Coronavirus (OLD)

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Hardly speculation and conjecture when there is more than enough actual examples.


Anybody who is going around saying "if X is allowed, why not Y", is promoting the message that Y is OK. No shortage of people doing that.

Disagree, I believe people are trying to understand what exactly is permitted and what isn't from a very garbled message. This doesn't make them morons and it doesn't mean to say that once answers are provided that they will then break the restrictions.

Clarity was required last night, little was forthcoming.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Disagree, I believe people are trying to understand what exactly is permitted and what isn't from a very garbled message. This doesn't make them morons and it doesn't mean to say that once answers are provided that they will then break the restrictions.

Clarity was required last night, little was forthcoming.

While I agree the message was garbled Nomadking has a point.

Because X and Y are like for like activities doesn’t mean the Government wants everyone doing both. None of this advice eliminates risk. What it does is tries to reduce the risk by restricting the numbers and types of interactions. It’s not because Y is inherently more dangerous than X.

If we allow all like for like activities in significantly greater numbers of people are at risk.

Why can I go and meet my boss at work but not my mum at her house is doing the rounds on social media. The reality is a small number of people are returning to work gradually, as opposed to everyone going to visit their mum tonight.

The vast, vast majority of workers this morning were either key workers anyway or working from home and still doing so. The outcome of the change is negligible by comparison.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by jfman

While I agree the message was garbled Nomadking has a point.

Because X and Y are like for like activities doesn’t mean the Government wants everyone doing both. None of this advice eliminates risk. What it does is tries to reduce the risk by restricting the numbers and types of interactions. It’s not because Y is inherently more dangerous than X.

If we allow all like for like activities in significantly greater numbers of people are at risk.

Why can I go and meet my boss at work but not my mum at her house is doing the rounds on social media. The reality is a small number of people are returning to work gradually, as opposed to everyone going to visit their mum tonight.

The vast, vast majority of workers this morning were either key workers anyway or working from home and still doing so. The outcome of the change is negligible by comparison.

You must of missed the reports of packed commuter trains then this morning ? and also major traffic jams on the roads in certain areas of the country?

A large amount of the population are quite possibly anxious, scared or nervous. what was needed last night was explicit clarity. It wasn't given. People are going to ask questions and quite rightly so. it doesn't make them morons.

I'm not sure how one person driving to another persons house to enter a private garden via a side entrance is a greater risk than one person from one house and another person from another house driving separately to a location such as a park or a beach ?

---------- Post added at 12:06 ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 ----------

Or, I could employ my father in law as my handyman. in which case him coming INTO the house would be perfectly acceptable providing 2m distancing is maintained.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

You must of missed the reports of packed commuter trains then this morning ? and also major traffic jams on the roads in certain areas of the country?

I don't think they should have eased the lockdown at all. However, this is a seperate point - and because observably trains were busy doesn't mean that the majority of the workforce are now going out to work.

A large amount of the population are quite possibly anxious, scared or nervous. what was needed last night was explicit clarity. It wasn't given. People are going to ask questions and quite rightly so. it doesn't make them morons.

It doesn't make them morons, but some journalists are clearly acting dim and I'm not sure why.

I'm not sure how one person driving to another persons house to enter a private garden via a side entrance is a greater risk than one person from one house and another person from another house driving separately to a location such as a park or a beach ?

---------- Post added at 12:06 ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 ----------

Or, I could employ my father in law as my handyman. in which case him coming INTO the house would be perfectly acceptable providing 2m distancing is maintained.

Each individual activity you describe here is low risk. The total number of infections resulting from a million low risk events and a hundred million low risk events varies drastically.

The Government management of the epidemic at this point doesn't care about your personal risk of infection. It cares about whether we get six thousand new infections tomorrow or seven thousand. If the R number goes up or down. That's the risk factor.

Then there's adherence to the rules. If you meet a family member at the park and it starts to rain you go home. If you meet in the garden eventually a percentage of people decide it's alright to sit in the kitchen two metres apart. Still a low risk event, but higher than being in the open air. It's a slippery slope.

The lines have to be arbitrarily drawn somewhere.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Chris

Initial independent testing by labs running jailbroken iPhones suggests that the NHS contact tracing app developers have indeed found a way round the issues many claimed would prevent the app running effectively in the background for any length of time.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52579547

The NHS has now released the app's source code on GitHub, so further independent scrutiny can occur over the weekend.

Be interesting to see what people find. Despite the privacy concerns, If the app helps, I will happily install it.

