Working From Home - Impacts of Coronavirus

[Syntax Error]

The NHS(x) source code is out and there is of course controversy.
...ETC...

Just taken a look at that dump of code today. The NHSX developers are responding to the issues that the app enables the full android location class and, the private key is generated by the external server and not the user device as, it's done this way by design. And they took the lifeboats off the Titanic, by design.

The UK goverment rejected the Google api because it did not provide them with a centralised dataset that could be shared for the "public interest."

Google knows the user has installed the app, along with a ton of other Google Play info. Which makes complete privacy from third parties a moot point. One poster on Github suggested the app has another privacy policy to cover the play store privacy policy.

I noted a reference to "com.microsoft.appcenter.analytics.Analytics". This is MS App Center Analytics for understanding user and app interaction. Likely just some innocent development fluff.

Difficulty is the NHSX app is trying to work in a way that all other apps in the play store do not. Not recording as much about your activity as possible. Welcome to the world of public sector I.T.

Still wondering what this line if code does, must be something to do with social distancing?

Code: [Select]

private fun configureBouncyCastleProvider() {
        // Remove existing built in Bouncy Castle

bouncy

[Zero999]

For those playing at home...

BBC News Online

Coronavirus doctor's diary: The strange case of the choir that coughed in January

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52589449

It wouldn't be surprising if this has been around for much longer, than currently accepted. The trouble is, many of the symptoms are similar to other viruses, so without an antibody test, there's no way of knowing for sure.

Another worrying thing is there's an increased risk of death in ethnic minorities, especially in black people.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52602467

It's really frustrating the media seem to be jumping to the immediate conclusion that social and economic factors are the reason for this, rather than something biological. It's widely accepted men are more likely to die from COVID-19, than women, given equal risk factors such as age and co-morbidities and this is likely to be genetic, so why is it unacceptable to consider this might be possible for other ethic groups?

I think vitamin D deficiency could be a significant factor. People with darker skin make vitamin D less efficiently than those with light skin and vitamin D is important for proper function of the immune system. Vitamin supplements are cheap and giving them free to non-whites would no doubt save lives.

Going back on topic. Employers should focus more on protecting those more at risk from COVID-19, than those in lower risk groups. Older, non-white men should be given priority for working from home, or in roles which don't require mixing with others, over those in lower risk groups, such as younger white women. Supermarkets should try to move as many of their higher risk employees to non-customer facing roles, such as working in the warehouse, rather than at a checkout. So what if that means customers notice more younger, white female staff on the shop floor and checkouts, than older black men? It will save lives. I'm all for giving people equal opportunities, but this virus doesn't give everyone the same opportunity for life! Fuck political correctness - it's now costing lives!

[DrG]

The Challenges of Phased Re-Opening.

In many places, this is going to be treacherous.

Take the state of Georgia, in the US:



The majority of the state has a low incidence rate but the largest cities show a different situation. Let's say bars and restaurants in the low-incidence counties open up, but not in the high-incident areas. Where are folks in the hard hit areas going to go?

[DrG]

The Challenges of Phased Re-Opening.

It gets more challenging when you considered neighboring states in the US.

Here is a county map for Maryland:



And here is the southern neighbor, Virginia.



Those high-incidence areas in the N-NE border Maryland with the territory of Washington DC between the two.

How can just one county open up? How can just one of these states open up?

Here I have plotted the new daily cases for all three combined.



Taken together, there is no way one can rationally argue that there is a decline in incidence, even though some counties in Maryland or Virginia are low incidence.

So, the situation is, indeed, complicated. Folks in local Governments look at the data too and, at least sometimes, publicly communicate that even if the state opens up, the county can't - https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2020/05/we-have-a-caseload-which-is-still-growing-montgomery-co-may-not-follow-marylands-phase-1-reopening/

I expect to see situations like in South Korea, where some segment is opened up and then quickly closed as incidents rise.

Of course, that takes testing and a lot of testing.

[DrG]

The Challenges of Phased Re-Opening.

Even low-incidence countries that are relatively "isolated" have the same challenge...one territory has many times the number of cases than another.



I'm hoping that with accurate and shared data and a whole lot of testing, that we can learn from all the different areas world-wide. I worry that go-and-stop restrictions will be very difficult to adjust to, but I don't see how they are avoidable.

