Coronavirus pandemic

[Rothman]

Immunisations were used to catch Bin Laden?

[kalvado]

Immunisations were used to catch Bin Laden?

Fake vaccinations, to make things worse.
CIA used vaccination as a way to collect DNA samples from kids - needles were collected and blood residue analyzed instead of disposal on the spot. Once they found close relatives of Bin Laden (and looks like he had a lot),  that area came under the microscope as possible family residence.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vaccinations-osama-bin-ladens-dna

Another example was when 23andme data allowed to identify close relative of someone wanted for an old crime.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/26/17288532/golden-state-killer-east-area-rapist-genealogy-websites-dna-genetic-investigation
While what the guy did means he deserves no mercy, overall situation is equally interesting.

This is not cell phone related, but these situations struck me as very unforeseen outcomes of data collection.

[SEWIGuy]

Well when you retire and you don't want to be disturbed, just turn off your phone.  Or don't take it with you.  If you want to have just a landline, then go for it.  But there are alternatives between landline and full, in your face service.

[J N Winkler]

Count me as someone that prefers to have the totality of the world's knowledge in his pocket over a landline.

And, I prefer advertisers knowing enough about me to tailor advertisements to me.  Much better than having irrelevant stuff thrown at me.

And, I see a lot of benefit from using Facebook in just keeping in touch with friends.  The cost of having whatever data known is pretty low.

I often wonder if those that are most vocal about privacy concerns are those who struggle to find importance or significance in life.  Assigning value to personal data is a way of feeling more significant.

Speaking for myself, I am very unresponsive to advertising in general, and targeting does not make it any better.  Since my initial strategy is to free-ride on other people's ad support, the marketing ecosystem will always look to enact business cases that engage people who respond to ads (whatever the underlying tech platform is) before it moves on to people like me.

I do have a Facebook account and regularly check it to stay in touch with friends and family.  However, long ago I largely got out of the business of generating my own content for it.  By now, I suspect a large share of those who use Facebook have come to realize that it is healthier to regard their lives as separate from their presentations of them on Facebook (or indeed any other social media platform).

I don't know that I am especially vocal about privacy concerns, or that I have an inflated sense of my own importance or significance, but what I do see is that social media platforms rely on one-sided contractual relationships.  I am a small and not especially well-off player, while each of the major platforms has a market capitalization in the billions of dollars.  I also know from my own experiences writing downloader scripts that they can scrape a considerable amount of psychologically relevant information about you just by looking at how fast you type stuff in text entry boxes, and they can also take advantage of third-party data brokerage to build a much richer and more elaborate profile of you than is directly available from any information you give them.  So I have always been sympathetic to arguments that there should be checks on exploitation of these technological possibilities to protect our right to privacy and to integrity of the person.

[ozarkman417]

For states with school districts that don't have online classes and communication down to a science (which I assume is most or all states), it seems much too early to be closing schools for the rest of the year. That's over 2 months away in most states!

I heard that many states close school at the beginning of June/late May. My school is open till June 19th.

My school district is one of the early-ending districts, and we hardly get any snow days (we had 3, and at least one was for a storm that never happened). I only have 39 days of school left (and this includes weekends).
I had "early-closing" before the edit when ironically my school district is always the last to close, whatever the reason may be.

[webny99]

Cuomo, at least, is taking the tactic of not wanting to make policy more than a few weeks forward at a time.

Which... seems like the pretty obvious thing to do. Info/data collection and reporting has been and will be lagging through this entire crisis, and as long as that's the case, how could you possibly expect to plan long-term at this point?

In this case, Cuomo is extremely adamant on keeping things coordinated at the state level, and is basically smacking DiBlasio for daring to try to make a decision on his own without coordinating it through the governor's office.

NYC being forced to acknowledge they're part of a much larger state and not orbiting in their own solar system?
Snarky as it sounds, that's a very welcome development that's been a heck of a long time coming!