However, the fact they tested on Jailbroken iphones makes me question the results they got. They are not testing like for like. The Jailbreak may well have altered some aspect of the way the OS handles bluetooth.

I have some knowledge of iPhone development (not extensive by any means, but I have written the odd app for my own use). As far as the testing goes, as far as I can see, they should not have needed to jailbreak the phones. Even assuming they couldn't have used android phones to actually monitor the Bluetooth communication, there are a number of devices on the market (for both legal and illegal purposes) that will monitor Bluetooth communication. They could have used one. Assuming the source code published is complete, they didn't even need to jailbreak the device to install the app. They could have compiled it from the source code using their own developer credentials, and installed it via the Apple Development systems and Apple's Testflight app (which enables developers to send a limited number of invites to enable users to install beta versions).

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by jfman

I don't think they should have eased the lockdown at all. However, this is a seperate point - and because observably trains were busy doesn't mean that the majority of the workforce are now going out to work.



It doesn't make them morons, but some journalists are clearly acting dim and I'm not sure why.



Each individual activity you describe here is low risk. The total number of infections resulting from a million low risk events and a hundred million low risk events varies drastically.

The Government management of the epidemic at this point doesn't care about your personal risk of infection. It cares about whether we get six thousand new infections tomorrow or seven thousand. If the R number goes up or down. That's the risk factor.

Then there's adherence to the rules. If you meet a family member at the park and it starts to rain you go home. If you meet in the garden eventually a percentage of people decide it's alright to sit in the kitchen two metres apart. Still a low risk event, but higher than being in the open air. It's a slippery slope.

The lines have to be arbitrarily drawn somewhere.

I'm with you, i think the lockdown should have been extended.

re adherence to the rules, you meet in the park, it starts to rain, you sit in the bandstand or a covered shelter together potentially not 2m apart, Or, you meet in the park and distance perhaps after a couple of times you decide it's ok to sit together and have a picnic.

A garbled message by it's very nature means that the lines haven't been drawn, hence, this is why so many people are questioning.

People need to be told the logic behind the governments decisions.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

So, my father could drive to a beach, my wife and i can can drive to a beach we can stay 2m apart and thats OK. BUT my father can't come to my house and go into my garden (by means of a side gate and not actually enter the house) and sit on our garden furniture 2m apart?

Where's the difference ?

A dobber's delight!

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Stuart

Be interesting to see what people find. Despite the privacy concerns, If the app helps, I will happily install it.

However, the fact they tested on Jailbroken iphones makes me question the results they got. They are not testing like for like. The Jailbreak may well have altered some aspect of the way the OS handles bluetooth.

I have some knowledge of iPhone development (not extensive by any means, but I have written the odd app for my own use). As far as the testing goes, as far as I can see, they should not have needed to jailbreak the phones. Even assuming they couldn't have used android phones to actually monitor the Bluetooth communication, there are a number of devices on the market (for both legal and illegal purposes) that will monitor Bluetooth communication. They could have used one. Assuming the source code published is complete, they didn't even need to jailbreak the device to install the app. They could have compiled it from the source code using their own developer credentials, and installed it via the Apple Development systems and Apple's Testflight app (which enables developers to send a limited number of invites to enable users to install beta versions).

This was exactly the point I was making. If you have even a basic understanding of Software Development, it is clear your validation of the functional use cases is done against a representative Production environment.

This is an interesting observation on the app from:

https://www.businessinsider.com/nhsx...20-4?r=US&IR=T

Ross Anderson, a University of Cambridge professor who advised on the app's security and development, told BI that UK authorities want "fine-grained" contact tracing. The logic here is that it would enable the UK's epidemiologists to take more effective action in response to COVID-19.

Now it isn't clear that the app meets Apple and Google's standards, and whether it would work properly, particularly on the iPhone.

Anderson told Business Insider: "The NHSX people [have] this delightful choice between an app that won't work... or an app that will run on the platform but won't enable them to do the epidemiology they want."

Jon Crowcroft, Marconi professor of Communications Systems at the University of Cambridge, raised similar questions.

"Apple and Google's policies on all COVID-19 related apps was that if they came from a government health agency, subject to normal other checks, they'd be okayed," he told Business Insider, saying that it wasn't clear if the NHSX app might be blocked.

Ultimately, practicality may win out over politics. The obvious solution would be to rebuild the app on Apple and Google's APIs.

Another source said: "Everyone expects the [Department of Health] to rewrite their app to use the API, and claim victory."

---------- Post added at 14:10 ---------- Previous post was at 14:04 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

The vast, vast majority of workers this morning were either key workers anyway or working from home and still doing so. The outcome of the change is negligible by comparison.

