Such a system is just a single subpoena or a single piece of child-saving legislation away from being used by law enforcement.
I pity the poor sod who is incarcerated because they happened to innocently walk past the scene of a crime, and roughly fit the description of the alleged perpetrator.
It isn’t. No more so than Apple/Google can be ordered to install something on your phone already. I encourage you to read about the protocol being used. It’s not perfect, but they put a lot of effort into protecting privacy.
The police already can (and do!) demand cell location data from carriers to investigate crimes. Ad companies collect data from apps you use to build targeting profiles.
This proposal is far more respectful of your privacy than any of that, and in the service of saving lives.
> The police already can (and do!) demand cell location data from carriers to investigate crimes. Ad companies collect data from apps you use to build targeting profiles.
Engaging in an act doesn't make it ethical to do.
> No more so than Apple/Google can be ordered to install something on your phone already.
My point was that the government already has the ability to get location data when they want it and this contract tracing proposal doesn’t make it any easier for them. (Whether or not they should be able to do what they’re already doing is a worthy debate but unrelated to contact tracing.)
Every additional data source makes it easier to collect the data; the vigilance needed to monitor access to one source is hard enough, but it scales poorly with additional sources. It's why we tolerate so much incursion into our privacy: the effort necessary to operate anywhere near "normal" and maintain data privacy is almost insurmountably difficult.
> Ad companies collect data from apps you use to build targeting profiles.
More like a scary harbinger of what the govt could get away with rather than a counter.
The extent to which browsers and phones monitor people beyond what they intentionally share has never stopped seeming crazy to me, especially given how widely accepted it is.
Not with the technology being proposed for contact tracing because the protocol design doesn’t permit it. There’s no central database of where you went or who you met with.
The scary databases already exist and are held by various unaccountable private companies. This is true whether or not we try to implement contact tracing tech. It shouldn’t be an argument against it.
There are literally billions of people on the planet right now incarcerated in their homes.
The economy is a patient whose heart has stopped pumping - we've injected Trillions in liquidity to hold off 'total death' and even that aid will only hold out for several more weeks. The 'system is collapsing' very, very quickly. The numbers are off the charts like anything we've seen before, all the buzzers in the cockpit are going off at once.
'Contact Tracing' more like chemotherapy, until there's a cure or vaccine, the South Korean model is basically the only example we can expect to try to follow.
Edit: I should add, I don't care about 'the economy' as an arbitrary thing, I don't care about investors or 'the stock market'. But 'the economy' is made up of very real things, like your job, whatever you do - and it's all going down like dominos. The headlines talking abut x% reduction in GDP etc, - those are the 'don't panic it will be ok numbers'. When >80% of the population is staying at home, the system as a whole cannot move forward - it's an 'existential decline' just 'some lower amount of GDP'. It's going to be cataclysmic and will be very, very difficult for the community at large, life-threatening in many circumstances.
The population at large I think has a visceral sensitivity to 'pandemic' - we've all seen the film, we know what 'getting Covid' means to us. But the notion of the economy going down like a house of cards is more intangible to most people, so it's less of a populist issue, but it should be.
Korean style contact-tracing looks different in that light.
How much of the economy is truly essential to living? Tourism is great but I can live without the old way of doing it. Widget production and selling has diminishing returns, even for pleasure.
Perhaps a social-distancing-world is incompatible with consumerist capitalism. Yet I hope for all the suffering from the virus and lockdowns we'll at least gain a new perspective on life and work.
Without the government providing free food and healthcare, consumer capitalism is all we have to sustain ourselves. It's easier to give freedom pursuit of property than to give out property directly.
Capitalism doesn't have to be totally focused on unsustainable consumption. With healthy and un-captured regulation (protecting people not companies from their competition) markets can still do much good. We don't have to live in a survival of the fittest economy.
"How much of the economy is truly essential to living? Tourism is great"
That's fine, but this is the wrong way to think about it in the short run.
>>>> You can over time reorganize our economy along many different lines but you can't do it quickly, and often not even organically.
There are much deeper, more systematic issues you'd have to get at in trying to address such things, particularly with respect to property ownership, etc - and these are hugely existential questions.
You're going to be telling 100 of millions they're going to lose on all that they've worked on for their entire lives etc.
Like changing the rules mid-game.
>>>>> This is not an academic discussion - the world is burning down.
Every piece of the economy is interconnected. Large downturns in some areas radically affect others.
The economy is a dynamic equilibrium that only has so much capacity for shifting around.
