Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
I don't have a mobile phone - for a number of reasons. In that situation, the government can, politely, do one.
On topic he’s a lawyer and the public love lawyers.
Cf Tony Blair.
Mrs Brooke, who is something of a middle of the road floating voter, has taken a dislike to Starmer.
No idea why,
My experience, the more time people spend with lawyers or see more of them on the telly, they love them more.
Is this apology for any offence caused from a parody account, or from a long standing Tory who worked for David Cameron and says he is Europe editor at The Economist?
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
If you persuaded Android and Apple to force a prompt with the default as "install" nearly everyone would end up opted in.
There's also the option of getting data direct from the mobile companies, you can get pretty close to a location even without GPS. (Maybe that's what this report is talking about? Hard to say, it's quite vague.)
What about those of us using Maemo as our mobile operating system?
That is an absolutely horrendous percentage positive, suggesting quite significant undercounting of true new cases. Italy only had one day, IIRC, above 40%.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
Why is it only time to do that now? What has changed? (Is it spreading coronavirus ;-) )
Isn't part of the current problem that by and large huawei are the only providers of the kit and other firms are still developing theirs?
Maybe, or it could be the price. Looks like a bit of both. "Huawei isn’t just undercutting its competitors on price; it’s also a leader in the field in 5G research and is playing a central role in setting global standards for the technology. China invested early and deeply in 5G development, and is rapidly moving ahead of other nations in its domestic implementation of 5G networks" https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/huawei-and-5g-what-are-the-alternatives/
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
If you persuaded Android and Apple to force a prompt with the default as "install" nearly everyone would end up opted in.
There's also the option of getting data direct from the mobile companies, you can get pretty close to a location even without GPS. (Maybe that's what this report is talking about? Hard to say, it's quite vague.)
What about those of us using Maemo as our mobile operating system?
The number of coronavirus deaths in Scotland fell in the last 24 hours to 24, down from 64 yesterday and a peak of 81 three days ago. Early days perhaps but this graph from Scotland Coronavirus Tracker suggests, at least, a little optimism is warranted:
11 April is currently tracking almost exactly where 8 April was at this point (2 days developed; ~50% deaths reported so far). Apr 9 and 10 are quite a bit below (10-15% lower, and ~70% and ~80% developed respectively). No idea why; best guess at the moment is that it's just random noise.
Reporting pattern seems to have settled down. Still no sign of a slowdown over the Bank Holiday weekend. London looks to be reporting slower than everywhere else, but generally catching up. Seems to be processing delays at a few of the large teaching hospitals so we occasionally get a sudden release of deaths from ages ago, which just gets lost in the noise.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
The idea of people self-unlocking when the PHE people think it’s plausible is one that I’ve suggested for a while. It caters for the needs of everyone and their particular level of bravery/lunacy (delete as applicable). The issue would be that the NHS wasn’t overrun a few weeks later, though, so the cases per day would need to be low enough to cope with that growth.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.
Well exactly.
I can't see how a voluntary light touch system really works.
As Bill Gates said the other day, it isn't just about test, test, test. You need to rapidly work out who to test next, then order the testing queue appropriately and get them their result within the day.
You can't do this at speed and scale without a huge of data on people's movements and a lot of tech infrastructure.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
Not to mention you'd need to provide free smartphones as part of UC, or you'd create a sort of wealth-based apartheid, and also for key workers.
On topic he’s a lawyer and the public love lawyers.
Cf Tony Blair.
Mrs Brooke, who is something of a middle of the road floating voter, has taken a dislike to Starmer.
No idea why,
My experience, the more time people spend with lawyers or see more of them on the telly, they love them more.
Is this apology for any offence caused from a parody account, or from a long standing Tory who worked for David Cameron and says he is Europe editor at The Economist?
I approve of Starmer, because I feel unthreatened by him. I can't tell if that's because I can't see him winning an election, or because I'm relaxed about the consequences of him winning an election.
I don't think you can be relaxed about him winning until he has dealt with momentum. It is possible he could win then get ousted by that wing of the party
Nah. If he wins, he's golden. Same as Corbyn would've been with the moderates if he'd won.
It's almost worth Starmer winning an election just to finish the argument about far left electability for another generation.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
And that they haven't left their phone at home. Or, if they really can't be without the pocket idiot box for more than five minutes, bought a second spyware free one.
On second thoughts, shouldn't point this out. The way this discussion is going, some of you lot would be happy to have a chip implanted in your hand.
Just because it's not physically implanted in you, what people are suggesting about mandatory tracking amounts to the same thing.
Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.
It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.
One would expect the number of cases as a proportion of total population to end up varying by region, with the most urbanized areas suffering the worst. We have all been asked to practice social distancing for a reason, after all. This is why, for example, it's no surprise that the East of England, which has no large cities, is suffering less badly than Scotland, which has approximately the same population but where most of the people inhabit the central belt.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.
