View previous topic | View next topic

Pandemic 2020 - the day after

Page 18 of 19
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 17, 18, 19  Next

PDR
1379074.  Sat Apr 10, 2021 7:39 pm Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:
Some of you may be struggling, but that may be because you are mischaracterising the nature of the discussion. No of course nobody accepts that 16% of the population should be discriminated against. That is, in fact, the entire point of the posts Leith has been patiently making - that there are alternatives that don't rely on access to technology.


It is rather confusing, given that this whole branch of the thread was started when Barbados suggested that cost would be a justification for excluding people without access to the technology in post 1378714:

barbados wrote:
So what happens if the alternatives available are not as efficient / more costly?
Should every alternative be made available (down to knocking on the door and physically giving the information) just to ensure that the odd person who doesn’t have access to a particular delivery method, even thought that would make the service exorbitantly expensive?


And then he went on to say (post 1378767):

barbados wrote:
I gave the numbers of smartphone ownership in the U.K., and asked how far we needed to go to include as many while finding the balance of efficiency and cost.


And in post 1378783 he went on to say (post 1378783):

barbados wrote:
I'd suggest you go back and read my contribution.
It has been to ask what the solution would be to get around the 16% of people who don't possess a smartphone - rather than the lower order as per your suggestion.
Your resolution is to get the already struggling hospitality industry to shell out some more money to allow them to open up and do all the really want - which is earn a living.


All of these are proposing and justifying the exclusion of those who don't have access to smartphones, and then to ridicule any suggested complementary system, such as post 1378815 where he said:

barbados wrote:

What actually is the bigger issue then?
Because the answer to the question “what about the people without a smartphone?” Is “there will also be a paper version available”

The big question for me, is how do you police a paper version of the certificate?


Nowhere did he say "there would be an alternative system for those without smartphones" - quite the reverse in fact, so the reason why people are struggling is because he never actually said it. He has attempted to twist and misrepresent what he said, and then got sarcastic and abusive with people (including you) who called him out on it.

PDR

 
barbados
1379076.  Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:55 am Reply with quote

Once again you are failing to grasp the simple concept of English.
I asked a question - a simple one, although you seem to be struggling to understand it.
The initial claim (which it turns out would seem to be false) was that everyone who wants to go out, will need to have a smartphone app.
It is accepted that not everyone has that available to them.
In order to discuss what would be a good solution to the problem of a problem that does not currently exist (there is no such requirement) you need to know the balance between what is feasible and what would provide full coverage.
Were the acceptable level 16% (my rough figures offered 17%) then there is not a problem.
We then went on - once you had left the conversation, to the suggestion of supplementing the smartphone option (which would be the cheapest and easiest solution) with a card based option. This option was highlighted in Brock’s post.
The card based system - while filling in the gaps is frowned upon by the people in the UK , it has been for some time, and one of the reasons ID cards were not introduced by the last Labour government. This would be a bit of a stumbling block, that we were discussing quite happily.
Although to answer the final “point” you make
PDR wrote:

Nowhere did he say "there would be an alternative system for those without smartphones" - quite the reverse in fact,

I’d suggest you take a look at he conversation from post 1378787. An alternative was put forward, and we were discussing the pitfalls of proposal. Myself and Leith were discussing an alternative, Leith was looking at the idea of a fully carded system, and I was coming from a blended system.
I have also not been abusive to anyone, particularly Jenny. (Unless you can show any unjustified abusive comments of course)
So please, quit with your trolling, and either contribute to the conversation that is going on, because I’m sure if you want to you would be able to make a valid contribution, or leave it alone.

So we are currently at the position of a fully carded option, or a blended option of app and card.
It will still miss some but the number missing is getting smaller.


Last edited by barbados on Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:01 am; edited 2 times in total

 
Awitt
1379077.  Sun Apr 11, 2021 2:01 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
Awitt wrote:
In Australia every place I've gone has had the QR code scanner. I have that feature on my phone but don't use the internet needed to use it properly as it sucks my $30 credit that has to last a month - I didn't realise it needed internet connection.

Interestingly, people have said in our media that since using this method to sign in, they've been hit with more spam than ever before.

The booksale I attended yesterday had paper forms to fill out - being an organisation run by typically older people, they'd be well aware of the facts that not everyone can use the technology nor has the phone with QR code.

And our vaccine 'cards' have been business card sized so can fit easily in the wallet.

In the UK, the QR codes are connected to the track and trace


Here too and if that's the only feature available then those shops/businesses will lose out on my business because I can't use it.

 
barbados
1379079.  Sun Apr 11, 2021 2:16 am Reply with quote

It doesn’t prevent your use of the establishment (at least not in the uk) All it does is record the time you enter the establishment and adds an arbitrary amount of time, to aid the “trace” side of the app.
Let’s say you visit Harold’s bar in Ramsey Street and the following day you develop symptoms. You will know the people you were with at your time there, however you couldn’t possible know everyone that was in there at the same time as you.
By scanning in using the app and the camera on your phone (you don’t need anything other than your track and trace app and a very small data packet) you can then easily inform everyone who had done the same to carry out whatever your regulations state you should do - isolate / test / dance on the ceiling etc.
It doesn’t know if you are vaccinated, it doesn’t know if you are apparently immune, just that you were at a location - a bit like when people used to “check in” on facebook.

