CoronaBro Meltdown/SARS-Covid-19 Spitballing Thread

[DQ12]

I don't think the unemployment office needs to be funded at a level to handle this volume of claims at all times.

Is a much better way of putting what I'm trying to say.

[sys]

i don't even understand the objections to this hypothetical opting in, tbh.

[DQ12]

i don't even understand the objections to this hypothetical opting in, tbh.

People understandably get freaked out over new compelled stuff.  Especially as it relates to privacy.  Frankly, I'm a little surprised this sort of thing doesn't freak you out.

[sys]

i'd argue with both "understandably" and "compelled" in that sentence.

[DQ12]

i'd argue with both "understandably" and "compelled" in that sentence.

I think I misread your post.  Given that it's an opt-in, IDGAF, and I don't think anyone else should/would either.

[passranch]

I probably would not opt in either. 

In other news - Kansas has been effective at reducing the rate of growth of new cases but seems to have a really high death rate.  We are at almost 4.5%, what gives?

I guess this kind of got missed, but if I had to guess I'd say it's likely due mostly to small sample size.  For instance, Idaho has an almost identical number of reported cases but less than half the death toll.

[Stevesie60]

Say I hypothetically commit some sort of crime in the future. I'd rather get off scot-free, and I don't see this sort of thing as helpful to that endeavor.

Then don't opt in. Side note: law enforcement can already obtain cell tower tracking information via subpoenas.

Yeah but that's just a broad area they could say you're in at a certain time.

Let's just say, hypothetically, someone lives in a state where weed is still illegal. They go over to someone's house to pick up the aforementioned weed on a somewhat regular basis. Opting into this would be able to track, specifically, that you go to that person's house. Now let's say person 1 gets arrested for drug possession. Don't you think they'd be nervous that they could now track where they've been on recent endeavors and that it could lead to arresting their dealer?

My question isn't whether or not that's likely, but just pointing out there are a lot of people that would be paranoid about it.

[michigancat]

i don't even understand the objections to this hypothetical opting in, tbh.

the concern is how privacy of those who opt in will be maintained in the long term. Also, if it makes you (and society) safer, how much safer? Is it worth giving up any privacy?

It's fairly analagous to privacy concessions made through the Patriot Act.

[DQ12]

I probably would not opt in either. 

In other news - Kansas has been effective at reducing the rate of growth of new cases but seems to have a really high death rate.  We are at almost 4.5%, what gives?

I guess this kind of got missed, but if I had to guess I'd say it's likely due mostly to small sample size.  For instance, Idaho has an almost identical number of reported cases but less than half the death toll.

I think Kansas mortality numbers are a product of a couple of nursing homes getting slammed.  I don't think it's a sample size issue necessarily, more of a self-selection issue.

i don't even understand the objections to this hypothetical opting in, tbh.

the concern is how privacy of those who opt in will be maintained in the long term. Also, if it makes you (and society) safer, how much safer? Is it worth giving up any privacy?

It's fairly analagous to privacy concessions made through the Patriot Act.

Except Patriot Act wasn't opt-in.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I wouldn't opt into the Patriot Act if given the choice, either.

[Spracne]

Say I hypothetically commit some sort of crime in the future. I'd rather get off scot-free, and I don't see this sort of thing as helpful to that endeavor.

Then don't opt in. Side note: law enforcement can already obtain cell tower tracking information via subpoenas.

Yeah but that's just a broad area they could say you're in at a certain time.

Let's just say, hypothetically, someone lives in a state where weed is still illegal. They go over to someone's house to pick up the aforementioned weed on a somewhat regular basis. Opting into this would be able to track, specifically, that you go to that person's house. Now let's say person 1 gets arrested for drug possession. Don't you think they'd be nervous that they could now track where they've been on recent endeavors and that it could lead to arresting their dealer?

My question isn't whether or not that's likely, but just pointing out there are a lot of people that would be paranoid about it.

Then don't opt in. But, I highly doubt the government would go through the trouble of obtaining search warrants and subpoenaing Google/Apple just to bust a low-level marijuana consumer. Now, maybe if you're trafficking serious weight and serious narcotics... But at the end of the day, even if the government is able to access all available data, all it would show is that your phone was near someone else's phone for some indeterminate amount of time.

[michigancat]

i don't even understand the objections to this hypothetical opting in, tbh.

the concern is how privacy of those who opt in will be maintained in the long term. Also, if it makes you (and society) safer, how much safer? Is it worth giving up any privacy?

It's fairly analagous to privacy concessions made through the Patriot Act.

Except Patriot Act wasn't opt-in.

it impacted how data was gathered from opt-in services, though. I'm assuming this will be abused by law enforcement and intelligence in similar ways.

[Stevesie60]

Say I hypothetically commit some sort of crime in the future. I'd rather get off scot-free, and I don't see this sort of thing as helpful to that endeavor.

