaging, just critical, but fair enough.

 

1. Who defined the ascertainment bias in the 0.2% figure and how was it established?

 

2. Absolute risk doesn't seem to make any sense in the non-peer-reviewed backup. Why would this not change over time? Certainly when randomly compared with driving (a very known rate of deaths generally speaking). Why split into <65 and >65? Especially given the significantly higher rate in 40-65 year olds (who would also be more at risk than from driving) and the fact that the under 18s don't drive.

 

3. "Up to 80% remain symptom free". Unless your own objective is the production of propaganda, why would you use this stat in questioning the need for lockdown? One, it's very well known and repeated often by government and in the media. Two, what about the very high figure of the remaining 20%? It's just not a stat that would appear in a balanced article. It doesn't belong there. It's like the person was trying to reach an arbitrary target of 25 reasons rather than a good, balanced article.

 

That's just from the first three points. These are 3 pretty weak arguments (in the article I mean!) In my opinion. There's probably some good stuff in there too, that is really quite relevant, but if they'd focused on the two or three important points it'd have made a convincing case I expect. It strikes me that the author has a pre-defined position (as we all do of course) and tried to find every single thing that backed that position without filter. Certainly not the work of an "anti-propaganda" proponent. The problem is that we/they're criticising the media, but any good journalist would question nearly all the points the article makes. Like you, I think there's a story there, but this doesn't find it and nor did hitchens from a month or so back. They both suffer from quantity over quality, throwing lots of little accusations/criticisms around without anything smoking gun and the basic inaccuracies (hitchens - who I quite enjoy - had a glaring one, I can't remember what it was) or deficiency of argument. Hopefully they'll keep looking.

 

 

[rocket_scientist]

1. Who defined the ascertainment bias in the 0.2% figure and how was it established?

 

If you click on the link - the about 0.2% which is highlighted - you will see all 52 studies and the websites to back up their results (the first one being published in the Lancet).

 

Fuck knows about your other two questions but I think on this first question alone, there's a lot more detail than you first thought available to you, which until we examine the evidence, means that we can't be sceptical or disparaging about the whole text.

 

 

It strikes me that the author has a pre-defined position (as we all do of course) and tried to find every single thing that backed that position without filter.

 

I vehemently disagree. There are detailed FACTS being presented here and whilst the whole casts doubt on the extreme lockdown measures taken by most governments, this is exactly what democracy and opposition is all about, examining the alternatives and establishing the boundaries of the debate, even seeking to look beyond them.

 

I also dispute that Hitchens has left ANY holes in his position, far less any glaring ones. One of the sources that he quotes, Lord Sumption, was interviewed by Evan Davis on Radio 4 and said exactly what he has consistently been saying for months. Even the government in the 50 page document this week is coming round to admitting that Hitchens was right all along from their words on page 10.

 

As I said, you and I - or at least me - are not qualified to know what the best strategy might have been. We are qualified to look and listen however and you would need to be a wee bit more diligent in your looking and listening before jumping to conclusions about the group who coordinated these facts or their purpose in presenting them. Personally, it never crossed my mind what their agenda might be. I was just interested in the facts they presented, some of which I had seen before and were sources that I strongly believe have been correct, Professors John Ioannidis of Stanford and Sucharit Bhakdi of Mainz in particular, both having been introduced to me by Hitchens in March, which I shared widely.

[RicoS321]

If you click on the link - the about 0.2% which is highlighted - you will see all 52 studies and the websites to back up their results (the first one being published in the Lancet).

 

Fuck knows about your other two questions but I think on this first question alone, there's a lot more detail than you first thought available to you, which until we examine the evidence, means that we can't be sceptical or disparaging about the whole text.

 

 

I vehemently disagree. There are detailed FACTS being presented here and whilst the whole casts doubt on the extreme lockdown measures taken by most governments, this is exactly what democracy and opposition is all about, examining the alternatives and establishing the boundaries of the debate, even seeking to look beyond them.

 

I also dispute that Hitchens has left ANY holes in his position, far less any glaring ones. One of the sources that he quotes, Lord Sumption, was interviewed by Evan Davis on Radio 4 and said exactly what he has consistently been saying for months. Even the government in the 50 page document this week is coming round to admitting that Hitchens was right all along from their words on page 10.

 

As I said, you and I - or at least me - are not qualified to know what the best strategy might have been. We are qualified to look and listen however and you would need to be a wee bit more diligent in your looking and listening before jumping to conclusions about the group who coordinated these facts or their purpose in presenting them. Personally, it never crossed my mind what their agenda might be. I was just interested in the facts they presented, some of which I had seen before and were sources that I strongly believe have been correct, Professors John Ioannidis of Stanford and Sucharit Bhakdi of Mainz in particular, both having been introduced to me by Hitchens in March, which I shared widely.

 

I'm not jumping to conclusions, I said "it raises questions". I haven't concluded anything. I asked about ascertainment bias, which is only mentioned in the backup, which I obviously opened. The attachment to the Lancet does not back up the 0.2% figure, it backs up the 7.1 figure that has an ascertainment bias attributed to it to make up the 0.54%. If that bias is slightly amended it has a big affect on the result. I'm not saying that they're wrong, I'm saying that they haven't given the backup for the bias, or I've missed it.

 

There are not detailed facts, there are a mixture of facts and opinion. That's fine of course, but instead of chasing the 25, they could have concisely provided 3 or 4 good challenges like ionnadis' cruise ship one rather than the one of his that they link here in point 2, which I've read and added questions here (again, I could be wrong, but that's my conclusion on reading the available text, hence why I'm questioning it). Point 4 suggests a background immunity, but that isn't the conclusion of the article linked, which is a small study that raises questions that could be answered in a larger study.