'Tourism' is a huge part of the economy (a few points) and if that goes, then you see the cost of social services go up dramatically, unemployment, consumption goes down.
It's not just the 'resorts and hotels' it's all the subsidiary businesses. They all go down.
Airlines generally operate on thinner margins - if tourism goes, then airlines go down for sure. There is no alternative but government takeover / Chapter 11 / restructure - or total collapse of airlines. Sales drop for aircraft, Boeing lays off and cancels new plans. That's restaurants, hotels, construction, real estate, manufacturing, massive supply chain - all down.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Central Banks around the world are printing money like it doesn't matter, balance sheets are exploding to the point wherein normal conditions we would have nations declare bankruptcy.
It's clear that people generally have no idea what's happening in our systems. This is not 'a recession' ... we're facing 'total implosion' unless we act responsibly.
> You're going to be telling 100 of millions they're going to lose on all that they've worked on for their entire lives etc.
Does it have to be this way? Why not put certain things like rent, utilities, mortgage payments on pause--even if just for those on furlough?
I realize those who are heavily leveraged may suffer, like airlines who bought back stocks instead of maintaining a war chest. And ultimately I agree that lockdown isn't practical in the long term.
I'm really struggling to deal with the odd economic intuition here in the comments section. I'd urge readers to start to think about how every bit of the economy is interconnected and that it just can't magically 'stop'.
"Alberta's premier, Jason Kenney, unveiled projections for the province's unemployment rate on pace to reach 25 per cent." [1] and this is in the short run!
Have a look at this jobless claims graph [2] - and it's already out of date.
Even if we could magically deal with massive reduction in GDP (maybe we can, but probably not) - the economy cannot realign itself quickly.
Such an adjustment would take decades to do organically. We have no ability to centrally re-allocate every aspect of the economy. We can do it in some parts of some of sectors - banking and finance for example (sometimes with mortgages), but even that is risky and very unfair.
It's not just 'airlines' - it's vast swaths of the economy, that take down other parts of the economy. At least travel, energy, tourism, hotels, restaurants, entertainment, most manufacturing - just to rhyme of a few are 'shut down'. That's a monster part of the economy.
" Why not put certain things like rent, utilities, mortgage payments on pause--even if just for those on furlough?"
Because everything is connected ... the money that goes to your rent, utilities, groceries, gas, it's not some magical place obviously. There are economic endpoints there, jobs, consumption, taxation - and a lot of them.
The banks employ millions of people doing lending. There are millions of people that act as landlords and who depend on that income. They're also mortgaged often. Utilities employ a lot of people, they also buy services.
And what about the people like my parents who don't rent and have no mortgage?
Consider the both the scale and timeline of the economic intervention right now: we are printing money and doling out literally Trillions of dollars (!!) very quickly, willy nilly. Unbelievable numbers. What this means is the government/central banks are realigning the economy temporarily and 'deciding arbitrarily and quickly' who is going to win and lose - and then putting off payment to taxpayers in the future - and this will last generations. This is happening on a global scale.
If that's not shocking enough - all of this is a temporary fix! All these massive bailouts won't last very long.
The various programs announced in Canada for example last about 4 months, but Covid will last probably 18-24 months.
Again: Contact tracing (with intervention) is not only a reasonable solution, it's basically the only current viable option to get going outside of a cure or vaccine.
> Again: Contact tracing (with intervention) is not only a reasonable solution, it's basically the only current viable option to get going outside of a cure or vaccine.
Based on the rest of your comment, I am having trouble understanding how this statement is related. IMO the rest of your argument very clearly explains why the economy is interconnected; and could even be said to be an argument for the need to re-open the economy. However, it does not address how contact tracing would be a part of this. Is it your assumption that "if we implement contact tracing, then we can safely send people back to work, thus saving the economy"? If so, I think your argument would benefit from more explicitly contacting those dots.
I assume that people understand that the 'contact tracing' strategy, borne out of Korea, implies no lock-down. There's not much point in 'contact tracing' if we have everyone locked in their homes.
But yes it could have been more clear, though I'm three comments deep here and it was in my original.
Korea and Taiwan really are the only countries to have contained Coronavirus without 'total lock-down' policies. Taiwan has eradicated it and now controls everyone coming to the island to make sure there are no new infections.
Korea uses the contact tracing approach.
As Western nations try to 'lift' the restrictions over the next few weeks, it does not bode well - there's no reason to believe Covid won't just bounce back. Nothing really has changed from several weeks ago before the lock-downs when there was 'social distancing' but Covid was still exploding.
