Jump to content
villakram

Generic Virus Thread

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Sid4ever said:

Thanks @Stevo985 I did not look at the new infection number, but for me I found it strange that the daily death numbers are not lower now than in March but yet I am allowed to go out.  I posted earlier that my wife drove me to my favourite garden centre and I had a panic attack and today I see so many people out and about on beaches, in parks and I just wonder like many are we following the science.

As @Davkaus said are we following the electoral polls and getting Dominic off the front pages is the aim whilst not really considering the common man.

I haven't really looked at the stats much recently but I assume the R rate of infection is below 1 still whereas in March it was higher and everything was growing exponentially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, villakram said:

ya, my inability to count months was already called out, fair enough.

It doesn't work like you are saying however. There is a well known growth trend observed in many, many countries. Three times the current death toll is simplistic and wrong. 

Yes, three times the current toll is likely to be inaccurate, it was a broad projection, to demonstrate that Washington paper’s graph was misleading people with its use of data on annual death rate from the virus.

 The growth trend varies for different nations dependent on factors such as lockdowns, population density, travel restrictions....and so on. The USA is handling things particularly badly and will have a worse death rate as a consequence. Articles, or graphs, like the one you quoted exacerbate the problems by underplaying the dangers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Can't imagine any problems there. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She really is absolutely useless. Every step of the way she's been giving bad answers and inaccurate or incomplete information. Certainly should demonstrate that anybody finding themselves thinking 'the scientists = good, the politicians = bad' needs to revise that opinion.

FYI:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

She really is absolutely useless. Every step of the way she's been giving bad answers and inaccurate or incomplete information. Certainly should demonstrate that anybody finding themselves thinking 'the scientists = good, the politicians = bad' needs to revise that opinion.

FYI:

 

Not perfect though:

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

She really is absolutely useless. Every step of the way she's been giving bad answers and inaccurate or incomplete information. Certainly should demonstrate that anybody finding themselves thinking 'the scientists = good, the politicians = bad' needs to revise that opinion.

FYI:

 

That's unfair. It is not the job of scientists or medics to come up with solutions or answers to a potential problem of spoof or malicious phone calls. That would be the responsibility of government depts, NCSC etc.

Secondly, if I get a call saying "this is constable Smith from local police station..." the same issue exists.

I don't blame her at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In which case the correct answer was ‘not my remit’.

It undermines anything else that might be said when part of the message is wrong.

I’ve just been speaking to a very professional sounding Nigerian Prince .

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's unfair. It is not the job of scientists or medics to come up with solutions or answers to a potential problem of spoof or malicious phone calls. That would be the responsibility of government depts, NCSC etc.

Secondly, if I get a call saying "this is constable Smith from local police station..." the same issue exists.

I don't blame her at all.

Surely then her answer should be “I don’t know but we’ll find out and release those details to confirm how to identify a genuine call”

Stumbling around and giving a half answer is the wrong thing to do. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Surely then her answer should be “I don’t know but we’ll find out and release those details to confirm how to identify a genuine call”

Stumbling around and giving a half answer is the wrong thing to do. 

Yes, that would be better if it were the case that there is a way. I rather suspect there isn't.  What system is in place for any phone call from anyone. Ultimately it's just the recipient of the call who has to decide what to do. Yes, ask questions, or call them back, or...but really other than the words of the caller, there's little to go on with a phone call. If you can see caller id that helps, but many phones don't have that capability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

In which case the correct answer was ‘not my remit’.

It undermines anything else that might be said when part of the message is wrong.

I’ve just been speaking to a very professional sounding Nigerian Prince .

 

As per my reply to Ben.

And the Nigerian prince example demonstrates the problem. Less sharp people can be fooled. A phone call to an open network number cant be protected against pranksters or ne'erdowells

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, blandy said:

As per my reply to Ben.

And the Nigerian prince example demonstrates the problem. Less sharp people can be fooled. A phone call to an open network number cant be protected against pranksters or ne'erdowells

So the clunky system which will have a massive drop off rate would be to contact people and ask them to find the official contact number and make contact that way around.

Slightly more scam proof but still not perfect, with the massive disadvantage people have to actively do something, which they don’t.

It’s not an easy one, it’ll need lots of old school public information and re reminding.

Whatever the system, somebody somewhere will manage to pay a scammer £300 for something and manage to make it look like it was the fault of the NHS. With a good chance it’ll be one of the people that have been shielding but as of today think they now have to go out and lick door handles.

Edited by chrisp65

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had my bank call me a couple of days ago, asking if i needed any help with finances etc. As soon as they called they asked for my Mothers maiden name and asked me to confirm who I was. Also said they were from my local branch, but on a London number. Found it to be genuine in the end, although I didn't answer any of the questions just in case, seemed to be a bit amateur to say the least though.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, blandy said:

Yes, that would be better if it were the case that there is a way. I rather suspect there isn't.  What system is in place for any phone call from anyone. Ultimately it's just the recipient of the call who has to decide what to do. Yes, ask questions, or call them back, or...but really other than the words of the caller, there's little to go on with a phone call. If you can see caller id that helps, but many phones don't have that capability.

It could be the reverse of when we call companies, we give them some personal data to prove we are who we say we are.

Couldn’t the caller in this sense prove they are legit by quoting a test number, NI number, some other bit of personal information before proceeding?

hello mr Jones, I just want to discuss your test results reference ABC-123 taken at location X on [date & time]. We have your address as [address]”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

As soon as they called they asked for my Mothers maiden name and asked me to confirm who I was.

I'd have put the phone down, banks do this all the time, it's the exact opposite of the way it should work. Questions like that are for when you phone them, not the other way around. Bank's enabling fraud and identity theft every day of the week

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other problem with 'these are professionally trained individuals, it will be evident from how they speak' is that presumably at least some of them will be people who have been trained via a brief Zoom conference courtesy of Serco, and what we have learned of the 'training' they have received does not suggest that they will sound exactly like a medical professional.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Genie said:

It could be the reverse of when we call companies, we give them some personal data to prove we are who we say we are.

Couldn’t the caller in this sense prove they are legit by quoting a test number, NI number, some other bit of personal information before proceeding?

hello mr Jones, I just want to discuss your test results reference ABC-123 taken at location X on [date & time]. We have your address as [address]”

I'm no expert, but I'd guess that tramples all over GDPR legislation. You can't just phone someone and start quoting personal data at whoever picks up the phone. 

You'd be at an impasse. "Tell me all this personal data before I tell you a load of sensitive medical information that I'm calling you about". 

"No, you tell me a load of information to prove that you are calling me for a legitimate reason".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s not many things in life that are guaranteed, but this i was certain about.

5321512-F-41-B5-454-C-95-FB-F82084-BCFB0

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

She really is absolutely useless. Every step of the way she's been giving bad answers and inaccurate or incomplete information. Certainly should demonstrate that anybody finding themselves thinking 'the scientists = good, the politicians = bad' needs to revise that opinion.

FYI:

 

"I say, is thet a common person? Yes? JOLLY good. Well, one has some rather good news for one, what? One's developed this quite, quite SPLENDID testing kit for the beastly virus. DO be a good fellow and pop some of one's jolly old spit in the beg, and get one of one's starf to pop it down to the post orfice. Would one? Super. Toodle pip!"

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Genie said:

There’s not many things in life that are guaranteed, but this i was certain about.

5321512-F-41-B5-454-C-95-FB-F82084-BCFB0

 

Good, I **** hate this weather, brings all the shit-music-blasting chavscum out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â