Covid-19 the unlockdown

[discovolante]

Give people a number to call back on that they can verify is the correct number before they call.

Actually giving people a number to call back on isn't foolproof unless it was actually displayed as a contact number on the government website.

That's what I meant when I said "that they can verify is the correct number". Running a bit slow today, so probably not being as clear as I ought to be.

OK, fair enough.

(I am now getting flashbacks of people getting full on stroppy with me for having the temerity to call them about their equity release application when 'I could be anyone'. Well yes sir you gave us your number, and you are welcome to call our contact centre to verify it's us.)

[gosling]

(I am now getting flashbacks of people getting full on stroppy with me for having the temerity to call them about their equity release application when 'I could be anyone'. Well yes sir you gave us your number, and you are welcome to call our contact centre to verify it's us.)

Reminds me of last week's outrage that FB had details of people's interactions with other companies. Well, yes, they will have if you've used FB to login because you can't be assed to set up a new account.

[Sciolus]

To do it in a way that is compliant with data protection, the tracers should not ask people to give details of their contacts; instead they should ask the tracees to ask their contacts to call the tracers. If someone calls me and asks for someone else's phone number, sorry, but that's not my information to give.

Of course, that approach would enormously reduce the number of people traced because people are lazy.

[tom p]

To do it in a way that is compliant with data protection, the tracers should not ask people to give details of their contacts; instead they should ask the tracees to ask their contacts to call the tracers. If someone calls me and asks for someone else's phone number, sorry, but that's not my information to give.

Of course, that approach would enormously reduce the number of people traced because people are lazy.

Really. Please explain precisely which parts of data protection legislation prevent the sharing of information such as phone numbers in the interests of protecting public health. Specify actual sections in the currently applicable legislation. Otherwise you're talking sh.t. And even if you can find them, you're still talking sh.t because you will have missed out crucial exceptions which were written in the knowledge that not dying of a f.cking disease is more important than someone not having your f.cking phone number.
I write as someone who has had to deal with this sort of uninformed jobsworth mentality in precisely this area - my employers have to collect actual personal data of people for the purposes of protecting public health. We've passed audits from the european data protection supervisor & we also have significant legal opinion that says we're allowed to do so, & allowed to transmit it across the continent to the relevant agencies of different governments. As long as the data is only used for its intended purpose, is stored safely and is disposed of when no longer needed, then there would be no reason why it couldn't be collected for this purpose.

Or does it just stand to reason? Maybe, the real problem, right, is elf 'n' safety. Or p'raps is p'li'ical correctness. It's gorn mad, aint it. You ain't even allowed to say "Blackpool" any more. That's the same level of ignorance as your comment.

[Fishnut]

Christ, they're trying to kill us all. The Guardian Live Blog says that they're reducing the lockdown even more from Monday. Sir Patrick Vallance said that ONS figures show:

The proportion of people in the last couple of weeks with Covid-19 is 0.24% – somewhere in the order of 130,000 people have Covid infection, he says.

The number of new infections is estimated to be roughly 1 in 1,000 per week, he says.

This means 54,000 new cases are estimated to be occurring every week – that is not a low number, he stresses.

There is still a significant burden of infection, there are still new infections every day at quite a significant rate, and the R is close to 1, he says.

That means there isn’t a lot of room to do things and things to need to be done cautiously and monitored, and the test and trace system needs to be effective, he says.

An estimated 6.78% of people have had Covid-19

Also, the R value is still between 0.7 and 0.9 and in some places may be higher.

[Sciolus]

To do it in a way that is compliant with data protection, the tracers should not ask people to give details of their contacts; instead they should ask the tracees to ask their contacts to call the tracers. If someone calls me and asks for someone else's phone number, sorry, but that's not my information to give.

Of course, that approach would enormously reduce the number of people traced because people are lazy.

