Generic Virus Thread

[bannedfromHandV]

45 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

Are you also worried about the increasing use of facial recognition cameras?

That is the long term invasion of your privacy and erosion of your rights that feels more of a real threat to me.

Yes I am, I value my personal privacy immensely.

[snowychap]

8 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

all reasonable steps

I'm not sure requiring everyone to give their details to people without any data protection assessments or consideration of proper compliance for places that won't have, don't have and couldn't give a monkeys about safeguarding people's data is a 'reasonable step'.

 

[bannedfromHandV]

17 minutes ago, Genie said:

I think the requirement of face masks is driven by the highly contagious respiratory disease that is going round. If the rest of the world was doing 1 thing and we’re doing something else then it would be more of a concern for alarm.

I think the requirement of face-masks is so that the government can point to something tangible that they've done to try and combat the 'highly contagious' disease.

Don't forget, it was only a matter of months ago that same government said there was no value in wearing them.

I find it somewhat amusing how people can (at least in these parts) unanimously deride the government for being the shambles they are but then turn into happy clappers once some form of guidance comes out from them on how to combat the 'killer virus'.

[Genie]

1 minute ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I find it somewhat amusing how people can (at least in these parts) unanimously deride the government for being the shambles they are but then turn into happy clappers once some form of guidance comes out from them on how to combat the 'killer virus'.

The entire planet is wearing face masks give or take.

Its not like football, where you have to set out your stall and be all in or all out.

Boris, Hancock and co are a bunch of useless, lying, greedy, self serving pricks but on the example of face masks it makes perfect sense to be wearing them regardless of what they say day to day. 

I still don’t know what is in it for the government to “control” people by mandating they are worn in shops, or asking people to put a bit of breathing space between them.

It also goes against the other invasion of privacy (facial recognition cameras) because most of the face is covered.

So, what is the governments objective with mask wearing of its not to help contain the spread of the virus?

[bannedfromHandV]

18 minutes ago, Genie said:

The entire planet is wearing face masks give or take.

Its not like football, where you have to set out your stall and be all in or all out.

Boris, Hancock and co are a bunch of useless, lying, greedy, self serving pricks but on the example of face masks it makes perfect sense to be wearing them regardless of what they say day to day. 

I still don’t know what is in it for the government to “control” people by mandating they are worn in shops, or asking people to put a bit of breathing space between them.

It also goes against the other invasion of privacy (facial recognition cameras) because most of the face is covered.

So, what is the governments objective with mask wearing of its not to help contain the spread of the virus?

Control comes in many forms, having a nation of people petrified of something is ideal for a government, it’s how rulers have ruled since day dot.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

Do you believe Johnson, Hancock and Baroness Harding of Winscombe. Or do you believe David Icke, Ian Brown and Denise Welch.

Me, me, Sir - I know this one. It's "No" isn't it?

[blandy]

20 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

having a nation of people petrified of something is ideal for a government

I don't think it's this. I think it's a blame thing. If "we" don't do it and the virus spreads and kills loads of peole they can point to us and say "their fault". If they didn't come up with a bunch of rules, however daft they are in come cases, then they'd be the ones the fingers were pointed at - it's arse covering basically.

The first lockdown was absolutely necessary, though they massively effed it up with the care homes thing, and it was too late, but at the moment they're simultaneously telling people to go to work, to school etc. whilst also telling people to stay at home and wear masks and so on.

[Genie]

24 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Control comes in many forms, having a nation of people petrified of something is ideal for a government, it’s how rulers have ruled since day dot.

So you’re going against what 99% of the planets experts are suggesting as a show of defiance to being manipulated by the Tory party?

[Genie]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

I don't think it's this. I think it's a blame thing. If "we" don't do it and the virus spreads and kills loads of peole they can point to us and say "their fault". If they didn't come up with a bunch of rules, however daft they are in come cases, then they'd be the ones the fingers were pointed at - it's arse covering basically.

The first lockdown was absolutely necessary, though they massively effed it up with the care homes thing, and it was too late, but at the moment they're simultaneously telling people to go to work, to school etc. whilst also telling people to stay at home and wear masks and so on.

It’s an absolute shit show from the UK government but my comment is about masks, it makes sense to wear them doesn’t it? 

[blandy]

1 minute ago, Genie said:

masks, it makes sense to wear them doesn’t it? 

I wear one as per the rules, and have no problem with it. I wasn't really commenting on the masks thing - more the overall combination of advice and rules and laws.

[Genie]

Just now, blandy said:

I wear one as per the rules, and have no problem with it. I wasn't really commenting on the masks thing - more the overall combination of advice and rules and laws.

Fair enough.

Contagious respiratory disease, wear a mask as much as possible. Seems sensible.

I just don’t understand the angle of not wearing one as a show of defiance. I wondered if there was a logical reason for that and it seems the case is no.