This assumes that everyone has a smartphone. More people than you might think don't have one. A lot of people manage with old-fashioned phones that just do calls and text messages.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.
Well exactly.
I can't see how a voluntary light touch system really works.
As Bill Gates said the other day, it isn't just about test, test, test. You need to rapidly work out who to test next, then order the testing queue appropriately and get them their result within the day.
You can't do this at speed and scale without a huge of data on people's movements and a lot of tech infrastructure.
That middle paragraph - yes, the testing argument, if framed as a bulk aggregate number, is a massive red herring.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
I'm not really convinced this needs much compulsion but for the sake of argument: Plod's phone sends a message to nearby phones, your phone fails to answer due to lack of the app or lack of existence, plod harasses you for sunbathing or whatever they normally do over there.
11 April is currently tracking almost exactly where 8 April was at this point (2 days developed; ~50% deaths reported so far). Apr 9 and 10 are quite a bit below (10-15% lower, and ~70% and ~80% developed respectively). No idea why; best guess at the moment is that it's just random noise.
Reporting pattern seems to have settled down. Still no sign of a slowdown over the Bank Holiday weekend. London looks to be reporting slower than everywhere else, but generally catching up. Seems to be processing delays at a few of the large teaching hospitals so we occasionally get a sudden release of deaths from ages ago, which just gets lost in the noise.
To be fair, you could also argue that 11 April is tracking Apr 9 and 10 instead of April 8 based on those numbers! But more seriously, we just need to wait until later in the week to see what's happening. If it's similar to Italy / Spain then we should see the number of fatalities gradually declining around now so let's hope that is indeed the case.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.
This assumes that everyone has a smartphone. More people than you might think don't have one. A lot of people manage with old-fashioned phones that just do calls and text messages.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
I'm not really convinced this needs much compulsion but for the sake of argument: Plod's phone sends a message to nearby phones, your phone fails to answer due to lack of the app or lack of existence, plod harasses you for sunbathing or whatever they normally do over there.
There are 30 people in the high st, they get 29 replies because I haven't got my phone on me. They identify which of the 30 people it is how exactly?
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
I'm not really convinced this needs much compulsion but for the sake of argument: Plod's phone sends a message to nearby phones, your phone fails to answer due to lack of the app or lack of existence, plod harasses you for sunbathing or whatever they normally do over there.
We are going to need a hell of a lot more than those extra 20,000 police Boris promised.
How do you do that as people pile off the tube? How do you work out which are the ones without the app in the crowd? And then you going to rugby tackle them to the ground in the middle of the Tube station?
The only way I can see is having to spy on people, which then you might as well make the app compulsory as you are having to have to have surveillance of the population anyway.
To me you either have to go all-in on this or don't bother, because you will just miss too many people. And I don't think the UK has the infrastructure to copy South Korea's approach, certainly not in the next few months.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.
This assumes that everyone has a smartphone. More people than you might think don't have one. A lot of people manage with old-fashioned phones that just do calls and text messages.
Wasn’t me that suggested it, thank you. I was just pointing out an incredibly obvious flaw in the logic. Yours is another one, which I had referred to on the last thread.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
I'm not really convinced this needs much compulsion but for the sake of argument: Plod's phone sends a message to nearby phones, your phone fails to answer due to lack of the app or lack of existence, plod harasses you for sunbathing or whatever they normally do over there.
We are going to need a hell of a lot more than those extra 20,000 police Boris promised.
How do you do that as people pile off the tube? How do you work out which are the ones without the app in the crowd? And then you going to rugby tackle them to the ground in the middle of the Tube station?
The only way I can see is having to spy on people, which then you might as well make the app compulsory as you are having to spy on everybody anyway.
You don't have to catch every case everywhere, that's not how law enforcement works.
Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.
It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.
One would expect the number of cases as a proportion of total population to end up varying by region, with the most urbanized areas suffering the worst. We have all been asked to practice social distancing for a reason, after all. This is why, for example, it's no surprise that the East of England, which has no large cities, is suffering less badly than Scotland, which has approximately the same population but where most of the people inhabit the central belt.
Manchester and Leeds/Bradford have seemingly managed to avoid the Birmingham and London type figures so far, though (don’t know about Liverpool, Newcastle etc.). The urban sprawl across the north is as considerable as the South East, so the risk is there.
On topic he’s a lawyer and the public love lawyers.
Cf Tony Blair.
Mrs Brooke, who is something of a middle of the road floating voter, has taken a dislike to Starmer.
No idea why,
My experience, the more time people spend with lawyers or see more of them on the telly, they love them more.
Is this apology for any offence caused from a parody account, or from a long standing Tory who worked for David Cameron and says he is Europe editor at The Economist?