Really. Please explain precisely which parts of data protection legislation prevent the sharing of information such as phone numbers in the interests of protecting public health. Specify actual sections in the currently applicable legislation. Otherwise you're talking sh.t. And even if you can find them, you're still talking sh.t because you will have missed out crucial exceptions which were written in the knowledge that not dying of a f.cking disease is more important than someone not having your f.cking phone number.
I write as someone who has had to deal with this sort of uninformed jobsworth mentality in precisely this area - my employers have to collect actual personal data of people for the purposes of protecting public health. We've passed audits from the european data protection supervisor & we also have significant legal opinion that says we're allowed to do so, & allowed to transmit it across the continent to the relevant agencies of different governments. As long as the data is only used for its intended purpose, is stored safely and is disposed of when no longer needed, then there would be no reason why it couldn't be collected for this purpose.

Or does it just stand to reason? Maybe, the real problem, right, is elf 'n' safety. Or p'raps is p'li'ical correctness. It's gorn mad, aint it. You ain't even allowed to say "Blackpool" any more. That's the same level of ignorance as your comment.

Crikey, Tom, that's an unexpectedly laid-back response from you. Just how many chill pills have you taken today?

I'm thinking of the general principle that my data belongs to me. I don't think that is actually stated in the regs, at least not is as few words as that, because, duh, IABMCTT. Nonetheless that's the principle that drives data protection regulation.

I think you may have missed the implied "... which is why this way is necessary" at the end of my last sentence. I have previously said that normal ethical requirements may need to be waived in the current exceptional circumstances. I would hope and expect that drafters of legislation would include allowance for such circumstances.

[Stranger Mouse]

Christ, they're trying to kill us all. The Guardian Live Blog says that they're reducing the lockdown even more from Monday. Sir Patrick Vallance said that ONS figures show:

The proportion of people in the last couple of weeks with Covid-19 is 0.24% – somewhere in the order of 130,000 people have Covid infection, he says.

The number of new infections is estimated to be roughly 1 in 1,000 per week, he says.

This means 54,000 new cases are estimated to be occurring every week – that is not a low number, he stresses.

There is still a significant burden of infection, there are still new infections every day at quite a significant rate, and the R is close to 1, he says.

That means there isn’t a lot of room to do things and things to need to be done cautiously and monitored, and the test and trace system needs to be effective, he says.

An estimated 6.78% of people have had Covid-19

Also, the R value is still between 0.7 and 0.9 and in some places may be higher.

Either

1) Distracting from Cummings

Or

2) They’ve realised the Cummings Excuse now makes it impossible to police people going around each other’s houses so they quickly gave people a way of doing it (with unenforceable restrictions that can’t be checked) to avoid some of the arguments

[Fishnut]

Christ, they're trying to kill us all. The Guardian Live Blog says that they're reducing the lockdown even more from Monday. Sir Patrick Vallance said that ONS figures show:

The proportion of people in the last couple of weeks with Covid-19 is 0.24% – somewhere in the order of 130,000 people have Covid infection, he says.

The number of new infections is estimated to be roughly 1 in 1,000 per week, he says.

This means 54,000 new cases are estimated to be occurring every week – that is not a low number, he stresses.

There is still a significant burden of infection, there are still new infections every day at quite a significant rate, and the R is close to 1, he says.

That means there isn’t a lot of room to do things and things to need to be done cautiously and monitored, and the test and trace system needs to be effective, he says.

An estimated 6.78% of people have had Covid-19

Also, the R value is still between 0.7 and 0.9 and in some places may be higher.

Either

1) Distracting from Cummings

Or

2) They’ve realised the Cummings Excuse now makes it impossible to police people going around each other’s houses so they quickly gave people a way of doing it (with unenforceable restrictions that can’t be checked) to avoid some of the arguments

Both, I suspect. Plus the need to 'save the economy' (how you can do that when people are dying in droves and everyone else is too scared to go out I'm not exactly sure but I guess that's why I'm not a politician).