Then don't opt in. Side note: law enforcement can already obtain cell tower tracking information via subpoenas.

Yeah but that's just a broad area they could say you're in at a certain time.

Let's just say, hypothetically, someone lives in a state where weed is still illegal. They go over to someone's house to pick up the aforementioned weed on a somewhat regular basis. Opting into this would be able to track, specifically, that you go to that person's house. Now let's say person 1 gets arrested for drug possession. Don't you think they'd be nervous that they could now track where they've been on recent endeavors and that it could lead to arresting their dealer?

My question isn't whether or not that's likely, but just pointing out there are a lot of people that would be paranoid about it.

Then don't opt in. But, I highly doubt the government would go through the trouble of obtaining search warrants and subpoenaing Google/Apple just to bust a low-level marijuana consumer. Now, maybe if you're trafficking serious weight and serious narcotics... But at the end of the day, even if the government is able to access all available data, all it would show is that your phone was near someone else's phone for some indeterminate amount of time.

I don't think so either, but I'm saying that's just one of many reasons I think A LOT of people would choose not to opt in.

[Spracne]

Oh, I have no doubt most people wouldn't opt in. But they should. Unless they're involved in serious crimes, in which case I would counsel not opting in.

[8manpick]

i don't even understand the objections to this hypothetical opting in, tbh.

the concern is how privacy of those who opt in will be maintained in the long term. Also, if it makes you (and society) safer, how much safer? Is it worth giving up any privacy?

It's fairly analagous to privacy concessions made through the Patriot Act.

Except Patriot Act wasn't opt-in.

This is critical, but we also live in a world where the Patriot Act exists and is applied frequently in a way that isn't really associated with killing Bin Laden, so who knows what justifications will be used to get what data 10 years from now.

It's fair to fight any privacy invasions, currently compelled by government or not.

[Spracne]

i don't even understand the objections to this hypothetical opting in, tbh.

the concern is how privacy of those who opt in will be maintained in the long term. Also, if it makes you (and society) safer, how much safer? Is it worth giving up any privacy?

It's fairly analagous to privacy concessions made through the Patriot Act.

Except Patriot Act wasn't opt-in.

This is critical, but we also live in a world where the Patriot Act exists and is applied frequently in a way that isn't really associated with killing Bin Laden, so who knows what justifications will be used to get what data 10 years from now.

It's fair to fight any privacy invasions, currently compelled by government or not.
[/quote]

Do you realize how many private companies are already tracking your location?

[8manpick]

Not quoting my messed up quote, but yes, It's disgusting.

[sys]

the concern is how privacy of those who opt in will be maintained in the long term. Also, if it makes you (and society) safer, how much safer? Is it worth giving up any privacy?

It's fairly analagous to privacy concessions made through the Patriot Act.

the data already exist, right? (i realize they talked about creating a new type of crippled data basically for the sole purpose of not using the existing data), you're just opting in to letting it be used for virus fighting.

your permission only extends to that.  giving permission for that doesn't imply that you agree to the govt doing whatever they want with the data.  i don't see any slippery slope crap.  if they don't care about your permission, they could just take the data now.


i mean, i think it's paranoid and weird to care at all.  but if you do care, the opting in to do your rough ridin' part to prevent an economically crippling virus from killing millions of people doesn't change anything.

[Spracne]

I don't like that either Spracs 

But I guess in for the penny in for the pound.

Just saying, if it's worth it to play Candy Crush, it should be worth it for this.

[catastrophe]

I haven't really been following the tech stuff too closely, but this would be something people would need to "opt-in" to, right?

yes
https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/13/apple-google-coronavirus-tracing/

Awesome.

I would opt in in a heartbeat. The problem is, too many people will be paranoid and not do the same, so I question how effective it would truly be, other than giving me the occasional good excuse to WFH another 14 days...

Just make it part of the license to use google maps. EZPZ

[kim carnes]

@sys while it appear new cases are going down, isn’t overall daily testing going down as well? 

[ChiComCat]

The sad thing would be a venn diagram of people who wouldn't want to give that data to the government and people who want to get the economy going at the expense of at-risk populations.

[michigancat]

I don't like that either Spracs 

But I guess in for the penny in for the pound.

Just saying, if it's worth it to play Candy Crush, it should be worth it for this.

I agree 100% on this

[420seriouscat69]

imagine voting for candidates that promise to "starve the beast" and then complain that the "beast" isn't helping fast enough

Do you think you're dealing with Dax or something? Did you black out? Keep fighting the good fight, bud.

[420seriouscat69]

imagine voting for candidates that promise to "starve the beast" and then complain that the "beast" isn't helping fast enough

Do you think you're dealing with Dax or something? Did you black out? Keep fighting the good fight, bud.

I've been spewing funds into "the beast" for years and haven't needed it until now. Sorry I feel like the program should somehow work, dummy. Silly me. "Pubs, tho!"