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
I'm not really convinced this needs much compulsion but for the sake of argument: Plod's phone sends a message to nearby phones, your phone fails to answer due to lack of the app or lack of existence, plod harasses you for sunbathing or whatever they normally do over there.
There are 30 people in the high st, they get 29 replies because I haven't got my phone on me. They identify which of the 30 people it is how exactly?
Plod doesn't stand in the middle of a crowd for this particular task.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.
This assumes that everyone has a smartphone. More people than you might think don't have one. A lot of people manage with old-fashioned phones that just do calls and text messages.
Send the old dears a phone.
Then you've got to teach them all (including the ones with fingers crippled by arthritis and/or various forms of mild dementia) to use the things. Good luck with that one.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
I'm not really convinced this needs much compulsion but for the sake of argument: Plod's phone sends a message to nearby phones, your phone fails to answer due to lack of the app or lack of existence, plod harasses you for sunbathing or whatever they normally do over there.
We are going to need a hell of a lot more than those extra 20,000 police Boris promised.
How do you do that as people pile off the tube? How do you work out which are the ones without the app in the crowd? And then you going to rugby tackle them to the ground in the middle of the Tube station?
The only way I can see is having to spy on people, which then you might as well make the app compulsory as you are having to spy on everybody anyway.
You don't have to catch every case everywhere, that's not how law enforcement works.
For CV, the detection / tracking needs to be very high 24/7, otherwise it quickly gets out of hand.
OT ten days before Ramadan and PB has just popped up my first Zakat-related charity advert. Zakat is a sort of tithe, and thus vaguely relevant to the income vs wealth tax discussion we had recently.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
I'm not really convinced this needs much compulsion but for the sake of argument: Plod's phone sends a message to nearby phones, your phone fails to answer due to lack of the app or lack of existence, plod harasses you for sunbathing or whatever they normally do over there.
There are 30 people in the high st, they get 29 replies because I haven't got my phone on me. They identify which of the 30 people it is how exactly?
Plod doesn't stand in the middle of a crowd for this particular task.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.
This assumes that everyone has a smartphone. More people than you might think don't have one. A lot of people manage with old-fashioned phones that just do calls and text messages.
Send the old dears a phone.
Then you've got to teach them all (including the ones with fingers crippled by arthritis and/or various forms of mild dementia) to use the things. Good luck with that one.
Not really, you just need to teach them to charge it.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.
This assumes that everyone has a smartphone. More people than you might think don't have one. A lot of people manage with old-fashioned phones that just do calls and text messages.
Send the old dears a phone.
Ed you are a fantastic and thoughtful poster; one of the need to listen to PB contributors. But you are developing a tadge of the Expatus Brexititus opining on how those of us living here should have enforced on us and be happy with this that or the other bonkers or freedom-reducing measure.
11 April is currently tracking almost exactly where 8 April was at this point (2 days developed; ~50% deaths reported so far). Apr 9 and 10 are quite a bit below (10-15% lower, and ~70% and ~80% developed respectively). No idea why; best guess at the moment is that it's just random noise.
Reporting pattern seems to have settled down. Still no sign of a slowdown over the Bank Holiday weekend. London looks to be reporting slower than everywhere else, but generally catching up. Seems to be processing delays at a few of the large teaching hospitals so we occasionally get a sudden release of deaths from ages ago, which just gets lost in the noise.
To be fair, you could also argue that 11 April is tracking Apr 9 and 10 instead of April 8 based on those numbers! But more seriously, we just need to wait until later in the week to see what's happening. If it's similar to Italy / Spain then we should see the number of fatalities gradually declining around now so let's hope that is indeed the case.
Whoops, misread my own exhibit. Apr 11 is tracking Apr 9, not Apr 8. Thanks.
Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.
It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.
One would expect the number of cases as a proportion of total population to end up varying by region, with the most urbanized areas suffering the worst. We have all been asked to practice social distancing for a reason, after all. This is why, for example, it's no surprise that the East of England, which has no large cities, is suffering less badly than Scotland, which has approximately the same population but where most of the people inhabit the central belt.
Manchester and Leeds/Bradford have seemingly managed to avoid the Birmingham and London type figures so far, though (don’t know about Liverpool, Newcastle etc.). The urban sprawl across the north is as considerable as the South East, so the risk is there.
Either (a) it's just a matter of time or (b) transmission rates peaked in London and the West Midlands before lockdown, which then had a greater suppressant effect in other areas that had yet to be so heavily exposed. We shall have to wait and see.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
I'm not really convinced this needs much compulsion but for the sake of argument: Plod's phone sends a message to nearby phones, your phone fails to answer due to lack of the app or lack of existence, plod harasses you for sunbathing or whatever they normally do over there.
There are 30 people in the high st, they get 29 replies because I haven't got my phone on me. They identify which of the 30 people it is how exactly?