[AMS]

Either

1) Distracting from Cummings

Or

2) They’ve realised the Cummings Excuse now makes it impossible to police people going around each other’s houses so they quickly gave people a way of doing it (with unenforceable restrictions that can’t be checked) to avoid some of the arguments

We have a prime minister whose preferred way of getting out of a hole is to announce something shiny and new, and doesn't care about the details, feasibility or readiness.

[AMS]

On the point a couple of pages back about a trusted phone number to call for verifying track and trace, this could be pinned onto the 111 number, could it not? It would have the advantage that people already associate this with the NHS, rather than "the government". With a "press 1 for covid tracking, press 2 for other ailments" filter...

[Aitch]

...
We have a prime minister whose preferred way of getting out of a hole is to announce something shiny and new, and doesn't care about the details, feasibility or readiness.

He's probably desperately trying to find somewhere he can announce a super new bridge for...

[dyqik]

...
We have a prime minister whose preferred way of getting out of a hole is to announce something shiny and new, and doesn't care about the details, feasibility or readiness.

He's probably desperately trying to find somewhere he can announce a super new bridge for...

The Rainbow Bridge* for humans seems to be the only one he's actually constructing.

*Not the one at Niagara

[Woodchopper]

A post has been moved to the pit as almost all of it was personal insults.

[tom p]

A post has been moved to the pit as almost all of it was personal insults.

No, it was pointing out the selfishness and stupidity of the point being made.
If someone is expressing an idiotic selfish and public endangering point of view, using themselves and their feelings to back up their stupid and factually incorrect point, then they made themselves fair game for a reply that criticises them as well as their opinion, since the two are inseperable, and no amount of sanctimonious cant makes that any less true.

If I post that I want to murder welshmen, and claim I have a right to do so because of a misunderstanding of legislation, people should have a right to reply and call me a murderous racist idiotic bastard. Per your ridiculous pompousness, my post would stand and be fine, but theirs not.
You, sir, are foolish and mistaken and a poor judge of when remove content. Your decision is so wrong that you should consider your position.

[tom p]

To do it in a way that is compliant with data protection, the tracers should not ask people to give details of their contacts; instead they should ask the tracees to ask their contacts to call the tracers. If someone calls me and asks for someone else's phone number, sorry, but that's not my information to give.

Of course, that approach would enormously reduce the number of people traced because people are lazy.

Really. Please explain precisely which parts of data protection legislation prevent the sharing of information such as phone numbers in the interests of protecting public health. Specify actual sections in the currently applicable legislation. Otherwise you're talking sh.t. And even if you can find them, you're still talking sh.t because you will have missed out crucial exceptions which were written in the knowledge that not dying of a f.cking disease is more important than someone not having your f.cking phone number.
I write as someone who has had to deal with this sort of uninformed jobsworth mentality in precisely this area - my employers have to collect actual personal data of people for the purposes of protecting public health. We've passed audits from the european data protection supervisor & we also have significant legal opinion that says we're allowed to do so, & allowed to transmit it across the continent to the relevant agencies of different governments. As long as the data is only used for its intended purpose, is stored safely and is disposed of when no longer needed, then there would be no reason why it couldn't be collected for this purpose.

Or does it just stand to reason? Maybe, the real problem, right, is elf 'n' safety. Or p'raps is p'li'ical correctness. It's gorn mad, aint it. You ain't even allowed to say "Blackpool" any more. That's the same level of ignorance as your comment.

Crikey, Tom, that's an unexpectedly laid-back response from you. Just how many chill pills have you taken today?

I'm thinking of the general principle that my data belongs to me. I don't think that is actually stated in the regs, at least not is as few words as that, because, duh, IABMCTT. Nonetheless that's the principle that drives data protection regulation.

I think you may have missed the implied "... which is why this way is necessary" at the end of my last sentence. I have previously said that normal ethical requirements may need to be waived in the current exceptional circumstances. I would hope and expect that drafters of legislation would include allowance for such circumstances.