Perhaps the weather is a little warmer, we have more testing capability, people are a little smarter ... but there's nothing on the policy front that indicates a new approach, we have not identified spread vectors or primary means of infection. We're just going back to 'basic social distancing' which didn't work well.
We need to look to Korea it's the only exemplary system and it relies on contact tracing.
Why would you try to split hairs about the editorialization of a word ... and then provide a totally false definition of the term?
There are no forms of general incarceration wherein 'moving two steps will get you punished'.
But it's beside the point:
Billions of people are forcibly confined to areas and activities in the most blindingly and openly transgression of 'liberty' in the history of civilization.
If I go and visit my mother - if I go pick up a frame for that painting - if I walk down the street with a friend - I face an $800 fine and actual 'classical' incarceration.
This is considerably more aggressive than marshall law in many ways.
To ignore this while at the same time making 'pre Coronavirus' arguments about 'contract tracing and privacy' is deeply unwise. Obviously privacy matters, obviously we have to be worried about the state gaining too much influence whilst using the calamity as an excuse.
This piece seems pretty short on details for such a strong claim. As far as I can tell, all concrete objections appear in this bit of text
> Who tells your phone that you’ve been diagnosed, for example? Given the possibility that – in a post-lockdown scenario – individuals with Covid-19 might be subjected to stigma, harassment or dismissal, they might be understandably reluctant to broadcast the fact. Then there’s the problem that not everyone has a smartphone, even though it’s commonly supposed in tech circles that they do. The pandemic has revealed that a significant minority of the population (mostly older people) still relies on olde-worlde feature phones. Moreover, it turns out that not all smartphones are created equal: one estimate is that 50% of all smartphones can’t use the proximity-sensing systems being developed by Apple and Google.
...which is followed by a hand-wavey "I could go on but you get the point".
All three complaints are about how effective the solution might be, not actual reasons why it would "kill democracy".
They are right, though. It's not about the app, it's about normalizing global survelliance: once the populace is convinced enough, it'll be sealed by laws and enforcement. The whole idea is clearly insripired by the Chinese WeChat app.
That is one hyperbolic headline. I can understand having privacy concerns with the software, but the idea that this will "kill off democracy" is quite the extreme claim that the author puts zero effort into actually trying to defend. This is an important subject to debate, but I don't think this article really adds anything to that discussion.
A nice headline that as usual doesn't reflect the article's content.
The temptation for a democratic government to expand its powers without an effective sunset (cf. Patriot Act) is a nice headline but is also trivially obviated. Since the UK's parliament has currently decided not to hold Divisions (voting) it can only pass legislation that has broad consensus - basically the Speaker or their deputy will ask a question, and if they hear any dissent that means division, they're not holding any Divisions so the motion fails. You might push through some open-ended nonsense with a straight party line vote but that requires a Division. Unless you believe somehow Westminster now lacks even one single decent person to say "No" a sunset clause seems inevitable in any such legislation.
But there are legitimate obstacles far more interesting which the article brings up. What proportion of the UK's population even own a device capable of being deployed this way? If it's 80% of those who actually can go somewhere (it arguably doesn't matter that 95-year old Nana Smith doesn't own a phone when she hasn't left her nursing home since the London Olympics) then you might be on to a winner, if it's 40% that's unworkable.
And there are logistical problems, both in deploying the associated testing and treatment strategy (e.g. where do we put quarantined people? If we send them home that's not very effective especially if other members of the household aren't tested positive) and deploying a hypothetical contact tracing app to millions of citizens.
But one thing test + trace has going for it, which the article hints at, is that we already know it works. The virus is not a mysterious "invisible enemy" it's just a virus, if we can identify everyone (or more realistically almost everyone) who is infected quickly and quarantine them in an effective way we can literally get rid of it.
Guinea Worm is a surprisingly relevant example here. Guinea Worm is literally a worm that can grow inside humans, and so of course we can't give people a vaccine against it, any more than we can vaccinate you against shark bites or being mauled by a bear. And weirdly although it is a worm, the medications known to be effective in killing worms in humans don't work. So eradicating Guinea Worm is mostly about stopping the worm's lifecycle, giving people safe drinking water, keeping people with worms out of the water, that sort of thing. And it works. Chances are no HN readers live anywhere with endemic Guinea Worm, even though we've nothing really resembling a "treatment" for it.
Maybe we will get a vaccine that works. Or a miracle drug which makes it low risk to have COVID-19 in a developed country where they can just have the right drugs at the pharmacy to fix it. But maybe not. Test & trace works even if not.