Plod doesn't stand in the middle of a crowd for this particular task.
They avoid that on your average city street how?
Do the enforcement on a smaller street. Train turnstiles, entrances to buildings etc would also work.
Enforcement won't be perfect, but enforcement of "only.leave your house for approved activities" isn't perfect. It doesn't have to be, it's a game of averages.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.
This assumes that everyone has a smartphone. More people than you might think don't have one. A lot of people manage with old-fashioned phones that just do calls and text messages.
Send the old dears a phone.
Ed you are a fantastic and thoughtful poster; one of the need to listen to PB contributors. But you are developing a tadge of the Expatus Brexititus opining on how those of us living here should have enforced on us and be happy with this that or the other bonkers or freedom-reducing measure.
Besides which all that will happen if they did ever try it is someone would create an app that looks identical but does nothing. PC busybody stops you and you shrug and say well there is the app officer and as you can see my bluetooth is on.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
I'm not really convinced this needs much compulsion but for the sake of argument: Plod's phone sends a message to nearby phones, your phone fails to answer due to lack of the app or lack of existence, plod harasses you for sunbathing or whatever they normally do over there.
There are 30 people in the high st, they get 29 replies because I haven't got my phone on me. They identify which of the 30 people it is how exactly?
Plod doesn't stand in the middle of a crowd for this particular task.
They avoid that on your average city street how?
Do the enforcement on a smaller street. Train turnstiles, entrances to buildings etc would also work.
Enforcement won't be perfect, but enforcement of "only.leave your house for approved activities" isn't perfect. It doesn't have to be, it's a game of averages.
Stop and search was controversial enough, stop and search we think your cellphone / app is not on...I can see the headline's now.
The reason why South Korea / China work so well, you can't do much out in the real world without your cellphone these days. You need it for payments, transport, getting into your office, etc. You don't even really need to check, because you know people can't really be functioning in society without it.
The number of coronavirus deaths in Scotland fell in the last 24 hours to 24, down from 64 yesterday and a peak of 81 three days ago. Early days perhaps but this graph from Scotland Coronavirus Tracker suggests, at least, a little optimism is warranted:
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
I think it's just Huawei under the spotlight because of he opaque ownership structure. We've also suspended all zoom meetings until we can be sure that recordings are secure. Reverted to Hangouts.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
Do Apple devices and other fantastically expensive premium smartphones have functionality significantly better than something you can pick up for a hundred-or-so quid, or are they just a poser fashion accessory?
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
I think it's just Huawei under the spotlight because of he opaque ownership structure. We've also suspended all zoom meetings until we can be sure that recordings are secure. Reverted to Hangouts.
Is there a particular reason why Zoom is superior to the likes of Teams? For me, they are all a much of a muchness, but my use case is quite limited.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.
This assumes that everyone has a smartphone. More people than you might think don't have one. A lot of people manage with old-fashioned phones that just do calls and text messages.
Send the old dears a phone.
Ed you are a fantastic and thoughtful poster; one of the need to listen to PB contributors. But you are developing a tadge of the Expatus Brexititus opining on how those of us living here should have enforced on us and be happy with this that or the other bonkers or freedom-reducing measure.
I'm not advocating compulsion, I'm just responding to people saying compulsion wouldn't be practical.
However I should point out that British people are currently literally banned from leaving their houses except for a few government-approved purposes, and nobody seems to have a plan to end this situation without the virus coming back and you having to do it again, so you may still increase freedom.if you replace one freedom-reducing thing with a less drastic one.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.
This assumes that everyone has a smartphone. More people than you might think don't have one. A lot of people manage with old-fashioned phones that just do calls and text messages.
Send the old dears a phone.
Then you've got to teach them all (including the ones with fingers crippled by arthritis and/or various forms of mild dementia) to use the things. Good luck with that one.
Even if only 80% of people opted in (and you'd make opt-in the default), you'd still reduce R meaningfully.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
I think it's just Huawei under the spotlight because of he opaque ownership structure. We've also suspended all zoom meetings until we can be sure that recordings are secure. Reverted to Hangouts.
Is there a particular reason why Zoom is superior to the likes of Teams? For me, they are all a much of a muchness, but my use case is quite limited.
Teams has a huge setup investment cost while zoom doesn't aiui.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
Do Apple devices and other fantastically expensive premium smartphones have functionality significantly better than something you can pick up for a hundred-or-so quid, or are they just a poser fashion accessory?
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
I'm not really convinced this needs much compulsion but for the sake of argument: Plod's phone sends a message to nearby phones, your phone fails to answer due to lack of the app or lack of existence, plod harasses you for sunbathing or whatever they normally do over there.
There are 30 people in the high st, they get 29 replies because I haven't got my phone on me. They identify which of the 30 people it is how exactly?
Plod doesn't stand in the middle of a crowd for this particular task.