[SSOWorld]

YMMV on how states handle local governments - Iowa for example does not allow locals to set restrictions.  Dubuque County wanted to order up a stay-at-home.  They would have gotten it nixed.  (The state governor refuses to order one)

[J N Winkler]

YMMV on how states handle local governments - Iowa for example does not allow locals to set restrictions.  Dubuque County wanted to order up a stay-at-home.  They would have gotten it nixed.  (The state governor refuses to order one)

In Kansas, the county health officer can order quarantines, lockdowns, staying at home, etc., but our county stay-at-home order is currently overriden by a gubernatorial executive order mandating a statewide lockdown and forbidding counties from enforcing orders of their own that are less or more restrictive while it is in effect.

[Max Rockatansky]

YMMV on how states handle local governments - Iowa for example does not allow locals to set restrictions.  Dubuque County wanted to order up a stay-at-home.  They would have gotten it nixed.  (The state governor refuses to order one)

In Kansas, the county health officer can order quarantines, lockdowns, staying at home, etc., but our county stay-at-home order is currently overriden by a gubernatorial executive order mandating a statewide lockdown and forbidding counties from enforcing orders of their own that are less or more restrictive while it is in effect.

It's all over the place in California.  The state has orders but so do the counties and cities, to that end the local authorities seem to be more on the draconian side at this point with threats of actual police enforcement. 

[TheGrassGuy]

If you ask me, I don't really see what's wrong with restricting interstate travel in a time like this. Sure, it's technically unconstitutional, but the Constitution can be bent sometimes in times of emergency.

This is actually much easier to enforce than one might expect. If state X is under such a restriction and borders state Y, state Y authorities can easily identify travelers from state X by spotting cars with state X license plates. Mass transit services between states X and Y can be halted, if they have not been already.

[Max Rockatansky]

If you ask me, I don't really see what's wrong with restricting interstate travel in a time like this. Sure, it's technically unconstitutional, but the Constitution can be bent sometimes in times of emergency.

This is actually much easier to enforce than one might expect. If state X is under such a restriction and borders state Y, state Y authorities can easily identify travelers from state X by spotting cars with state X license plates. Mass transit services between states X and Y can be halted, if they have not been already.

Good luck staffing that with guards  at every state line at every possible state entrance.  That would be a drain on resources for emergency services that could used to do actual work that is necessary right now.  The amount of manpower it would take to pull over, ticket, question, and possible even arrest people with out of state tags would be essentially impossible...maybe even the scenario of actual martial law. 

Besides, lots of "essential workers"  cross state lines every day.  How do you account for those people getting to/from work?  If you end up cutting people off you take away resources and put only more in potential unemployment.  Total non-starter and unrealistic IMO even with how things are going presently.  More so there isn't an unlimited amount of policing power out there that seems to be a popular notion. 

[TheGrassGuy]

If you ask me, I don't really see what's wrong with restricting interstate travel in a time like this. Sure, it's technically unconstitutional, but the Constitution can be bent sometimes in times of emergency.

This is actually much easier to enforce than one might expect. If state X is under such a restriction and borders state Y, state Y authorities can easily identify travelers from state X by spotting cars with state X license plates. Mass transit services between states X and Y can be halted, if they have not been already.

Good luck staffing that with guards  at every state line at every possible state entrance.  That would be a drain on resources for emergency services that could used to do actual work that is necessary right now.  The amount of manpower it would take to pull over, ticket, question, and possible even arrest people with out of state tags would be essentially impossible...maybe even the scenario of actual martial law. 

Besides, lots of "essential workers"  cross state lines every day.  How do you account for those people getting to/from work?  If you end up cutting people off you take away resources and put only more in potential unemployment.  Total non-starter and unrealistic IMO even with how things are going presently.  More so there isn't an unlimited amount of policing power out there that seems to be a popular notion.

