
Governments Introduce Surveillance Under Veil of Coronavirus Control - likhuta
https://forklog.media/safety-over-freedom-how-governments-introduce-surveillance-under-veil-of-coronavirus-control/
======
mrfusion
It’s really hard to get any rights back once the government has taken them.

------
RandyRanderson
"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an
opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

[0]
[https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/rahm_emanuel_409199](https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/rahm_emanuel_409199)

~~~
RandyRanderson
Provenance: [https://freakonomics.com/2009/08/13/quotes-uncovered-who-
sai...](https://freakonomics.com/2009/08/13/quotes-uncovered-who-said-no-
crisis-should-go-to-waste/)

------
cobookman
The article claims China is a role model.

However chinas reported numbers is not their actual numbers. We have no clue
if China’s approach was effective.

Even today ppl in China are still getting sick. With weekend traffic in
Beijing not recovered.

~~~
zabana
I may have misinterpreted the author's intentions, but I think it was sarcasm.

------
summerlight
I'm seeing strong tensions between values considered to be fundamental;
privacy, safety, freedom, etc. To me, it looks like COVID-19 has introduced a
kind of CAP theorem for civil rights and we don't really have a good answer
here.

Let's assume an ideal case of a perfect government with a good will. If a
centralized authority have the perfect information and perfectly execute a
quarantine measure, it will be so accurate that minimizes fatality and
restrictions on freedom, but at the cost of extreme privacy invasion. If the
government have less than perfect information or execution, you gotta choose
either accuracy or recall for infected. The former will give you more freedom
of action at a higher cost of life. The latter will restrict more freedom of
action which also potentially leads to larger economical disasters, but will
save more lives.

Even worse, this is not even a ternary choice but more of continuous, multi-
dimensional one. Also, the good-will assumption made above distorts the
reality in a very incorrect way. The solution space is likely much more
complex (e.g. those values are not really mutually exclusive and interact each
other in a subtle way) and we don't really understand what shape it is.
Neither I know the right answer. But I can say that even values/rights that we
assumed fundamental may conflict in the extreme situation like COVID-19 and we
don't really understand what trade-offs we're forced to make and its
consequences.

------
kyuudou
Dr. Michael J. Burry, _M.D. (Vanderbilt)_ , setup a twitter account[1] just to
address some of the negative consequences of overreacting to covid-19. He's
not normally a social media type, to say the least.

[1][https://twitter.com/michaeljburry](https://twitter.com/michaeljburry)

~~~
altcognito
Yeah he’s pitching that California has already reached herd immunity.

The premise is that covid-19 arrived in fall and that unlike everywhere else
in the world, it arrived, spread without so much as being noticed at the ER.

~~~
malandrew
If this actually happened, why did we not observe other incidents like what
happened in the Live Care Center in Kirkland, Washington? 35 people died.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/21/us/coronavirus-nursing-
ho...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/21/us/coronavirus-nursing-home-
kirkland-life-care.html)

This has ripped through like wildfire in highly vulnerable communities.

Also, would we not have observed a lot of medical staff becoming sick like
they are now?

I just find it very hard to believe that this could have happened earlier
without anyone noticing it given how it's greatly impacted pockets in very
newsworthy ways.

Another example was that family in New Jersey where some members of the family
died within hours of one another. 7 sick, 4 died.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/nyregion/new-jersey-
famil...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/nyregion/new-jersey-family-
coronavirus.html)

Even California has vulnerable pockets in places that would have been canaries
in the coal mine.

~~~
lurquer
"as many as 380,000 people die of the infections in LTCFs [long-term care
facilities] every year."

[https://www.cdc.gov/longtermcare/index.html](https://www.cdc.gov/longtermcare/index.html)

An increase of a several percent would not be noticed.

~~~
altcognito
Typically the staff isn’t at risk for life threatening respiratory viruses.
They _might_ catch a cold, but it will look nothing like covid.