They avoid that on your average city street how?
Do the enforcement on a smaller street. Train turnstiles, entrances to buildings etc would also work.
Enforcement won't be perfect, but enforcement of "only.leave your house for approved activities" isn't perfect. It doesn't have to be, it's a game of averages.
Stop and search was controversial enough, stop and search we think your cellphone / app is not on...I can see the headline's now.
The reason why South Korea / China work so well, you can't do much out in the real world without your cellphone these days. You need it for payments, transport, getting into your office, etc. You don't even really need to check, because you know people can't really be functioning in society without it.
South Korea has old people too, they still have cash and train tickets.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.
This assumes that everyone has a smartphone. More people than you might think don't have one. A lot of people manage with old-fashioned phones that just do calls and text messages.
Send the old dears a phone.
Then you've got to teach them all (including the ones with fingers crippled by arthritis and/or various forms of mild dementia) to use the things. Good luck with that one.
Even if only 80% of people opted in (and you'd make opt-in the default), you'd still reduce R meaningfully.
It depends what you're comparing it with, given that not everyone will go back to normal even if you tell them to. If you get the same reduction in transmission that you'd get from just issuing guidelines on social distancing, then it's not worth it.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.
This assumes that everyone has a smartphone. More people than you might think don't have one. A lot of people manage with old-fashioned phones that just do calls and text messages.
Send the old dears a phone.
Then you've got to teach them all (including the ones with fingers crippled by arthritis and/or various forms of mild dementia) to use the things. Good luck with that one.
Even if only 80% of people opted in (and you'd make opt-in the default), you'd still reduce R meaningfully.
You can't make opt in default as you have to both download the app and accept the permission on the app. I would assume anyone who downloads it wants to use it.
If they make it compulsory it will be time to fight back for many techies I suspect and bluetooth makes a good attack vector to all those police devices trying to connect to phones for malicious files and viruses
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
I think it's just Huawei under the spotlight because of he opaque ownership structure. We've also suspended all zoom meetings until we can be sure that recordings are secure. Reverted to Hangouts.
Is there a particular reason why Zoom is superior to the likes of Teams? For me, they are all a much of a muchness, but my use case is quite limited.
The U3a is besotted with Zoom, apparently, to keep us oldies meeting. However, when talking to people still working I find there is considerable suspicion. Webex seems a possible alternative.
Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....
Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.
Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.
Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far
The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?
What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about
Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?
Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.
How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.
You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.
This assumes that everyone has a smartphone. More people than you might think don't have one. A lot of people manage with old-fashioned phones that just do calls and text messages.
Send the old dears a phone.
Ed you are a fantastic and thoughtful poster; one of the need to listen to PB contributors. But you are developing a tadge of the Expatus Brexititus opining on how those of us living here should have enforced on us and be happy with this that or the other bonkers or freedom-reducing measure.
I'm not advocating compulsion, I'm just responding to people saying compulsion wouldn't be practical.
However I should point out that British people are currently literally banned from leaving their houses except for a few government-approved purposes, and nobody seems to have a plan to end this situation without the virus coming back and you having to do it again, so you may still increase freedom.if you replace one freedom-reducing thing with a less drastic one.
That doesn't address the issue though that lockdown measures cannot be permanent whereas the temptation to make app surveillance of the population permanent would I think prove too tempting for politicians
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
Do Apple devices and other fantastically expensive premium smartphones have functionality significantly better than something you can pick up for a hundred-or-so quid, or are they just a poser fashion accessory?
Yes, I have a very expensive phone, three years later it still works very well, even the battery life is stil acceptable. Cheap phones have a much shorter shelf life.
Still doesn't explain how the "saboteurs" managed a hung parliament and the True Believers got a Tory majority and the worst Labour result in 8 decades.....but whatever floats your boat....
Congratulations to @Jam_Monkey and @rkrkrk who between them discovered three examples of Senatorial candidates beating the winning vote count from the previous Presidential election.
I have contacted them both and they will both be getting Amazon vouchers
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
I think it's just Huawei under the spotlight because of he opaque ownership structure. We've also suspended all zoom meetings until we can be sure that recordings are secure. Reverted to Hangouts.
On Huawei - the fact that they are ahead in 5G technology was why the technology working group the government runs recommended the following
1) Limit participation. 2) Limit percentage of use in various areas to ensure viable alternatives are rapidly deployable
Note that they had done an in-depth dive through the software and hardware in question. Also note that BT then complained of the *amount of Huawei equipment they would have to remove from the system* to meet the percentage requirements.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
Do Apple devices and other fantastically expensive premium smartphones have functionality significantly better than something you can pick up for a hundred-or-so quid, or are they just a poser fashion accessory?
Yes, I have a very expensive phone, three years later it still works very well, even the battery life is stil acceptable. Cheap phones have a much shorter shelf life.