Maybe not every crossing... Maybe only the interstates. But if they discourage out-of-state travel (even after other guidelines are lifted), I wonder how many people would try wheedling around the rules.

[Max Rockatansky]

If you ask me, I don't really see what's wrong with restricting interstate travel in a time like this. Sure, it's technically unconstitutional, but the Constitution can be bent sometimes in times of emergency.

This is actually much easier to enforce than one might expect. If state X is under such a restriction and borders state Y, state Y authorities can easily identify travelers from state X by spotting cars with state X license plates. Mass transit services between states X and Y can be halted, if they have not been already.

Good luck staffing that with guards  at every state line at every possible state entrance.  That would be a drain on resources for emergency services that could used to do actual work that is necessary right now.  The amount of manpower it would take to pull over, ticket, question, and possible even arrest people with out of state tags would be essentially impossible...maybe even the scenario of actual martial law. 

Besides, lots of "essential workers"  cross state lines every day.  How do you account for those people getting to/from work?  If you end up cutting people off you take away resources and put only more in potential unemployment.  Total non-starter and unrealistic IMO even with how things are going presently.  More so there isn't an unlimited amount of policing power out there that seems to be a popular notion.

Maybe not every crossing... Maybe only the interstates. But if they discourage out-of-state travel (even after other guidelines are lifted), I wonder how many people would try wheedling around the rules.

If that was done there would still be a need to let essential workers and freight through.  If the freight couldn't use the primary highways it would cause food and supply shortages all over the place.  There would need to be a massive amount of logistics on determine who is "essential"  and still a crap ton of policing power to enforce it.  What's the point of sending so much emergency personnel into endeavors like that when it clearly isn't necessary to do?  Remember, there is a reason they say "flatten the curve"  instead of "stopping"  the virus.  Grinding everything to a full halt would be likely far worse consequences than staying the current course.   

[Max Rockatansky]

Then again I'm hearing a lot of comparisons right now to the Great Plague of London. Back then if someone in your family got sick you might get written off by association and sealed in your home to die.  Comparisons like that in a modern context aren't even close to one-to-one. 

[Max Rockatansky]

Apparently a car club tried to organize a cruise down Kings Canyon Road and Clovis Avenue tonight.  My wife saw several of the cruisers getting pulled over by Fresno PD on the way home tonight from the hospital.  The mayor announced the City Stay At Home order as mandatory a couple days ago and threatened police enforcement...guess that's a thing now.

[jeffandnicole]

From an AP article in the Philly Inquirer..

https://www.inquirer.com/news/nation-world/coronavirus-covid-state-highway-projects-halted-less-driving-20200412.html

"Reduced vehicle traffic from stay-at-home orders imperils road funding across U.S."

[CtrlAltDel]

Speaking for myself, I am very unresponsive to advertising in general,

This is veering way off topic, but out of idle curiosity, how do you know this is true?

[GaryV]

If you ask me, I don't really see what's wrong with restricting interstate travel in a time like this. Sure, it's technically unconstitutional, but the Constitution can be bent sometimes in times of emergency.

Michigan has done the exact opposite.

If you're from Detroit (or any other downstate city) you can't go to your cabin "Up North".  But if you're from Chicago it's perfectly OK.

[Flint1979]

If you ask me, I don't really see what's wrong with restricting interstate travel in a time like this. Sure, it's technically unconstitutional, but the Constitution can be bent sometimes in times of emergency.

Michigan has done the exact opposite.

If you're from Detroit (or any other downstate city) you can't go to your cabin "Up North".  But if you're from Chicago it's perfectly OK.

What about if you're from Saginaw?

[GaryV]

If you ask me, I don't really see what's wrong with restricting interstate travel in a time like this. Sure, it's technically unconstitutional, but the Constitution can be bent sometimes in times of emergency.

Michigan has done the exact opposite.

If you're from Detroit (or any other downstate city) you can't go to your cabin "Up North".  But if you're from Chicago it's perfectly OK.