Across the pond, we have many permanent laws which in principle have sunset clauses. It's an easy trick; you just have to be using the temporary powers to do something important at the time of the sunset. Most people will say "well, that does sound important, so let's give it another 5 years".
ha, as if that matters. if a law like this passes you will be mandated to carry one with tracking enabled. The gov may even pay for a low end model like that.
I would never voluntarily run an app like this nor would I consent
Mandatory lockdown for exposure to one virus can be a slippery slope. It’s not legal to discriminate against someone for a health condition or disability. If you can’t exercise your freedom of travel are you being discriminated against? Or is that acceptable due to the potential impact to the economy via the Commerce Clause? Either way, this is some new territory.
- Citizens caught in public without a mask or wearing it improperly were arrested, charged with “disturbing the peace” and fined $5.
- In his book, Jacobs says that the gauze masks city officials claimed were “99 percent proof against influenza” were in reality hardly effective at all. San Francisco’s relatively low infection rates in October were probably due to well-organized campaigns to quarantine all naval installations before the flu arrived, plus early efforts to close schools, ban social gatherings and close all places of “public amusement.”
- On November 21, a whistle blast signaled that San Franciscans could finally take off their masks and the San Francisco Chronicle described “sidewalks and runnels… strewn with the relics of a tortuous month.”
... Believing masks were what saved them the first time, businesses and theater owners fought back against public gathering orders. As a result, San Francisco ended up suffering some of the highest death rates from Spanish flu nationwide. The 2007 analysis found that if San Francisco had kept all of its anti-flu protections in place through the spring of 1919, it could have reduced deaths by 90 percent.
Based on the recent random antibody surveys in NY and Miami, covid19 is around 0.6% to 0.7% fatal. Spanish Flu is generally thought to have been around 2.5%.
That’s including asymptotic cases for COVID-19 but not Spanish flu. An apples to apples comparison would be closer to 1% vs 2.5% with significant error bars on both numbers.
The US Constitution has always been treated as having a huge asterisk of the form "X is required/banned unless there is a really good reason", even by original signatories, because humans matter more than paper. Now, what's considered "a good reason" is the heart of politics.
It’s only certain rights we treat like that—nobody is yet bold enough to suggest suspending double jeopardy because we have really good evidence the second time.
the economy is not the victim here. the question is, is your freedom to travel more important than my right to stay healthy?
if we want to keep travelling then we must explore ways to travel that don't endanger others. this will have a huge effect on public transport. but it is imaginable. ironically (for someone who doesn't like cars) this also means that car travel should increase as well.
and suddenly suburban sprawl looks like a good idea too.
> Approximately 1.35 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,700 people lose their lives every day on the roads.
> An additional 20-50 million suffer non-fatal injuries, often resulting in long-term disabilities.
> More than half of all road traffic deaths occur among vulnerable road users—pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists.
> Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death among young people aged 5-29. Young adults aged 15-44 account for more than half of all road deaths.
>Road crashes are the single greatest annual cause of death of healthy U.S. citizens traveling abroad
I see this topic come up but I don't know the answer, but let me put it another way. I will change go out with travel, but I think it also applies.
If you never leave your house, you will never get covid (give or take, lets assume). If I am sick, and I never leave the house, no-one will ever get sick from me.
But why is your(others) right to go out more important than mine? People that don't want to get the virus can stay home as much as the sick person no? If people are so scared of people on the street having the virus, they can just stay home and protect themselves
And on the other extreme, and this is what I hear a lot, it comes from people that have 'good' homes. A room for everyone where they can be alone, a warm house, wifi and facebook/IG/Steam and are either working from home or getting some benefits for staying home (not all countries are giving checks to everyone, and some people really are screwed). Now if you compare this to the other side (and not even extreme a lot of people live like this) where there is one room for 3 kids, no wifi, 4 tv channels and a moldy old house that is freezing. It seems to me it is easy to say 'stay at home' when we live like 'kings' and don't think if that person doesn't go to work cleaning some stairs or whatnot, they will have no food at the end of the month.
You can apply this to travel I think, by saying some people really need to travel for work (wether airport or a subway), so why is non-covid people more important that covid-positive people?
I’ve been really sad lately, see just how quickly we’re trading our liberty as a society for the semblance of security.
Privacy invasive tracking, governors enacting law by decree, closing beaches, moms arrested in parks and people responding with “good”. Makes me sad. The virus came and gave our leaders all the excuses they needed.
> Given the possibility that...individuals with Covid-19 might be subjected to stigma, harassment or dismissal, they might be understandably reluctant to broadcast the fact.