I have a very, very cheap phone at least four years old and it works as well as it ever did, which is ample for my needs.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
In the BYOD world, I have seen companies setting their comms/security apps to only work on certain hardware.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
Do Apple devices and other fantastically expensive premium smartphones have functionality significantly better than something you can pick up for a hundred-or-so quid, or are they just a poser fashion accessory?
Yes, I have a very expensive phone, three years later it still works very well, even the battery life is stil acceptable. Cheap phones have a much shorter shelf life.
As a perennial buyer of cheap (£100-250) smartphones I mostly agree with this. The battery life has gotten better so that isn't really a problem now even after a few years, but the processing power is noticeably slower than the premium models. It's not the end of the world, stuff taking a couple or a few seconds to load, but it is noticeable and it does slow down a bit after a couple of years.
For me, the saving is well worth it but I agree you do get something for your money. If you want a cheaper phone then I'd advise to go for something at least £200, below that you lose a lot of power and it's really annoying. Also make sure you get a phone with an up to date version of Android (or ios, but if you are going cheap you aren't buying Apple anyway) so it doesn't stop working with good apps after 12 months.
That doesn't address the issue though that lockdown measures cannot be permanent whereas the temptation to make app surveillance of the population permanent would I think prove too tempting for politicians
I agree, I think the job of getting apps on phones could and should be done without compulsion. But there were people upthread suggesting compulsion wouldn't work, and I think the reasons given were spurious.
However I do think it's legitimate to pass whatever legislation is required to data from mobile providers without an opt-in for an emergency period, as long as it sunsets.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
I think it's just Huawei under the spotlight because of he opaque ownership structure. We've also suspended all zoom meetings until we can be sure that recordings are secure. Reverted to Hangouts.
On Huawei - the fact that they are ahead in 5G technology was why the technology working group the government runs recommended the following
1) Limit participation. 2) Limit percentage of use in various areas to ensure viable alternatives are rapidly deployable
Note that they had done an in-depth dive through the software and hardware in question. Also note that BT then complained of the *amount of Huawei equipment they would have to remove from the system* to meet the percentage requirements.
Yes I know about all of that, it's all a load of rubbish though, basically the government is giving BT/EE a free ride because it would cost them billions to take Huawei to 0% of the network. That was probably a huge factor in the process.
Still doesn't explain how the "saboteurs" managed a hung parliament and the True Believers got a Tory majority and the worst Labour result in 8 decades.....but whatever floats your boat....
In 2017 ‘the saboteurs’ were still pretending they were going to implement the referendum result. By 2019 they’d left Boris as the only show in town for people who wanted to leave the EU
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
I think it's just Huawei under the spotlight because of he opaque ownership structure. We've also suspended all zoom meetings until we can be sure that recordings are secure. Reverted to Hangouts.
On Huawei - the fact that they are ahead in 5G technology was why the technology working group the government runs recommended the following
1) Limit participation. 2) Limit percentage of use in various areas to ensure viable alternatives are rapidly deployable
Note that they had done an in-depth dive through the software and hardware in question. Also note that BT then complained of the *amount of Huawei equipment they would have to remove from the system* to meet the percentage requirements.
Whatever the "issues" against it, seems the height of foolishness to rely on China any more than we absolutely need to; security wise, politically or economically. We can surely compensate amongst friends.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
I think it's just Huawei under the spotlight because of he opaque ownership structure. We've also suspended all zoom meetings until we can be sure that recordings are secure. Reverted to Hangouts.
On Huawei - the fact that they are ahead in 5G technology was why the technology working group the government runs recommended the following
1) Limit participation. 2) Limit percentage of use in various areas to ensure viable alternatives are rapidly deployable
Note that they had done an in-depth dive through the software and hardware in question. Also note that BT then complained of the *amount of Huawei equipment they would have to remove from the system* to meet the percentage requirements.
Yes I know about all of that, it's all a load of rubbish though, basically the government is giving BT/EE a free ride because it would cost them billions to take Huawei to 0% of the network. That was probably a huge factor in the process.
What is a load of rubbish? The detail analysis of the actual software and hardware involved? Which was carried out by high respected people....
"Serology results for samples tested on 12 April will not be authorised until 14 April due to the Bank Holiday. Combined activity figures for 12 and 13 April will be reported on 14 April. For serology testing, some protocols allow for samples to be tested repeatedly. Samples are anonymised prior to sending to the lab for testing, therefore the identification of individuals tested is not possible in the current reporting process."
A little vague on who is being tested, but does sound like the first batch of serology data (from 2586 individuals according to another table on that page) will be released tomorrow. Note that at present the number of positive results is 0, but I suspect this is explained by the paragraph quoted above.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
Do Apple devices and other fantastically expensive premium smartphones have functionality significantly better than something you can pick up for a hundred-or-so quid, or are they just a poser fashion accessory?