I am not convinced. A friend whose son was working from home has now been told he has to return to work at the office and travel there on Public Transport. The employer, in this case, just wants to start to get back to their definition of normal. Given the new labour market with the severe increase in unemployment, the ability of the employee to push back against the Employer is much reduced.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I am not convinced. A friend whose son was working from home has now been told he has to return to work at the office and travel there on Public Transport. The employer, in this case, just wants to start to get back to their definition of normal. Given the new labour market with the severe increase in unemployment, the ability of the employee to push back against the Employer is much reduced.

The return to work is for those who can't work from home. The employer in this case is going against Government advice.

Step one will begin from 11 May. This includes encouraging people back to their workplaces if they cannot work from home. From 13 May the public will also be allowed ‘unlimited exercise’ and can sunbathe or play sports with members of their household. The prime minister also said that people ‘could drive to other destinations’. Other restrictions remain in place.

Link

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by pip08456

The return to work is for those who can't work from home. The employer in this case is going against Government advice.



Link

And yet Raab said it was from Wednesday

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Just had an email from our office saying 'yes we watched it last night' and 'no, carry on working from home'. There's no plans to open up our offices in the near future...

Which is fine, the government weren't asking people to open up their offices if they don't need to.

---------- Post added at 15:12 ---------- Previous post was at 15:10 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Local children’s nursery (the owner has around 10 sites) sent this out.



Then followed up with this

another misconception

Following the PM's announcements tonight that some people who cannot work from home will be allowed to return to work from next week, I just wanted to let all parents know that we will be continuing to restrict childcare offered to our key worker list provided by Government until we are asked to amend it.

It wasn't just announced last night. It has "ALWAYS" been the instruction that if you can't work from home you can continue to work as long as you can do it safely. That didn't just happen last night.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Which is fine, the government weren't asking people to open up their offices if they don't need to.

---------- Post added at 15:12 ---------- Previous post was at 15:10 ----------



another misconception

It wasn't just announced last night. It has "ALWAYS" been the instruction that if you can't work from home you can continue to work as long as you can do it safely. That didn't just happen last night.

The reference was that only key workers' children could access nursery care or schools, as per the GOV.UK guidance. If other places of work are opening up, which was what the PM stated last night

if you work in construction or manufacturing, or can't do your job from home, you'll be encouraged to go back to work as long as you can keep your distance from others

This is different than before, otherwise why would he have said it?

Schools, and all childcare providers, are therefore being asked to continue to provide care for a limited number of children - children who are vulnerable, and children whose parents are critical to the Covid-19 response and cannot be safely cared for at home.

Vulnerable children include children who are supported by social care, those with safeguarding and welfare needs, including child in need plans, on child protection plans, ‘looked after’ children, young carers, disabled children and those with education, health and care (EHC) plans.

We know that schools will also want to support other children facing social difficulties, and we will support head teachers to do so.

Parents whose work is critical to the COVID-19 response include those who work in health and social care and in other key sectors outlined below. Many parents working in these sectors may be able to ensure their child is kept at home. And every child who can be safely cared for at home must be.

Please, therefore, follow these key principles:

If it is at all possible for children to be at home, then they must be.

If a child needs specialist support, is vulnerable or has a parent who is a critical worker, then educational provision will be available for them.

The nurseries were given a list of "key workers" by the Government - if you weren't on the list, you didn't get child-care or were allowed to attend school.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The reference was that only key workers' children could access nursery care or schools, as per the GOV.UK guidance. If other places of work are opening up (which was what the PM stated last night



The nurseries were given a list of "key workers" by the Government - if you weren't on the list, you didn't get child-care or were allowed to attend school.

But the message hasn't changed, it is still only key workers that can get child care.

---------- Post added at 15:37 ---------- Previous post was at 15:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

If other places of work are opening up, which was what the PM stated last night This is different than before, otherwise why would he have said it?
.

it is not different from before.

when the lockdown was announced there were certain things that had to close. Bars, restaurants, cafes.

Anywhere else, as long as you could work safely you could work.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by jfman

Ah well, if Sage has ruled it out I give it about a week before we all wear facemasks out and about.

The Novice Nostradamus out by a week.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Pierre

But the message hasn't changed, it is still only key workers that can get child care.

Still using that one with the kids - give me gyp or fight doing your school work at home then off to school for you.

Disclaimer - I wouldn't really send them back to school, they have been great really and, as our office is closed, it's no problem having them at home