Then it's good that in the Apple/Google proposal, that information isn't broadcast. The bluetooth transmits random numbers. Your phone stores the numbers it has sent and received. Upon positive test, the numbers are published and all the phones compare them to the numbers they've received; people who detect a match have an incentive to get tested, so there's no need for a central authority to know who the contacts were.
I don't see how this adds much to government surveillance capabilities. Certainly not in the U.S. where detailed location histories are available for purchase. (In fact, a case in 2018 put specific constitutional limits on the government's right to purchase that data, after the government used it to track down illegal immigrants.)
Given the vast number of surveillance cameras I saw last time in London, I doubt this would add significantly to their capabilities either.
You're underestimating the value of essentially real time tracking metadata with high precision, which is not commonly available nor sold. (Unless, say, you give it to Google outright for example, which is frighteningly easy to do.)
And vastly overestimating the quality of the surveillance cameras.
Ultimately, the big pushback has to be against normalization of use of special measures that are devised for special circumstances in general cases.
What real time tracking metadata? In the contact tracing system there's no real time tracking at all.
All the server gets is a set of random numbers from a user, after that user tests positive. And while it might be difficult to keep the server from knowing which user tested positive, it's not even necessary to store that.
> Given the vast number of surveillance cameras I saw last time in London, I doubt this would add significantly to their capabilities either.
The majority of CCTV is privately owned. The vast majority of CCTV is not proactively monitored. Tracking someone using London CCTV is someone staring at a screen for a number of hours trying to follow them on playback.
I’ve had the joy of recreating someone’s movements in a nightclub from CCTV. A 6 hour night out took me days to reconstruct, and that’s using a small number of cameras in a well defined area.
CCTV as a mass surveillance tool just doesn’t work.
52 comments
[ 47.8 ms ] story [ 1620 ms ] threadI do not follow the leap from mild criticism of the approach (not everyone has a smartphone) to the hyperbolic “end of democracy.”
I pity the poor sod who is incarcerated because they happened to innocently walk past the scene of a crime, and roughly fit the description of the alleged perpetrator.
The police already can (and do!) demand cell location data from carriers to investigate crimes. Ad companies collect data from apps you use to build targeting profiles.
This proposal is far more respectful of your privacy than any of that, and in the service of saving lives.
Engaging in an act doesn't make it ethical to do.
> No more so than Apple/Google can be ordered to install something on your phone already.
That depends on your country of origin.
More like a scary harbinger of what the govt could get away with rather than a counter.
The extent to which browsers and phones monitor people beyond what they intentionally share has never stopped seeming crazy to me, especially given how widely accepted it is.
The scary databases already exist and are held by various unaccountable private companies. This is true whether or not we try to implement contact tracing tech. It shouldn’t be an argument against it.
There are literally billions of people on the planet right now incarcerated in their homes.
The economy is a patient whose heart has stopped pumping - we've injected Trillions in liquidity to hold off 'total death' and even that aid will only hold out for several more weeks. The 'system is collapsing' very, very quickly. The numbers are off the charts like anything we've seen before, all the buzzers in the cockpit are going off at once.
'Contact Tracing' more like chemotherapy, until there's a cure or vaccine, the South Korean model is basically the only example we can expect to try to follow.
Edit: I should add, I don't care about 'the economy' as an arbitrary thing, I don't care about investors or 'the stock market'. But 'the economy' is made up of very real things, like your job, whatever you do - and it's all going down like dominos. The headlines talking abut x% reduction in GDP etc, - those are the 'don't panic it will be ok numbers'. When >80% of the population is staying at home, the system as a whole cannot move forward - it's an 'existential decline' just 'some lower amount of GDP'. It's going to be cataclysmic and will be very, very difficult for the community at large, life-threatening in many circumstances.
The population at large I think has a visceral sensitivity to 'pandemic' - we've all seen the film, we know what 'getting Covid' means to us. But the notion of the economy going down like a house of cards is more intangible to most people, so it's less of a populist issue, but it should be.
Korean style contact-tracing looks different in that light.
Perhaps a social-distancing-world is incompatible with consumerist capitalism. Yet I hope for all the suffering from the virus and lockdowns we'll at least gain a new perspective on life and work.
Edit: forgot 'world'
I have family that live most of the year in self-sustaining collectivist communities in the jungles of Peru.
I wouldn't choose that life, but there's definitely alternatives to consumer capitalism.
Cuba, despite _generations_ of _severe_ trade sanctions is a good example of this.
That's fine, but this is the wrong way to think about it in the short run.