Yes, I have a very expensive phone, three years later it still works very well, even the battery life is stil acceptable. Cheap phones have a much shorter shelf life.
Hmmm, I think I'll have to wait and see how that works out. All I can say is I've had my £135 handset for a year already, it works perfectly and shows no signs as yet of developing middle-aged eccentricities or slowing down like my laptops have always done, and it's cheap enough to replace that I don't need to bother to insure it.
Still doesn't explain how the "saboteurs" managed a hung parliament and the True Believers got a Tory majority and the worst Labour result in 8 decades.....but whatever floats your boat....
Unfortunately, a minority of the Labour PLP and the membership will now view this as the historical reason why Corbyn did not win in 2017*. The idea of the 2017 betrayal will now poison the party for a long time unless Starmer acts and forces them out and into the Workers Party or whatever it is called this week.
* Obviously there is some cognitive dissonance going on, because the same people have been telling us since 2017 that Corbyn did win.
Ashcroft has has published some focus group stuff on US 2020 FWIW.
The stat that hit me was that 7 out of ten Bernie supporters intend to turn out for Biden.
Which shows a combination of how crap Biden is as a Democratic candidate and how off the rails some Bernie supporters are.
At this point, given choice between the embalmed corpse of Lenin and Trump, I think that Lenin is preferable.
Are the Greens running this time? Stern gave a place for Sanders supports to run to last time.
They'll run, but for whatever reason the third parties (also Libertarians) aren't much of a factor this time (perhaps because their candidates were more notable in 2016). An underrated issue for Trump, I suspect. Overall I still think it's close but leaning Dem.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
I think it's just Huawei under the spotlight because of he opaque ownership structure. We've also suspended all zoom meetings until we can be sure that recordings are secure. Reverted to Hangouts.
On Huawei - the fact that they are ahead in 5G technology was why the technology working group the government runs recommended the following
1) Limit participation. 2) Limit percentage of use in various areas to ensure viable alternatives are rapidly deployable
Note that they had done an in-depth dive through the software and hardware in question. Also note that BT then complained of the *amount of Huawei equipment they would have to remove from the system* to meet the percentage requirements.
Whatever the "issues" against it, seems the height of foolishness to rely on China any more than we absolutely need to; security wise, politically or economically. We can surely compensate amongst friends.
Which was the point of detailed report into the matter - that we should limit exposure on this generation, take precautions, and work towards a situation for the next generation (5 years or so) where there would be a range of options at the same capability level.
You can argue about whether Starmer ought to be PM, or whether he'd be a good PM, or whether he's likely to be PM, or even if he's got a better than one in five or one in ten chance of being PM.
But he's leader of the main opposition party. So of course Starmer COULD be PM in circumstances which don't require a bizarre flight of fancy.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
I think it's just Huawei under the spotlight because of he opaque ownership structure. We've also suspended all zoom meetings until we can be sure that recordings are secure. Reverted to Hangouts.
On Huawei - the fact that they are ahead in 5G technology was why the technology working group the government runs recommended the following
1) Limit participation. 2) Limit percentage of use in various areas to ensure viable alternatives are rapidly deployable
Note that they had done an in-depth dive through the software and hardware in question. Also note that BT then complained of the *amount of Huawei equipment they would have to remove from the system* to meet the percentage requirements.
Yes I know about all of that, it's all a load of rubbish though, basically the government is giving BT/EE a free ride because it would cost them billions to take Huawei to 0% of the network. That was probably a huge factor in the process.
What is a load of rubbish? The detail analysis of the actual software and hardware involved? Which was carried out by high respected people....
Yes, and just like our "experts" got the lockdown timing wrong the same thing happened with the Huawei decision. It's become clear that the ruling classes in the civil service and other bodies are no longer fit for purpose.
It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.
I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.
There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.
Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.
I think it's just Huawei under the spotlight because of he opaque ownership structure. We've also suspended all zoom meetings until we can be sure that recordings are secure. Reverted to Hangouts.
Is there a particular reason why Zoom is superior to the likes of Teams? For me, they are all a much of a muchness, but my use case is quite limited.
Teams has a huge setup investment cost while zoom doesn't aiui.
Comments
"Huawei isn’t just undercutting its competitors on price; it’s also a leader in the field in 5G research and is playing a central role in setting global standards for the technology. China invested early and deeply in 5G development, and is rapidly moving ahead of other nations in its domestic implementation of 5G networks"
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/huawei-and-5g-what-are-the-alternatives/
https://www.travellingtabby.com/scotland-coronavirus-tracker/
Reporting pattern seems to have settled down. Still no sign of a slowdown over the Bank Holiday weekend. London looks to be reporting slower than everywhere else, but generally catching up. Seems to be processing delays at a few of the large teaching hospitals so we occasionally get a sudden release of deaths from ages ago, which just gets lost in the noise.