------
nimbius
the source reporting the US surveillance is kinda murky at best. Apparently
the US sources their information from ad trackers and a company called
lotadata which has a "geospatial AI platform "

if most of the tracking data is coming from FAANG its nothing new, however, it
may not exactly be accurate with the latest iphone and android devices which
have fairly overt controls for the user to restrict data collection.

~~~
chatmasta
I’m speculating here, but it’s probably a data broker that gets location data
from apps that share it as part of an advertising SDK. Users still need to
enable location sharing. So the data ends selects for a cohort of people that
installs sketchy apps and grants location permission. Ironically, this is
probably the group of people least likely to follow social distancing
guidelines.

~~~
dkdk8283
LocationSmart is one such broker. They’ve been featured here before.

------
dekervin
I am surprised there hasn't be a bigger spotlight shed on the concepts
developped by Michel Foucault around _Biopower_ [0] and the genesis of the
modern state. See for example this excerpt of _Discipline and punish_ [1] on
what quarantine was like:

 _" First, a strict spatial partitioning: the closing of the town and its
outlying districts, a prohibition to leave the town on pain of death, the
killing of all stray animals; the division of the town into distinct quarters,
each governed by an intendant. Each street is placed under the authority of a
syndic, who keeps it under surveillance; if he leaves the street, he will be
condemned to death."_

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopower](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopower)

[1][https://foucault.info/documents/foucault.disciplineAndPunish...](https://foucault.info/documents/foucault.disciplineAndPunish.panOpticism/)

------
jimktrains2
> At the ACLU, we have always recognized that, during a disease outbreak,
> individual rights must sometimes give way to the greater good. After all,
> when it comes to disease, we are not just individuals but also one big bio-
> mass. That is why people can sometimes be deprived of their liberty through
> quarantine, for example. And this is as it should be, provided — and this is
> a crucial and sometimes violated condition — that the science supports the
> effectiveness and proportionality of measures such as quarantine. And even
> if a quarantine is imposed, people do not lose their due process rights,
> which at a minimum require that they be able to challenge their quarantine.

\- [https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/can-we-trust-
the...](https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/can-we-trust-the-
government-to-respond-to-the-coronavirus-in-a-fair-and-effective-manner/)

~~~
throwaway0a5e
Unfortunately the ACLU is slowly going down the path that SPLC and NRA (to
pick one example from both sides of the isle) went down. They used to be a
strong special interest advocate organization but they're becoming more and
more corrupted by partisan politics.

Likewise a statement of "we know it's not what our organization stands for but
y'all need to get on board with what the government is telling you to do" is
kind of to be expected. If they really wanted to stay true to their mission
they would have either come down on the side of being pro-liberty or they
would have said nothing at all.

~~~
malandrew
WHO and the CDC also count as organizations that were more ideologically
neutral that have lost their neutrality over time.

My understanding is that it was the CDC's partisan scope creep that put it in
the crosshairs when the new administration came in. Instead of sticking
strictly to infectious bacteria and viruses, they started quixotic quests to
classify gun violence and obesity as epidemics. Those distractions allegedly
cost them their edge in this pandemic.

------
m3chars
In pop culture people turn into zombies by contact with a virus. Zombies don't
think of themselves as idiots, probably because they lost their brains in the
process, so actually they don't think at all, they just mumble "ARRRRHHHHG"
"ORRRRRSSSSFFFF" and go after other peoples brains. Now this is a sad comment,
using the deaths of other people to make a point, but since we're talking
about facts I'll go ahead.

\-- [https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105061/coronavirus-
deat...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105061/coronavirus-deaths-by-
region-in-italy/)

(14794 >= 60 years old, 12973 >= 70 years old, 775 < 60 years old) These are
the statistics of the death toll in Italy, keep in mind the average life
expectancy is 83 years in Italy. If it follows the same pattern as everywhere
else, most of these cases will probably have co-morbidities as well.