>>>> You can over time reorganize our economy along many different lines but you can't do it quickly, and often not even organically.
There are much deeper, more systematic issues you'd have to get at in trying to address such things, particularly with respect to property ownership, etc - and these are hugely existential questions.
You're going to be telling 100 of millions they're going to lose on all that they've worked on for their entire lives etc.
Like changing the rules mid-game.
>>>>> This is not an academic discussion - the world is burning down.
Every piece of the economy is interconnected. Large downturns in some areas radically affect others.
The economy is a dynamic equilibrium that only has so much capacity for shifting around.
'Tourism' is a huge part of the economy (a few points) and if that goes, then you see the cost of social services go up dramatically, unemployment, consumption goes down.
It's not just the 'resorts and hotels' it's all the subsidiary businesses. They all go down.
Airlines generally operate on thinner margins - if tourism goes, then airlines go down for sure. There is no alternative but government takeover / Chapter 11 / restructure - or total collapse of airlines. Sales drop for aircraft, Boeing lays off and cancels new plans. That's restaurants, hotels, construction, real estate, manufacturing, massive supply chain - all down.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Central Banks around the world are printing money like it doesn't matter, balance sheets are exploding to the point wherein normal conditions we would have nations declare bankruptcy.
It's clear that people generally have no idea what's happening in our systems. This is not 'a recession' ... we're facing 'total implosion' unless we act responsibly.
Does it have to be this way? Why not put certain things like rent, utilities, mortgage payments on pause--even if just for those on furlough?
I realize those who are heavily leveraged may suffer, like airlines who bought back stocks instead of maintaining a war chest. And ultimately I agree that lockdown isn't practical in the long term.
Yes, pretty much.
I'm really struggling to deal with the odd economic intuition here in the comments section. I'd urge readers to start to think about how every bit of the economy is interconnected and that it just can't magically 'stop'.
"Alberta's premier, Jason Kenney, unveiled projections for the province's unemployment rate on pace to reach 25 per cent." [1] and this is in the short run!
Have a look at this jobless claims graph [2] - and it's already out of date.
Even if we could magically deal with massive reduction in GDP (maybe we can, but probably not) - the economy cannot realign itself quickly.
Such an adjustment would take decades to do organically. We have no ability to centrally re-allocate every aspect of the economy. We can do it in some parts of some of sectors - banking and finance for example (sometimes with mortgages), but even that is risky and very unfair.
It's not just 'airlines' - it's vast swaths of the economy, that take down other parts of the economy. At least travel, energy, tourism, hotels, restaurants, entertainment, most manufacturing - just to rhyme of a few are 'shut down'. That's a monster part of the economy.
" Why not put certain things like rent, utilities, mortgage payments on pause--even if just for those on furlough?"
Because everything is connected ... the money that goes to your rent, utilities, groceries, gas, it's not some magical place obviously. There are economic endpoints there, jobs, consumption, taxation - and a lot of them.
The banks employ millions of people doing lending. There are millions of people that act as landlords and who depend on that income. They're also mortgaged often. Utilities employ a lot of people, they also buy services.
And what about the people like my parents who don't rent and have no mortgage?
Consider the both the scale and timeline of the economic intervention right now: we are printing money and doling out literally Trillions of dollars (!!) very quickly, willy nilly. Unbelievable numbers. What this means is the government/central banks are realigning the economy temporarily and 'deciding arbitrarily and quickly' who is going to win and lose - and then putting off payment to taxpayers in the future - and this will last generations. This is happening on a global scale.
If that's not shocking enough - all of this is a temporary fix! All these massive bailouts won't last very long.
The various programs announced in Canada for example last about 4 months, but Covid will last probably 18-24 months.
Again: Contact tracing (with intervention) is not only a reasonable solution, it's basically the only current viable option to get going outside of a cure or vaccine.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/jobs-unemployment-rate-covi...
[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/us-weekly-jobless-claims-rec...
Based on the rest of your comment, I am having trouble understanding how this statement is related. IMO the rest of your argument very clearly explains why the economy is interconnected; and could even be said to be an argument for the need to re-open the economy. However, it does not address how contact tracing would be a part of this. Is it your assumption that "if we implement contact tracing, then we can safely send people back to work, thus saving the economy"? If so, I think your argument would benefit from more explicitly contacting those dots.
But yes it could have been more clear, though I'm three comments deep here and it was in my original.
Korea and Taiwan really are the only countries to have contained Coronavirus without 'total lock-down' policies. Taiwan has eradicated it and now controls everyone coming to the island to make sure there are no new infections.