I can't see how a voluntary light touch system really works.
As Bill Gates said the other day, it isn't just about test, test, test. You need to rapidly work out who to test next, then order the testing queue appropriately and get them their result within the day.
You can't do this at speed and scale without a huge of data on people's movements and a lot of tech infrastructure.
It's almost worth Starmer winning an election just to finish the argument about far left electability for another generation.
On second thoughts, shouldn't point this out. The way this discussion is going, some of you lot would be happy to have a chip implanted in your hand.
Just because it's not physically implanted in you, what people are suggesting about mandatory tracking amounts to the same thing.
How do you do that as people pile off the tube? How do you work out which are the ones without the app in the crowd? And then you going to rugby tackle them to the ground in the middle of the Tube station?
The only way I can see is having to spy on people, which then you might as well make the app compulsory as you are having to have to have surveillance of the population anyway.
To me you either have to go all-in on this or don't bother, because you will just miss too many people. And I don't think the UK has the infrastructure to copy South Korea's approach, certainly not in the next few months.
And this one from March last year, he introduces himself as that
https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2019/03/11/the-scramble-for-africa-a-mission-in-the-antarctic-and-what-carnival-reveals-about-brazils-history
The stat that hit me was that 7 out of ten Bernie supporters intend to turn out for Biden.
a) I've no idea who that is and
b) Can't you find a smaller picture?
c) Is it not possible that Ms Patel is being given just enough rope to hang herself, rather than anyone else?
Enforcement won't be perfect, but enforcement of "only.leave your house for approved activities" isn't perfect. It doesn't have to be, it's a game of averages.
The reason why South Korea / China work so well, you can't do much out in the real world without your cellphone these days. You need it for payments, transport, getting into your office, etc. You don't even really need to check, because you know people can't really be functioning in society without it.
Quite entertaining.
Certainly a better read than Volume 1 of Capital, in which Marx takes 100 pages to say that workers create more value than they get paid.
However I should point out that British people are currently literally banned from leaving their houses except for a few government-approved purposes, and nobody seems to have a plan to end this situation without the virus coming back and you having to do it again, so you may still increase freedom.if you replace one freedom-reducing thing with a less drastic one.
717 deaths,104 of those in the last two days.
But the Poco is great, quick, powerful and cheap!
If they make it compulsory it will be time to fight back for many techies I suspect and bluetooth makes a good attack vector to all those police devices trying to connect to phones for malicious files and viruses
https://twitter.com/zarahsultana/status/1249666714054397953?s=20
Still doesn't explain how the "saboteurs" managed a hung parliament and the True Believers got a Tory majority and the worst Labour result in 8 decades.....but whatever floats your boat....
https://twitter.com/markmobility/status/1249694712937746432?s=20
Figures I saw recently (think it was for the US) suggested around 50% had smartphones a couple of years ago.
1) Limit participation.
2) Limit percentage of use in various areas to ensure viable alternatives are rapidly deployable
Note that they had done an in-depth dive through the software and hardware in question. Also note that BT then complained of the *amount of Huawei equipment they would have to remove from the system* to meet the percentage requirements.
For me, the saving is well worth it but I agree you do get something for your money. If you want a cheaper phone then I'd advise to go for something at least £200, below that you lose a lot of power and it's really annoying. Also make sure you get a phone with an up to date version of Android (or ios, but if you are going cheap you aren't buying Apple anyway) so it doesn't stop working with good apps after 12 months.
However I do think it's legitimate to pass whatever legislation is required to data from mobile providers without an opt-in for an emergency period, as long as it sunsets.
Which shows a combination of how crap Biden is as a Democratic candidate and how off the rails some Bernie supporters are.
At this point, given choice between the embalmed corpse of Lenin and Trump, I think that Lenin is preferable.
"Serology results for samples tested on 12 April will not be authorised until 14 April due to the Bank Holiday. Combined activity figures for 12 and 13 April will be reported on 14 April. For serology testing, some protocols allow for samples to be tested repeatedly. Samples are anonymised prior to sending to the lab for testing, therefore the identification of individuals tested is not possible in the current reporting process."
A little vague on who is being tested, but does sound like the first batch of serology data (from 2586 individuals according to another table on that page) will be released tomorrow. Note that at present the number of positive results is 0, but I suspect this is explained by the paragraph quoted above.
* Obviously there is some cognitive dissonance going on, because the same people have been telling us since 2017 that Corbyn did win.
You can argue about whether Starmer ought to be PM, or whether he'd be a good PM, or whether he's likely to be PM, or even if he's got a better than one in five or one in ten chance of being PM.
But he's leader of the main opposition party. So of course Starmer COULD be PM in circumstances which don't require a bizarre flight of fancy.