I replied to the post you made and no other.
Your post was stupid and wrong. Just accept your mistake.
The opinion you expressed makes you appear to be a pompous ass with no sense of perspective.
Every day I have to deal with the consequences of foolish people who do not understand the legislation making poor decisions based on the same simplistic and selfish view you expressed. That harms my organisation's ability to protect public health. I don't take kindly to such statements being bandied around as if they were fact, especially when accompanied by pathetic huffiness at the thought that someone trying to help you be healthy and alive might have your phone number.

[discovolante]

We've had a couple of reports/messages about the tone of tom p's posts in here, which have contained personal insults but also some valid points (whether you agree with them or not). We've acted on the posts accordingly. Please can everyone try and remember that avoiding personal insults isn't just for the benefit of the person the post is directed at, but the community as a whole.

[tom p]

We've had a couple of reports/messages about the tone of tom p's posts in here, which have contained personal insults but also some valid points (whether you agree with them or not). We've acted on the posts accordingly. Please can everyone try and remember that avoiding personal insults isn't just for the benefit of the person the post is directed at, but the community as a whole.

Here's a link to what I wrote. Does anyone *really* think that it's inappropriate?
I was replying to the key point he made, to whit " If someone calls me and asks for someone else's phone number, sorry, but that's not my information to give."
He is saying what he would do. Not voicing an opinion in the abstract. "It's not mine to give". He made it personal. I replied in exactly the same vein, except with scorn and knowledge, rather than pomposity and ignorance.

You need to ask yourselves whether you want to be a bunch of Matt Hancockesque disingenuous tone police, or whether you want a forum where ridiculous claims are ridiculed.
There was one insult, one. I called him a dick*ead (is that adequately self-censored m'luds? *tugs forelock*) for his position that he wouldn't give out someone else's phone number to track and tracers if he had potentially infected that person. I mean, seriously, what is there to say about someone who makes this claim? Someone who is implicitly encouraging others to do the same through his disinformation.
What should I have gone with? "Potentially murderous idiot"? That's more accurate; but, I would contend, far more insulting.

Such spreading of disinformation needs to be stamped-down precisely for the community as a whole. The whole community, and for their real health benefit.

You need to take a long hard look at yourselves, whichever mods took part in this decision. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

[Bird on a Fire]

Such spreading of disinformation needs to be stamped-down precisely for the community as a whole. The whole community, and for their real health benefit.

I agree with this, fwiw.

One way of responding gets complained about, another way doesn't. You're clearly capable of both. At least some of the responsibility for how you choose to reply to people is yours. If people ignore you, block you or leave the forum altogether then they won't see your words of wisdom, so it's perhaps in the best interests of stamping-down-on-disinformation if you can make your posts like the 99% of them that don't get complained about, rather than the 1% that do. (I haven't checked the figures, but my impression is that people normally complain about their containing too much insulting language, rather than too little)

[tom p]

Such spreading of disinformation needs to be stamped-down precisely for the community as a whole. The whole community, and for their real health benefit.

I agree with this, fwiw.

One way of responding gets complained about, another way doesn't. You're clearly capable of both. At least some of the responsibility for how you choose to reply to people is yours. If people ignore you, block you or leave the forum altogether then they won't see your words of wisdom, so it's perhaps in the best interests of stamping-down-on-disinformation if you can make your posts like the 99% of them that don't get complained about, rather than the 1% that do. (I haven't checked the figures, but my impression is that people normally complain about their containing too much insulting language, rather than too little)

Then those people should get the f.ck over themselves or buy some smelling salts or something.
You have no idea how little of what I wanted to say I actually did. If the word dickhead to describe someone whose arrogance and stupidity could kill people and who is spreading disinformation that would encourage others to copy his example is deemed too harsh and requires censoring, then the person complaining is the problem. Along with their enablers, of course, who act on the whingeing b.llsh.t of cockwombles.