\-- [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/04/07/new-
yo...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/04/07/new-york-
coronavirus-deaths-data-shows-most-had-underlying-illnesses/2960151001/)

quoting:

"ALBANY, N.Y. – The majority of New York’s more than 4,700 deaths due to
coronavirus were among men, and 86% of all deaths were among people who had
underlying illnesses, such as hypertension and diabetes, new state data shows.

The statistics released late Monday offered the latest glimpse into how the
rapidly spreading virus has impacted New York and made it the epicenter for
COVID-19 in the nation.

Of the 4,758 deaths in New York since the first on March 14, 61% were men and
39% were women, the state Department of Health reportedon its new data portal.

In addition, 63% of the deaths were among those age 70 and older, while 7% of
the cases were those 49 and younger.

And 4,089 of those who died had at least one other chronic disease, the
records showed:"

93% >= 50 years old. 63% >= 70 years old. Of all cases, 86% with underlying
conditions that are known to reduce life expectancy aggressively. The average
life expectancy in NY is 81years old.

\-- From [https://www.france24.com/en/20200402-for-some-survivors-
coro...](https://www.france24.com/en/20200402-for-some-survivors-coronavirus-
complications-can-last-a-lifetime) quote: "As the number of worldwide
confirmed coronavirus cases climbs towards 1 million, the number of recoveries
is thankfully more than four times the death toll. But medical experts told
FRANCE 24 that COVID-19 can cause severe long-term damage to the lungs, heart,
brain and other organs – and that for some patients, these complications may
be permanent." in an article by Tom Wheeldon, that appeared on
www.france24.com, 02/04/2020 - 15:28

Now, given the disease is a couple of months old, how can medical experts come
to these conclusions? You would need years of follow-up of recovered patients
to even be able to test the hypothesis. Given what we know about lung damage,
e.g. from tabaco, and the way our bodies regenerate it's highly improbable
that this has any kind of truth to it. It does, nonetheless, increase one
thing, fear. Still, this is touted on every major news outlet, by so called
experts.

\-- Regarding the cases that appear on headlines and such, you can see things
such as 80 years olds with cancer, dying, in a country where the life
expectancy is 81 years, and still the cause being attributed to covid. It's
like saying that an HIV patient died from a cold.

Going out and catching sun is actually good for you, there's a reason why flu
and colds peak from late autumn to early spring. It doesn't take an expert to
understand why. Plus, there are countries that seem to have been able to
contain the epidemic wave without martial law, so it's certainly not the only
viable option - and the question here is, "does this justify what is being
done?" \- not "should we ignore those that need medical treatment?".

Lastly, although the following quote was said in a very different context, it
doesn't mean it doesn't or shouldn't apply (even if it was a quote by me):
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

~~~
tenebrisalietum
> "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary
> Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

We know the quote already. It's not doing any good to post it or repeat it.
Simply saying this in response to complex problems is equivalent to saying
"Thoughts and prayers" when someone is asking for help. It doesn't help and
only makes you feel good.

People are willing to give up a lot for convenience, including sending many
jobs to China. We allow this due to laissez-faire capitalism. Turns out people
care more about cheap shit than the job prospects of their children.

People are also trained/willing to give up a lot for fear. This is caused in
part by the very freedoms enshrined by your quote - there's a lot of fear and
misinformation spread and allowed to spread because of the principle of free
speech.

The situation is more complex and needs a more complex response than simply
saying "hurr durr liberty".

~~~
m3chars
While what you say might be true, you took literally the last two lines of a
much longer post (that were used as final note regarding the topic in
question) and in turn used that to say nothing relevant either, "hurr durr
complex capitalism let-do scoobydoobydoo", but of course making me say "hurr
durr liberty" in the process.