[jeffheath]

I don't understand the point of the maps and graphs. The more people in a place, the more people that have the disease. You talk about "reopening" as if counties and states have an on or off button. People going back to work physically will cause a rise in the number of people with the disease, obviously. That doesn't mean re-restricting "strategically" will help anything.

[DrG]

I don't understand the point of the maps and graphs. The more people in a place, the more people that have the disease. You talk about "reopening" as if counties and states have an on or off button. People going back to work physically will cause a rise in the number of people with the disease, obviously. That doesn't mean re-restricting "strategically" will help anything.

I believe you when you say that you don't understand the points of the maps and graphs.

Have you not read the PLANS that States and local Governments use and the FEDERAL guidelines for opening up? Do you not understand that the US is not going to have a ribbon cutting for Opening Back Up Day (despite the head clown's Easter fantasy). Do you understand the concept of PHASED reopening? If you did, then you understand that the point of all those many maps and graphs that made your head hurt is to illustrate the difficulty of the challenge. 

I also believe that you think "That doesn't mean re-restricting "strategically" will help anything". Did you not understand the concept of overwhelming health care resources and to avoid that situation (which has been experienced already in the US and is not simply a model prediction) might very well involve re-restricting "strategically"

We are coming from very different perspectives and the distance between them means to me that I can't discuss the issue with you. I am saying so, because it represents a personal change where I simply don't have the patience to "discuss" certain topics with certain people. You are entitled to your opinion and so am I.

[Syntax Error]

I don't understand the point of the maps and graphs. The more people in a place, the more people that have the disease. You talk about "reopening" as if counties and states have an on or off button. People going back to work physically will cause a rise in the number of people with the disease, obviously. That doesn't mean re-restricting "strategically" will help anything.

I agree. In the UK and Europe we have some very highly populated areas. It's these regions where most people live, work, commute and are economically productive. Covid-19 infections and deaths are a function of population density. It's hard to sell the lockdown to Aussies who live in a country the size of Europe with a population half that of England. It is also hard to un-sell the lockdown to Londoners who live in an area similar to Gran Canaria with a population twice that of New Zealand. For high density population zones, reinfection is inevitable.

[DrG]

I don't understand the point of the maps and graphs. The more people in a place, the more people that have the disease. You talk about "reopening" as if counties and states have an on or off button. People going back to work physically will cause a rise in the number of people with the disease, obviously. That doesn't mean re-restricting "strategically" will help anything.

I agree. /--/ For high density population zones, reinfection is inevitable.

How much is inevitable? What is the proportion of possible reinfection that is inevitable - all of it? Be specific - everybody knows that SOME additional infections will occur (I don't even know what you mean by 'reinfection' because that literally means an individual who had been infected became infected again), but how much? Seriously, please answer the question. You sound like a representative of the "The Herd Immunity Crowd-Think".

C'mon man, we should be able to do better than that.

[nctnico]

I don't understand the point of the maps and graphs. The more people in a place, the more people that have the disease. You talk about "reopening" as if counties and states have an on or off button. People going back to work physically will cause a rise in the number of people with the disease, obviously. That doesn't mean re-restricting "strategically" will help anything.

I agree. In the UK and Europe we have some very highly populated areas. It's these regions where most people live, work, commute and are economically productive. Covid-19 infections and deaths are a function of population density. It's hard to sell the lockdown to Aussies who live in a country the size of Europe with a population half that of England. It is also hard to un-sell the lockdown to Londoners who live in an area similar to Gran Canaria with a population twice that of New Zealand. For high density population zones, reinfection is inevitable.

If this where true then the virus would have stayed in China. In reality virusses spread by people getting in close contact with eachother. Population density only matters to the point of the number of people potentially having close contacts.

Take the population density (on the left) versus the Covid-19 infection rates (on the right) in the Netherlands for example:

There is no clear relation between infections and density. There is some background information which explains the Covid-19 concentrations though. From the south-west to the north-east there is an area we call the 'Bible-belt' where a more than average number of people go to the church. In the south-east part there is an annual spring carnaval involving many indoor festivities which takes place in -you guessed it- Februari. This region extends into Germany which also has a high concentration of Covid-19 infections.

[Syntax Error]

An important variable is global connectivity. Cities that are international are at a greater risk than those where everyone stays inside the citidel.