 
Jenny
1379114.  Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:26 am Reply with quote

Amazing - if only people would a) all be able to afford or want to have smart phones and b) know how to use them properly, how simple life would be....

And I think we can all grasp simple English so I really do think none of us need to be spoken to in quite that condescending a manner, which pisses me off, for one. I asked you privately to reign it in, and now I'm making it public. Please conduct your posts in a polite, factual and respectful manner. I don't care what anybody else has done at any other time. That is irrelevant to the fact that at this precise moment it is you I am asking to monitor and control your own behaviour.

 
barbados
1379115.  Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:32 am Reply with quote

I do believe it’s referred to as satire ;)

 
Jenny
1379118.  Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:38 am Reply with quote

No it isn't. Please take the point as it was given.

 
barbados
1379120.  Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:48 am Reply with quote

Isn’t it odd how unjustified personal insults are satire.
Still the conversation we were having was private, and in the interest of balance, this was the last comment on the matter in response to you request
Quote:

This is about you, not PDR, and you can rest assured that I have said my say to him as well.

I repeat. Please reign it in.



Quote:

That is not an issue

Although If he, or anyone else come to mention it, throws personal insults in my direction I shall respond in a similar fashion, and we'll just call it satire

As I said to you last night, I will respond in the way that I am spoken to.

 
Jenny
1379147.  Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:12 pm Reply with quote

OK well I think a suspension from this forum for a while may allow you to get over the need to argue with the moderator's (or actually that should be the moderators' since I am not the only moderator who is fed up with it) polite requests regarding your behaviour.

See you in a couple of weeks.


Last edited by Jenny on Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:25 pm; edited 1 time in total

 
PDR
1379218.  Mon Apr 12, 2021 9:13 am Reply with quote

Of course another disadvantage of the Smartphone option is that you are the mercy of the rules and policies of other organisations who might decide to block your app if they believe you have violated them (no appeal, no recourse).

PDR

 
Dix
1379220.  Mon Apr 12, 2021 9:59 am Reply with quote

And you might have the wrong kind of smartphone.

Having been on the receiving end of a Govenment smartphone app I can say that it doesn't feel right to have to borrow a phone at your workplace to apply for something important.
My own isn't smart, and the significant other's phone(s) were both the wrong operating system, so he showed up at my workplace to get the thing done.
And on top of that, the process required us to enable features that the owner of the phone might have disabled for security reasons

 
suze
1379238.  Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:58 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
Of course another disadvantage of the Smartphone option is that you are the mercy of the rules and policies of other organisations who might decide to block your app if they believe you have violated them (no appeal, no recourse).


Does the government really have a leg on which to stand here?

It signed up to an agreement with Apple and Google about what its app would and would not be allowed to do, and now it's acting all surprised about not being allowed to do what it acknowledged that it wouldn't be.

As noted in the piece to which PDR links, "The Department of Health seemed to think this update to the app would go through without problems. It's hard to understand why."

The piece also says "The team behind the app was told not to disclose why the update had failed to be released on schedule". We're paying for it, why does the government think we shouldn't be allowed to know?

 
PDR
1379257.  Mon Apr 12, 2021 11:56 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:

Does the government really have a leg on which to stand here?


Nope, none whatsoever. Just making the point that using (say) a smartphone means your service could be at the whim of a 3rd-party's Ts&Cs.

The Govmint assumed they could bully it through just as they thought they could with commercial pilot licensing (well all aviation licensing) and shellfish regulations - in all three cases they had one of their team don a pair of special Boris specs to read the rules and then come up with a convoluted argument to say they could do it. The trouble is that the owner of a set of rules is under no particular obligation to accept the convoluted arguments presented by 3rd country ministers - this doesn't seem to have occurred to the mendocracy.

PDR

 
CB27
1379262.  Mon Apr 12, 2021 1:38 pm Reply with quote

This is the problem with political interference in such schemes, and it applies at all levels of politics.

I had a similar experience about 12 years ago when the ALMO I worked for was returned into the Council. We'd spent extra on our payment card solutions to use our own IIN, which allowed us to use the cards for other purposes. We organised deals with both the Council and local businesses to either give discounts on certain services, or give priority to our residents when these cards were used to pay or create a digital "transaction" (i.e. nil payment), and we could report back on usage from our payment reports.

It was meant to be for simple things, such as allowing residents to park free at certain times in prime locations, have priority for services like the recycling centre, etc. The idea was that our residents, who were locals, could have some simple advantages over non-locals, something that people often requested in survey after survey.

Then the service was taken into the council and they decided to use it for targeted mailings, and start issuing cards to people who didn't live within the borough to incentivise people to come, which we told them wasn't how it was marketed or designed for, and it was inevitable that there were plenty of complaints as it made the whole scheme rather worthless, and was now costing more to run.

I always think when it comes to such projects, there's nothing wrong with it being funded and governed by politicians, but it should always be managed by employed professionals, with a transparent statement of delivery.

 
dr.bob
1379493.  Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:12 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
PDR wrote:
Of course another disadvantage of the Smartphone option is that you are the mercy of the rules and policies of other organisations who might decide to block your app if they believe you have violated them (no appeal, no recourse).


Does the government really have a leg on which to stand here?


I'm glad to learn from that article that the Scottish government have handled this situation better by launching an entirely separate app.

I'm slightly concerned by the fact that reading this article is the first I've heard of this entirely separate app, despite it being launched on 18 December.

 

Page 18 of 19
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 17, 18, 19  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group