The points I made are quite clear:

a) A serious reading of the data we know shows a different picture of the fear
inducing narrative being peddled b) Experts say the most irresponsible things
- in quite enigmatic situations for someone with deep expertise in the subject
being talked about c) Lockdown and home isolation are probably detrimental in
terms of an individuals immune system - as in, going out is good d) There are
other approaches that seem to have worked quite well e) You're going to die f)
You shouldn't trade certain things for a fake sense of security even in the
face of uncertainty

There are other questions that are complex, like millions dying of structural
inequality every year and no world wide response to that (and on that point,
no moral outrage by the civic chevaliers on that either), we could go on in
false moralities all night long.

Although I'm not religious, I imagine saying "Thoughts and prayers" does help
people who are in distress.

------
ngcc_hk
You start a war to get more power. You start letting virus to go and start ...

------
chrisco255
Giving up your liberties here will likely be a permanent choice. Live free or
die.

~~~
sova
Wish we could shout "Let freedom ring!" and hit the liberty bell with a
mallet, but because of the crack it would likely make a humorous "tink."

------
hurricanetc
It’s too bad that people can’t follow simple requests. Governments are forced
to choose between allowing idiot citizens to destroy society or to implement
draconian policies.

Medical professionals are being asked to come out of retirement. Nurses are
reusing PPE for weeks. Medical students are graduating early to help.

The rest of us are being asked to just stay the fuck home for a few weeks.

And we just refuse to do it. Absolutely refuse. Everyone is suddenly and avid
walker. So then governments have to choose whether to let idiot citizens ruin
everything... or not.

I don’t blame governments. I blame all you idiots who won’t stop going
outside.

~~~
soraminazuki
> I don’t blame governments. I blame all you idiots who won’t stop going
> outside.

It's precisely this kind of reasoning that this article is having problems
with. Pre-COVID19, it was because of the terrorists, drug dealers, and
pedophiles that we'd have to give up our freedoms. Now, it's because of "us
idiots." We the people are "too idiotic" to decide for ourselves, or so you
say.

~~~
VeninVidiaVicii
I know it's annecdotal, but now I've had two elderly relatives die -- one from
covid-19, and one from a heart attack, in the past few weeks. The second
wasn't able to get into the healthcare system because it is just too
overstretched. Firstly, causes by a very slow ambulance, and got diverted to
an ER just about as far away as you can get.

I have also seen more people walking along our city exercise path than ever
before. There's not really a good middle ground here, exercising your civil
liberties is resulting in deaths.

~~~
soraminazuki
I'm most certainly not opposed to saving lives. But we can't just mindlessly
approve whatever "solutions" the government comes up with. Some "solutions"
are bound to do more harm than good, and mass-surveillance is a prime example
considering its potential for abuse. Just as people die from disease, people
also die from tyrannical governments. Even if we assume that _your_
government, however unlikely, would forever continue to wield its power
wisely, other governments wouldn't care. If we justify the use of mass-
surveillance, we would give other tyrannical governments a free pass and more
people would be killed or tortured as a consequence. But unlike pandemics,
time won't cure tyrannical governments.

~~~
VeninVidiaVicii
Well, I love the positive attitude implying time will cure pandemics. Cure, in
the sense that all things come to an end, the way all bleeding stops, yeah.

I'm currently working as an infectious disease researcher for a state with a
lot of political turmoil, and I'll have the be honest, my (profesional)
opinion doesn't matter. No single recommendation we have made has had any
bearing on the action of our state. These opinions we (you and I) have are
moot.

~~~
soraminazuki
Just to be clear, I'm not dismissing the devastating effects this pandemic has
brought. More lives will continue to be lost for the foreseeable future and it
will likely have lasting economic implications. But if governments around the
world go forward with mass-surveillance, it would be 9/11 all over again. As a
direct consequence of 9/11, many innocent lives have been lost. But it's the
policy decisions after the incident that has had an even more lasting and
devastating effect on our democratic society. People need to keep these things
in mind, especially in times of emergencies.

------
seeTheAstroturf
Death rates are at 0.5%, and it was worth shutting down the economy.