Another variable is sociability. Football matches and festivals are the popularist culprits in the spread of Covid-19. Social distancing only works if a society can go without clubbing.

Maybe another variable is the 'mix density'? That's how close people have to be to get from A to B. If everyone travels alone by car the mix density is 0. If everyone travels by bus, the mix density is 1.

These would all be multipliers in a complex model.

[cdev]

There are thousands of coronaviruses and other viruses in bats and other animals so we can expect new ones every couple of years. Thats a sobering thought.

[SiliconWizard]

No need to inflate this out of proportion either. The common cold is also due to a coronavirus. Coronaviruses are actually very common.

[cdev]

Rhinoviruses and coronaviruses. But youre right, many are coronaviruses and those coronaviruses rarely become life thretening except in the severaly iummunocompromised, or very young people. Its only SARS, MERS and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) that are.

[cdev]

Well, they were planning on a massive world-wide downsizing anyway, before the epidemic. Its part of the WTO. They had been negotiating the terms off and on since the 80s. "Services" basically 80% of the economy. So its going to be huge. Right now its claimed they are throwing away trillions of dollars in wages that are too high.

This is the real reason they can't/wont fix anything.

I don't understand the point of the maps and graphs. The more people in a place, the more people that have the disease. You talk about "reopening" as if counties and states have an on or off button. People going back to work physically will cause a rise in the number of people with the disease, obviously. That doesn't mean re-restricting "strategically" will help anything.

I agree. /--/ For high density population zones, reinfection is inevitable.

How much is inevitable? What is the proportion of possible reinfection that is inevitable - all of it? Be specific - everybody knows that SOME additional infections will occur (I don't even know what you mean by 'reinfection' because that literally means an individual who had been infected became infected again), but how much? Seriously, please answer the question. You sound like a representative of the "The Herd Immunity Crowd-Think".

C'mon man, we should be able to do better than that.

Actually, there is no certainty that people who have been infected wont get infected again. Its not certain because a lot of people who tested okay got reinfected or reactivated, so they simply dont know. It may end up being like some other viruses where the virus reactivates. At least that is what I have read recently. Recent events in Wuhan might be helpful in figuring that out. But, who can you trust. Governments are likely to spin news to support going back to the way it was before irregardless of what the science says they should do. Because they are being pressured by investors to reopen their factories. Its all about foreign investment, here too. They spend billions on a factory, they definitely dont want to leave it stting idle.

They will bring in people from other countries to do those jobs that the expensive Americans quit...
 
Which is what they were planning to do anyway. Since 1986. Thats a long time.

[nctnico]

Rhinoviruses and coronaviruses. But youre right, many are coronaviruses and those coronaviruses rarely become life thretening except in the severaly iummunocompromised, or very young people. Its only SARS, MERS and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) that are.

I wonder what will be invented first: a useable nuclear fusion reactor or a universal flu vaccine. I put my money on the first. And even if a universal flu vaccine gets invented there will be another disease which causes a pandemic. It is a sobering thought that your body is continously battling with virusses and bacteria that try to kill it.

[PlainName]

a lot of people who tested okay got reinfected or reactivated

The hypothesis is that those people were merely still coughing up original debris from their lungs, which would trigger a positive test even though they weren't reinfected (nor still infected).

[Someone]

Most of the places planning to reduce restrictions are doing so fully planning to reintroduce restrictions if the spread starts heading towards overwhelming the healthcare system. Restrictions will likely come and go periodically for some time to come, as finding the balancing point where healthcare demand matches supply is very difficult (non-deterministic system, long lag time, etc).

For countries with more control that will likely include localised interventions/restrictions with better granularity.

The larger picture is countries/regions considering different values on human life.

[jeffheath]

I don't understand the point of the maps and graphs. The more people in a place, the more people that have the disease. You talk about "reopening" as if counties and states have an on or off button. People going back to work physically will cause a rise in the number of people with the disease, obviously. That doesn't mean re-restricting "strategically" will help anything.

I believe you when you say that you don't understand the points of the maps and graphs.

Have you not read the PLANS that States and local Governments use and the FEDERAL guidelines for opening up? Do you not understand that the US is not going to have a ribbon cutting for Opening Back Up Day (despite the head clown's Easter fantasy). Do you understand the concept of PHASED reopening? If you did, then you understand that the point of all those many maps and graphs that made your head hurt is to illustrate the difficulty of the challenge. 