[raven]

To do it in a way that is compliant with data protection, the tracers should not ask people to give details of their contacts; instead they should ask the tracees to ask their contacts to call the tracers. If someone calls me and asks for someone else's phone number, sorry, but that's not my information to give.

Of course, that approach would enormously reduce the number of people traced because people are lazy.

Passing on contact details seems perfectly ok to me.

Aren't there precedents for that in health care? Sexual health clinics do contact tracing and a quick google seems to confirm what I thought about how that works: that either the patient contacts their previous partners, or if they don't want to do that themselves they give the clinic their exes contact details and the clinic does it for them, anonymously if that's what they want.

Because protecting people's health trumps keeping contact details private, I think.

I'm the first to be suspicious of governements collecting data, but really we need to keep some perspective here. Let's not get as hysterical as the Guardian, who last week ran with a shock-horror headline of Public Health England will keep personal data of people with coronavirus for 20 years which turns out to be name, dob, address, phone number and email, all of which my GP surgery already has for me, along with symptoms of Covid which I bl..dy hope someone is recording somewhere for analysis as we need all the data we can get.

Irony of ironies, this would be the same paper that on the same day had an article Coronavirus testing hit by struggle to match results with NHS records complaining that the national testing service was not collecting people's NHS numbers or full addresses so therefore couldn't match tests to patients and inform GPs/ local health boards what was going on in their area.

[Millennie Al]

I'm the first to be suspicious of governements collecting data, but really we need to keep some perspective here. Let's not get as hysterical as the Guardian, who last week ran with a shock-horror headline of Public Health England will keep personal data of people with coronavirus for 20 years which turns out to be name, dob, address, phone number and email, all of which my GP surgery already has for me, along with symptoms of Covid which I bl..dy hope someone is recording somewhere for analysis as we need all the data we can get.

Irony of ironies, this would be the same paper that on the same day had an article Coronavirus testing hit by struggle to match results with NHS records complaining that the national testing service was not collecting people's NHS numbers or full addresses so therefore couldn't match tests to patients and inform GPs/ local health boards what was going on in their area.

I don't see any irony there at all. In one case the data is being retained far beyond any reasonable time in which a health crisis could justify it, while in the other vital data is missing, even for statistical purposes, when it is needed in the very short term.

[Millennie Al]

If someone calls me and asks for someone else's phone number, sorry, but that's not my information to give.

Really.

Yes, really. It's all very well assuming that it's a legitimate caller with a legitimate reason, but it could be a scam of some sort.

As long as the data is only used for its intended purpose, is stored safely and is disposed of when no longer needed, then there would be no reason why it couldn't be collected for this purpose.

From reading the news it seems that once data is collected it's fair game for other purposes, it's routinely left on a train, in a taxi, or on an unsecured website; and it's never disposed of - unless it could be awkward for the government (such as Windrush data) in which case it disappears.

[shpalman]

I don't know how you might think that I could have given someone the coronavirus, quite simply the coronavirus was not mine to give.

Also I posted on Facebook about how I did not consent to the virus infecting me, so I couldn't have been infected in the first place.

Hope nobody accidentally leaves Facebook in a taxi though, all my personal data is in there.

Don't @ me.

[lpm]

Decisions should be made that are reflections of the public view - instead of made according to which wealthy donor to the Tory Party offers the fattest brown envelope to ministers.

There's little in the media about this right now. It's like the plebs are just waiting for their betters to issue decrees. That will result in choices that are biased to Conservative priorities, rather than lockdown liftings that are of value to families and communities. For example, there's little money to be made from bigger gatherings at funerals and baptisms, yet we might value that. While there's loads of money to be made by the gambling industry from restarting horse racing, and the industry has lobbying power.

Told you so.

[headshot]

there's loads of money to be made by the gambling industry from restarting horse racing, and the industry has lobbying power.

Told you so.