What about if you're from Saginaw?

You consider Saginaw "Up North"?  Anyway, it applies to the whole state.  You have to pick a residence and stay there.  So technically someone from Marquette can't go to a vacation home in Saginaw either, no matter how unlikely that example.

[Flint1979]

If you ask me, I don't really see what's wrong with restricting interstate travel in a time like this. Sure, it's technically unconstitutional, but the Constitution can be bent sometimes in times of emergency.

Michigan has done the exact opposite.

If you're from Detroit (or any other downstate city) you can't go to your cabin "Up North".  But if you're from Chicago it's perfectly OK.

What about if you're from Saginaw?

You consider Saginaw "Up North"?  Anyway, it applies to the whole state.  You have to pick a residence and stay there.  So technically someone from Marquette can't go to a vacation home in Saginaw either, no matter how unlikely that example.

All I got to ask anyone is how exactly do you enforce that? Saginaw isn't up North but it's on the fringes of being up north.

[GaryV]

If you ask me, I don't really see what's wrong with restricting interstate travel in a time like this. Sure, it's technically unconstitutional, but the Constitution can be bent sometimes in times of emergency.

Michigan has done the exact opposite.

If you're from Detroit (or any other downstate city) you can't go to your cabin "Up North".  But if you're from Chicago it's perfectly OK.

What about if you're from Saginaw?

You consider Saginaw "Up North"?  Anyway, it applies to the whole state.  You have to pick a residence and stay there.  So technically someone from Marquette can't go to a vacation home in Saginaw either, no matter how unlikely that example.

All I got to ask anyone is how exactly do you enforce that? Saginaw isn't up North but it's on the fringes of being up north.

Don't know.  Ask the gov.

Makes as much sense to me as the ban on buying vegetable seeds.

[Flint1979]

If you ask me, I don't really see what's wrong with restricting interstate travel in a time like this. Sure, it's technically unconstitutional, but the Constitution can be bent sometimes in times of emergency.

Michigan has done the exact opposite.

If you're from Detroit (or any other downstate city) you can't go to your cabin "Up North".  But if you're from Chicago it's perfectly OK.

What about if you're from Saginaw?

You consider Saginaw "Up North"?  Anyway, it applies to the whole state.  You have to pick a residence and stay there.  So technically someone from Marquette can't go to a vacation home in Saginaw either, no matter how unlikely that example.

All I got to ask anyone is how exactly do you enforce that? Saginaw isn't up North but it's on the fringes of being up north.

Don't know.  Ask the gov.

Makes as much sense to me as the ban on buying vegetable seeds.

A lot of stuff she has said makes no sense to me. I heard there is a ban on buying paint now too. Gretchen is one of two governors I'm not a fan of, the other being the fatass in Illinois.

[TheGrassGuy]

If you ask me, I don't really see what's wrong with restricting interstate travel in a time like this. Sure, it's technically unconstitutional, but the Constitution can be bent sometimes in times of emergency.

Michigan has done the exact opposite.

If you're from Detroit (or any other downstate city) you can't go to your cabin "Up North".  But if you're from Chicago it's perfectly OK.

A helpful regulation in theory, but nigh-unenforceable. I don't know if this is one of those questions all Michiganers should know the answer to, but how north is "up north"?

[Max Rockatansky]

If you ask me, I don't really see what's wrong with restricting interstate travel in a time like this. Sure, it's technically unconstitutional, but the Constitution can be bent sometimes in times of emergency.

Michigan has done the exact opposite.

If you're from Detroit (or any other downstate city) you can't go to your cabin "Up North".  But if you're from Chicago it's perfectly OK.

A helpful regulation in theory, but nigh-unenforceable. I don't know if this is one of those questions all Michiganers should know the answer to, but how north is "up north"?

At least beyond Lansing.  I'm from the Detroit area originally and we have a family cabin "up north"  on Grand Traverse Bay.