I also believe that you think "That doesn't mean re-restricting "strategically" will help anything". Did you not understand the concept of overwhelming health care resources and to avoid that situation (which has been experienced already in the US and is not simply a model prediction) might very well involve re-restricting "strategically"

We are coming from very different perspectives and the distance between them means to me that I can't discuss the issue with you. I am saying so, because it represents a personal change where I simply don't have the patience to "discuss" certain topics with certain people. You are entitled to your opinion and so am I.

Why do I feel like this strategic re-restricting is just "send everyone back to work, if the hospitals fill up, send them home again" 

[paulca]

It is a sobering thought that your body is continously battling with virusses and bacteria that try to kill it.

I think pandemics like this put us firmly in our place.  I say it's enough of this "Earth was created for man" BS spun by religions.  Man is but part of nature, not the other way around.

The romanticising of nature is something only those in rich cultures with good health care can afford.  Those that are protected from most of the wrath and brutality of nature celebrate it and seek "natural" this and that.  Those who are not protected from it would take your synthetic this or that at the drop of a hat.

Most of the world is currently being dipped into the bath of the later.  Realising that we are just part of nature and nature is a right fucking bitch most of the time.  It's time to get off our high horses and realise this, rather than staying firmly up our own arses.

[Electro Detective]

Well, as forecasted many weeks ago, we are all still here and in good health, and it seems many none the wiser

some or many? of us not fortunate to have a cushy 'Working From Home' gig,
now have one foot in the poor house along with local battlers
and businesses who have tossed in the towel and shut shop,
with the no rent/debt riddled landlords and suppliers getting screwed on the deal too

But that's oh so boring and repetitive, right?  Agreed! 

So without further ado, it's giggle time to ease the disappointment and frustration

Please note either or both Youtube videos are STRICTLY for Sir Tom Jones fans and admirers 
with a sense of humor and open mind

youtube.com/watch?v=IwOtWmmKZlU

youtube.com/watch?v=18ex_0yMFhw

[EEVblog]

Only one new case in our state yesterday, and that was someone who returned form the UK. And I believe the majority of our daily cases country wide have now been coming from one source in Victoria. And remember, this is a still with hundreds of thousands of people not locked down still out and about doing essential work. Pretty amazing.

[coppice]

I think pandemics like this put us firmly in our place.  I say it's enough of this "Earth was created for man" BS spun by religions.  Man is but part of nature, not the other way around.

No. No. The Earth was created for man, but by a God who is a real scumbag.

Seriously the issue of suffering in religious doctrine amuses me. Ancient religions used to have an answer - humans live at the mercy of a bunch of scumbag Gods. Modern religions are so wedded to the idea that God must be nice they just leave the issue suffering hanging.

[Simon]

Looking at what disheveled information the UK government are willing to release in a confusing mishmosh of UK data and England only data you can see a linear decline in cases in england that will hit bottom in just over a week:

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/#category=utlas&map=rate

But there is a lot of confusion here with mixed messages. Stay at home has been replaced with stay alert but we are to stay home for 3 weeks more. Apparently people are now encouraged to return to work if they can't work from home but then they never told people not to go to work only to work from home if posible.

If the UK government tried to put their statements into a program they would get as many unexpected results and compile errors as the public is confused.

Oh yea tips can open but only rubbish that is unsafe to keep at home should be taken. But you can't take harmful waste to a tip without a commercial licence. It's a complete mess.

[SiliconWizard]

Seriously the issue of suffering in religious doctrine amuses me. Ancient religions used to have an answer - humans live at the mercy of a bunch of scumbag Gods. Modern religions are so wedded to the idea that God must be nice they just leave the issue suffering hanging.

Well, seems true that ancient, non-monotheist religions tended (there are still some on Earth currently) to put the harshness of "nature" in the center of daily life - with various cults, but still imaging how harsh our environment was, and making man live with that.

Monotheist religions OTOH seem to have introduced a completely different approach, in which "nature" is not inherently harsh anymore per se. When it turns "against" man, it becomes because man did something "wrong". And so yes, man progressively lost the notion that our environment was inherently harsh, and acquired the notion of actually feeling guilty if nature suddenly seemed to be against us.