Car accident death rates are at 1%. Wait until people hear about that.

The bigger shock is when people realize that you can't stop the spread of a
pandemic. You can flatten the curve to help hospitals. But soon we will find
hospitals are more dangerous than staying at home due to infections and that
respirators barely improve your chance of survival.

I hope medical loses their credibility big time. Their rejection of math and
science in favor of tradition is horrifying.

~~~
simion314
So you assume that yourself are the number guy and know better, so what is the
equation that will determine when lockdown is more efficient? what are the
inputs in that equation ? Why car deaths would be a factor in why you should
implement a lockdown. If you go to a hospital with a illness X would you like
a response like "X kills less then cars in our country, until traffic laws are
fixed we decided you can suffer and die from X, Have a ice death!"

~~~
seeTheAstroturf
I think it's fair to do death vs death. Especially if Corona
disproportionately affects people who have lived 60+ years already. Car deaths
affect people of all ages.

The economic collapse and scare has caused people to cancel or delay
surgeries, dental work, physical therapy, buy newer and safer cars, home abuse
has gone up, I imagine exercise has gone down, I wonder how alcohol use has
changed.

You can quantify these with numbers.

~~~
simion314
But why cars? It would make sense if you are an extreme capitalist to put
money in the equation, how much a life costs, how much lockdown costs, how
much it costs to find a cure, how much it costs to let everyone sick die but
it would make no sense to bring cars into this, think about it your
calculation would be different depending on the country or state, like if you
are in the country with horible driving bad luck now you will also die from
covid.

~~~
seeTheAstroturf
Because we will always drive cars, and in 5 years there will be no
coronavirus. Would it have been better to spend our resources on more complex
airbag systems that would last as long as humans drive or a lockdown to save
our oldest population for 3 years?

I think this math problem is easier than we would like, but politically it's
unpopular.

~~~
simion314
Let's assume cars kill N people a month, and the next pandemic kill N-1 old
people a month and cancer kills N-2 people a month. We do nothing until we
solve the cars? What if it kills N-1 children we still do nothing?

I do not see the argument that the resources should go to cars, if you want to
solve car accidents you can do it for free, I have the secrets here:

\- don't give a diving license that easy. have decent tests

\- if you are caught drunk you should never drive again

\- if you are caught looking at a phone screen your license is gone for 10
years

\- if you are speeding your license is gone for 10 years

\- test the cars every 2 years to check they are safe and not polluting

\- analyze the crashes find the causes and address them, if speeding is the
issue find a way to enforce speed limits.

Do you have any evidence that if the lockdown did not have happened more lives
would have been saved? Ironically probably less people died in car accidents
so you need to find some domain where the number of deaths increased more then
the lives saved,

~~~
SuoDuanDao
I think the point is, Forcing people to stay home is a solve against cars and
coronavirus. The death rate for cars is higher, so why haven't we forced a
lockdown to deal with car deaths? What makes the Coronavirus different,
besides that it's been 100 years since we've had a serious pandemic?

~~~
simion314
I think your assumptions might be wrong though, if I use the numbers from here
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-
related_death_rate) and calculate for Italy I get 3600 car fatalities, and
there are aprox 18000 deaths by covid with a lockdown on. Let me know if my
numbers are wrong.

~~~
SuoDuanDao
Italy's a bit of an outlier due to both average age and how they count covid
deaths. If we look at Germany instead, we get 3.6K deaths by car (in 2016) vs
1.8K deaths from covid. There are all kinds of different assumptions about
unconfirmed cases etc, but even in the most optimistic scenarios, it's roughly
the same order of magnitude either way.

~~~
simion314
But don't ignore that Germany also treat the coivd like "not the flu" if
Germany would do nothing like you suggest the numbers would be larger, to
honestly support your point you need to find a country that did exactly what
you want (nothing or just pray) and show that the mortality is better then car
crashes when the pandemic is over.

