Reply With QuoteOut of interest, why don't you like having the location switched on? I also switch mine off at times, mainly to save battery because my phone's battery is on its way to dying.Originally Posted by lardy
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
It's just as useful to the data collection to report no symptoms. I can't remember what information I provided when I signed up to the ZOE project. I still think data collection is a massive tool to dampen down the disease. Seeing how it works in Singapore makes me think that needs to be replicated here.
Similarly, I have signed up to the Vodafone dream lab - along with 95,000 others, which allows the Imperial College to use my phone's processing power to make calculations whilst my phone isn't in use, and is plugged in.
Anything collected (and it wasn't much) is protected under GDPR.
Out of interest, why don't you like having the location switched on? I also switch mine off at times, mainly to save battery because my phone's battery is on its way to dying.
Mainly battery. I only have location or Bluetooth on when I have a specific need right then for it.
But I also don't particularly like apps who arse about with it. Thinking about it, I rarely have the pop up where an app asks for access to contacts, storage,etc any more. Dunno if that means that apps just wanted it for no reason in the past or if developers are only asking when it is genuinely necessary now.
One thing I've always stressed with clients for online apps / web based solutions is you have to isolate the absolute minimum amount of rights / information you need to provide the functionality.
If an app to display lolcats for example demanded the rights to access your contacts, make calls then I'm highly suspicious as to why.
It's tracing contact not people. Contact can be traced via Bluetooth, government argument about location data would be that it provides a better picture of the spread, hotspots etc.
Have you done a bit of research into decentralised/centralised systems now? Do you see why so many CS and data privacy experts are in favour of decentralisation? Do you realise why your comparison was dumb?
"I'm not doing anything wrong" - proceeds to delete LinkedIn profile and closes the sales website immediately.
Sure sign of guilt.
It's amazing how easily greed can make people stupid!
https://www.hsj.co.uk/quality-and-pe...027544.article
The distorted impact of political targets often ends with these types of contrivances.
there are people...i think that i see them almost daily , that are lacking empathy.
I didnt understand the relevance of 100k and therefore was ambivalent over whether it was reached or not. I know some people will say 'damned if they do, damned if they dont' but this target was set entirely off their own backs and wasn't based on the science. I wouldn't have criticised the government if they missed this target, manipulating the figures to make it look like a success seems worse than failing.
I agree. Hancock set that target and hung his own and the government's reputation on it. They haven't met it. It was bad enough when Raab started to substitute 'testing capacity' for 'completed tests' - but this change now also includes 'tests in the post' or 'tests we intend to put in the post' to mean the same as 'completed tests'. It is dishonest, self-serving and (for anyone paying attention) will just undermine trust (more) in what ministers say. Own goal!
Have they definitely not met the target? I'd assumed we would see a confirmation that they'd reached it at today's briefing.
They've met it and more.
Over 122k tests.
Piers Moron however is whining because they hit over 100k tests when he says it was only 73k people.
Is that 122,000 completed tests?
If so it’s a step in the right direction.
I noticed yesterday that all the jhouralists who kept saying gthey would never rwach the target changed their tac as soon as the realised they might and instead started saying they would reach the target but it weasd a hollow acheivement and that it didn't mean anything, and so on.
If they hadn't met it they same people would have been attempting to shred them for failing.
Cleverly amending the description of "test" from "tests carried out" to "tests sent out".
No, it's 122,000 tests sent out in the post.
No it is not completed tests. The criteria was changed on 27th April to include the number of Home Testing kits sent in the post. It was changed again on 29th April to include tests sent to testing stations. Previously the figures stated were those for swabs actually tested in a lab.
So testing capacity has increased but number of tests no. Lies, damned lies and statistics comes to mind!!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...it-100000-goal
Seems they hit the target of people tested if you count retests and tests in the post! Otherwise, no they didn't hit the target!
Which journalists "changed their tac"? And, surely, a journalist would report on a story so that may change during the course of a few days. Unless, of course, you think a journalist's job is to be a social commentator rather than a fact reporter?
I have been getting bombarded with texts for the last week, as a local authority worker who works entirely from home, trying to encourage me to go and get tested if any of my family has any of the symptoms. I am sure there are loads in a similar position.
Forgive me for thinking these additional tests haven't been particularly well targeted (ie health and social care workers who are actually at risk).
Remember this lot have previous - promising 50,000 'extra nurses' that included 18,500 who were already NHS nurses!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9215811.html
Posting Permissions