Korea uses the contact tracing approach.
As Western nations try to 'lift' the restrictions over the next few weeks, it does not bode well - there's no reason to believe Covid won't just bounce back. Nothing really has changed from several weeks ago before the lock-downs when there was 'social distancing' but Covid was still exploding.
Perhaps the weather is a little warmer, we have more testing capability, people are a little smarter ... but there's nothing on the policy front that indicates a new approach, we have not identified spread vectors or primary means of infection. We're just going back to 'basic social distancing' which didn't work well.
We need to look to Korea it's the only exemplary system and it relies on contact tracing.
Social distancing is an inconvenience; it is not incarceration.
There are no forms of general incarceration wherein 'moving two steps will get you punished'.
But it's beside the point:
Billions of people are forcibly confined to areas and activities in the most blindingly and openly transgression of 'liberty' in the history of civilization.
If I go and visit my mother - if I go pick up a frame for that painting - if I walk down the street with a friend - I face an $800 fine and actual 'classical' incarceration.
This is considerably more aggressive than marshall law in many ways.
To ignore this while at the same time making 'pre Coronavirus' arguments about 'contract tracing and privacy' is deeply unwise. Obviously privacy matters, obviously we have to be worried about the state gaining too much influence whilst using the calamity as an excuse.
> Who tells your phone that you’ve been diagnosed, for example? Given the possibility that – in a post-lockdown scenario – individuals with Covid-19 might be subjected to stigma, harassment or dismissal, they might be understandably reluctant to broadcast the fact. Then there’s the problem that not everyone has a smartphone, even though it’s commonly supposed in tech circles that they do. The pandemic has revealed that a significant minority of the population (mostly older people) still relies on olde-worlde feature phones. Moreover, it turns out that not all smartphones are created equal: one estimate is that 50% of all smartphones can’t use the proximity-sensing systems being developed by Apple and Google.
...which is followed by a hand-wavey "I could go on but you get the point".
All three complaints are about how effective the solution might be, not actual reasons why it would "kill democracy".
The temptation for a democratic government to expand its powers without an effective sunset (cf. Patriot Act) is a nice headline but is also trivially obviated. Since the UK's parliament has currently decided not to hold Divisions (voting) it can only pass legislation that has broad consensus - basically the Speaker or their deputy will ask a question, and if they hear any dissent that means division, they're not holding any Divisions so the motion fails. You might push through some open-ended nonsense with a straight party line vote but that requires a Division. Unless you believe somehow Westminster now lacks even one single decent person to say "No" a sunset clause seems inevitable in any such legislation.
But there are legitimate obstacles far more interesting which the article brings up. What proportion of the UK's population even own a device capable of being deployed this way? If it's 80% of those who actually can go somewhere (it arguably doesn't matter that 95-year old Nana Smith doesn't own a phone when she hasn't left her nursing home since the London Olympics) then you might be on to a winner, if it's 40% that's unworkable.
And there are logistical problems, both in deploying the associated testing and treatment strategy (e.g. where do we put quarantined people? If we send them home that's not very effective especially if other members of the household aren't tested positive) and deploying a hypothetical contact tracing app to millions of citizens.
But one thing test + trace has going for it, which the article hints at, is that we already know it works. The virus is not a mysterious "invisible enemy" it's just a virus, if we can identify everyone (or more realistically almost everyone) who is infected quickly and quarantine them in an effective way we can literally get rid of it.
Guinea Worm is a surprisingly relevant example here. Guinea Worm is literally a worm that can grow inside humans, and so of course we can't give people a vaccine against it, any more than we can vaccinate you against shark bites or being mauled by a bear. And weirdly although it is a worm, the medications known to be effective in killing worms in humans don't work. So eradicating Guinea Worm is mostly about stopping the worm's lifecycle, giving people safe drinking water, keeping people with worms out of the water, that sort of thing. And it works. Chances are no HN readers live anywhere with endemic Guinea Worm, even though we've nothing really resembling a "treatment" for it.
Maybe we will get a vaccine that works. Or a miracle drug which makes it low risk to have COVID-19 in a developed country where they can just have the right drugs at the pharmacy to fix it. But maybe not. Test & trace works even if not.
I would never voluntarily run an app like this nor would I consent
For relent history 1918: https://history.com/news/spanish-flu-pandemic-response-citie...
- Citizens caught in public without a mask or wearing it improperly were arrested, charged with “disturbing the peace” and fined $5.