[snowychap]

11 minutes ago, Genie said:

It’s an absolute shit show from the UK government but my comment is about masks, it makes sense to wear them doesn’t it? 

Not how most people are wearing them, I wouldn't have thought.

[LondonLax]

The government isn’t working to a grand master plan, they are working to meet the public expectation. Most of the response to the virus seems to be driven by popular opinion from the public and media. It’s the public driving the response not the government. 

[bannedfromHandV]

1 hour ago, Genie said:

So you’re going against what 99% of the planets experts are suggesting as a show of defiance to being manipulated by the Tory party?

I didn’t begin this focused on masks specifically, you’ve driven it that direction.

I wear one when I have to, for the record, so I’m not an anti-masker to the extent I won’t wear one, i don’t like wearing them though and I hope it becomes a passing thing.

[Sid4ever]

3 hours ago, PaulC said:

Yes thats what i was told. Im not far from Lancaster and theres been a small increase in numbers. I know a lot of people are commuting from Preston though so maybe its not such a bad thing. 

Excuse me, we are probably neighbours if you are south of Lancaster, don’t judge me on my post code 

[PaulC]

5 minutes ago, Sid4ever said:

Excuse me, we are probably neighbours if you are south of Lancaster, don’t judge me on my post code 

Sorry Yes just few miles south of Lancaster, not far from Glasson Dock. 

[Sid4ever]

1 minute ago, PaulC said:

Sorry Yes just few miles south of Lancaster, not far from Glasson Dock. 

A few miles then, just outside Garstang myself.  But with a PR post code

[HanoiVillan]

 

[Davkaus]

4 hours ago, snowychap said:

I'm not sure requiring everyone to give their details to people without any data protection assessments or consideration of proper compliance for places that won't have, don't have and couldn't give a monkeys about safeguarding people's data is a 'reasonable step'.

 

I certainly think giving organisations some guidance on how this data should be collected, used and stored would be worthwhile, but I have to say, I think being able to track and trace is of far more importance in my eyes than data protection for this kind of data. And I'm not a "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" loon, generally I think the right to privacy is incredibly important, as is the right to knowing how our data is used and being able to consent to its use. 

Abusing data collected for this purpose should receive the harshest possible sanctions, IMO, but if we don't enforce the collection of this data, what's the alternative? Ads in the local paper? "Isolate if you were in the Red Lion on Wednesday night"?

There are two clear priorities for me, keeping deaths and unemployment low. The cases are growing at an alarming rate again, we need to prevent the deaths from doing so, and we need to prevent the widespread closing of businesses again which will see millions more lose their jobs.

Edited September 18, 2020 by Davkaus

[snowychap]

20 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I certainly think giving organisations some guidance on how this data should be collected, used and stored would be worthwhile, but I have to say, I think being able to track and trace is of far more importance in my eyes than data protection for this kind of data. And I'm not a "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" loon, generally I think the right to privacy is incredibly important, as is the right to knowing how our data is used and being able to consent to its use. 

It's not as though they've not had time to properly assess how the data is to be used, stored and protected.

The point is about (not) following well thought through procedures and debate about the measures that are introduced and these are one of the fifty(!) emergency regulations that have apparently been introduced by the government since early March - without debate, without scrutiny and without thought.

23 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Abusing data collected for this purpose should receive the harshest possible sanctions, IMO

But they won't.

24 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

if we don't enforce the collection of this data, what's the alternative? Ads in the local paper? "Isolate if you were in the Red Lion on Wednesday night"?

Are they going to 'enforce' collection of this data? I very much doubt it. Yes, there may be a few who fall foul and have PCNs issued but it's not going to be rigorously checked soo I'm not sure that it will be able to be relied upon any more than the data which may be being gathered already without the legal threats.

29 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

There are two clear priorities for me, keeping deaths and unemployment low. The cases are growing at an alarming rate again, we need to prevent the deaths from doing so, and we need to prevent the widespread closing of businesses again which will see millions more lose their jobs.

I don't think this is an accurate assessment of the current situation (the alarming rate again bit) or the actions being taken in response to the current situation, i.e. this is unlikely to have much of an effect apart from widen the data net and get people even more used to handing over their data on demand to an ever increasing number of business types - how long before it becomes necessary in every single business in to which we might go, e.g. supermarkets?

If this were a comprehensive, well-thought out, well-regulated process that had been properly debated (in the months that they've had to do it) then perhaps one could simply disregard the issues that come with it but it isn't and, as such, we shouldn't. And the reason for that? Because what is becoming normal now will likely remain quite normal (even in an informal way) after any situation where it might be relevant and necessary has passed.

Those running this government are absolutely wedded to the idea of the importance and value (to them and to businesses) of 'big data' and they are unlikely to want to let such an opportunity pass.