- In his book, Jacobs says that the gauze masks city officials claimed were “99 percent proof against influenza” were in reality hardly effective at all. San Francisco’s relatively low infection rates in October were probably due to well-organized campaigns to quarantine all naval installations before the flu arrived, plus early efforts to close schools, ban social gatherings and close all places of “public amusement.”
- On November 21, a whistle blast signaled that San Franciscans could finally take off their masks and the San Francisco Chronicle described “sidewalks and runnels… strewn with the relics of a tortuous month.”
... Believing masks were what saved them the first time, businesses and theater owners fought back against public gathering orders. As a result, San Francisco ended up suffering some of the highest death rates from Spanish flu nationwide. The 2007 analysis found that if San Francisco had kept all of its anti-flu protections in place through the spring of 1919, it could have reduced deaths by 90 percent.
As to discrimination based on heath issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon
https://virus.stanford.edu/uda/
if we want to keep travelling then we must explore ways to travel that don't endanger others. this will have a huge effect on public transport. but it is imaginable. ironically (for someone who doesn't like cars) this also means that car travel should increase as well.
and suddenly suburban sprawl looks like a good idea too.
Last time I checked, traveling by car very often endagers others, and far more than flying, even when considering covid.
https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/
> Approximately 1.35 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,700 people lose their lives every day on the roads.
> An additional 20-50 million suffer non-fatal injuries, often resulting in long-term disabilities.
> More than half of all road traffic deaths occur among vulnerable road users—pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists.
> Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death among young people aged 5-29. Young adults aged 15-44 account for more than half of all road deaths.
>Road crashes are the single greatest annual cause of death of healthy U.S. citizens traveling abroad
If you never leave your house, you will never get covid (give or take, lets assume). If I am sick, and I never leave the house, no-one will ever get sick from me.
But why is your(others) right to go out more important than mine? People that don't want to get the virus can stay home as much as the sick person no? If people are so scared of people on the street having the virus, they can just stay home and protect themselves
And on the other extreme, and this is what I hear a lot, it comes from people that have 'good' homes. A room for everyone where they can be alone, a warm house, wifi and facebook/IG/Steam and are either working from home or getting some benefits for staying home (not all countries are giving checks to everyone, and some people really are screwed). Now if you compare this to the other side (and not even extreme a lot of people live like this) where there is one room for 3 kids, no wifi, 4 tv channels and a moldy old house that is freezing. It seems to me it is easy to say 'stay at home' when we live like 'kings' and don't think if that person doesn't go to work cleaning some stairs or whatnot, they will have no food at the end of the month.
You can apply this to travel I think, by saying some people really need to travel for work (wether airport or a subway), so why is non-covid people more important that covid-positive people?
Privacy invasive tracking, governors enacting law by decree, closing beaches, moms arrested in parks and people responding with “good”. Makes me sad. The virus came and gave our leaders all the excuses they needed.
Are you referencing the Benjamin Franklin quote here? Because the quote means the exact opposite of what it is typically used for.
The state has every right and responsibility to defend the general populace against threats in spite of personal wants and wishes.
Then it's good that in the Apple/Google proposal, that information isn't broadcast. The bluetooth transmits random numbers. Your phone stores the numbers it has sent and received. Upon positive test, the numbers are published and all the phones compare them to the numbers they've received; people who detect a match have an incentive to get tested, so there's no need for a central authority to know who the contacts were.
I don't see how this adds much to government surveillance capabilities. Certainly not in the U.S. where detailed location histories are available for purchase. (In fact, a case in 2018 put specific constitutional limits on the government's right to purchase that data, after the government used it to track down illegal immigrants.)
Given the vast number of surveillance cameras I saw last time in London, I doubt this would add significantly to their capabilities either.
And vastly overestimating the quality of the surveillance cameras.
Ultimately, the big pushback has to be against normalization of use of special measures that are devised for special circumstances in general cases.
All the server gets is a set of random numbers from a user, after that user tests positive. And while it might be difficult to keep the server from knowing which user tested positive, it's not even necessary to store that.
The majority of CCTV is privately owned. The vast majority of CCTV is not proactively monitored. Tracking someone using London CCTV is someone staring at a screen for a number of hours trying to follow them on playback.
I’ve had the joy of recreating someone’s movements in a nightclub from CCTV. A 6 hour night out took me days to reconstruct, and that’s using a small number of cameras in a well defined area.
CCTV as a mass surveillance tool just doesn’t work.
I agree that privately owned cameras are fine. But we have to be very careful what we allow in future.
It is until it isn't. Soon it will be a ML system and it will be possible, then what?