6 ms·

> “When you consider the hundreds of thousands of people who have died in this pandemic, is it too much to ask to share your heart rate or temperature?” This i

> “When you consider the hundreds of thousands of people who have died in this pandemic, is it too much to ask to share your heart rate or temperature?” This is honestly disgusting, it's the worst kind of lazy "think of the children" style rhetoric. I'd like to think this kind of argument stands on it's own as ridiculous, I guess we'll see.

TeeMassive 5y ago
And young adults are among the least affected. There are no justifications for this kind of medical surveillance.
- woofie11 5y ago
  There are perfectly good justifications: More Americans died than combat deaths in WWII at this point. Young Americans can be permanently disabled, and can share diseases with old professors. There are also perfectly good justifications for not wanting a police state. Until both sides understand that the other side has a point, we're not going to land anywhere reasonable. If we had 100% compliance with the easy things: * Social distancing of 6 feet * Universal usage of 80% or more effective masks * Vaccines * Everything that can be done outdoors is We probably wouldn't need the hard things. Reasonable measures by everyone are far more effective than part of the population throwing all precautions to the wind, and part insisting on a draconian police state. I'm concerned about economic shutdowns, closing schools, failing businesses, police state measures, and similar. Avoiding those means we all need to acknowledge the very real risk of COVID19, and while we might not agree with medical surveillance, that the people pushing for it have different values but aren't crazy.
alert0 5y ago
I am really sick of the word share. Share your data with us, share your heart rate with us, we just share this with a few of our partners. Sharing is caring, I guess.
- alibarber 5y ago
  Yes I’ve struggled to take it seriously since day one - ‘the sharing economy’, like I’m paying you to rent a room in your house (Airbnb). That’s just ‘the economy’.
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    I think maybe they mean something along the lines of, you, the individual, provide the capital and the labor and take on the risk, and then you "share" some or most of the revenue with us.
    - BostonEnginerd 5y ago
      That’s my biggest issue with “sharing” economy companies. They are asking people to take on enormous risks -buying homes and cars - and then just algorithmically delist them when a problem occurs with no liability.
      - blacksmith_tb 5y ago
        Yes, that's pretty much the business model right there - taking advantage of loopholes in the regulations (until they're patched), it's version 2.0 of 'privatize the profits, socialize the costs'.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
  An appropriate response to a company asking anyone to share anything is asking for revenue share.
  - taneq 5y ago
    I mean we're sharing things, after all. It only seems fair.
eesmith 5y ago
Agreed. In the previous paragraph to that quote: > As he sees it, handing over health information is a relatively small price to pay if it means halting the spread of a virus that has ravaged the nation. That "if" is doing a lot of work. Does BioButton actually help? Does it help even after mass vaccinations? If it doesn't help, then why pay any price, no matter how small? Or, just after what you quoted: > He says the wearable technology seemed the least invasive way to catch symptoms early and give students tools to know if they might have early signs of, or potential exposure to, Covid-19. How many false positives will it give? If there are 100 false positives to one true positive, then the signal will be drowned out in the noise.
- visarga 5y ago
  > How many false positives will it give? If there are 100 false positives to one true positive, then the signal will be drowned out in the noise. On the other hand the consequences of a false positive are much smaller than those of a false negative. Inconvenience vs serious health problems or death.
  - eesmith 5y ago
    Absolutely this requires a cost-benefits analysis! So, what is the false positive rate? I pulled the 100-to-1 out of my ass. Maybe it's 10K-to-1 or only 5-to-1. Maybe the false negative rate is 19-to-1, which would also make it rather useless. Dunno. Does the school know? Is that information public? Sure would be nice to have, yes? What does "inconvenience" mean? I think you're talking about inconvenience for the students. If so, I want you to consider what "inconvenience" means for the school administration. They have many policies they could enforce. They could have mandatory campus-wide testing every three days, and if someone tests positive then the campus is closed until tests are negative for three weeks, and during that time all on-campus residents are in quarantine, and classes switch to 100% remote teaching. Inconvenient, yes? But if the question is simply "Inconvenience vs serious health problems or death" then surely this inconvenience they could put up with, yes? It'll surely be more effective than this BioButton! Instead, it sounds like the administration wants something which is more convenient and cheaper to their budget. If so, shouldn't they demonstrate that this convenience isn't some sort of high-tech smoke&mirrors to avoid paying for something that is actually effective?
visarga 5y ago
Is the privacy of many more important than the life of few?
- GeneralMayhem 5y ago
  Is giving up your privacy bringing them back to life? The problem isn't the relative weighting, it's the implication that they're in any way linked.
- textgel 5y ago
  Yes. Obviously. There's plenty of privacy destroying actions a society could take that would "save lives" but we don't do these exactly because of the encroachment on civil liberties they would entail.
- strken 5y ago
  That's a false dichotomy between option A), have your students sit exams in person and kill people, and option B), grossly invade your students' privacy with obnoxious spyware. Option C), just trust your students to take exams at home and slightly dilute the signal of your test scores, has always been on the table and is a totally viable alternative.
- greatgib 5y ago
  Just consider the number of persons that died in the history fighting to earn and preserve your privacy!
- stefan_ 5y ago
  There is no fucking connection between the two. We can have privacy and no deaths.
- MikeUt 5y ago
  If you answer "no", the same logic can be used to strip you of all your rights. How much domestic violence and murder could be prevented if every home was required to have cameras and microphones installed?
- meowster 5y ago
wolverine876 5y ago
We must make these judgments and trade-offs all the time in society. We surrender freedoms regularly: You aren't free to drive on the wrong side of the road; you have to surrender personal info for a credit card, passport, plane/train/bus ticket; if you have another deadly, highly contagious disease, you can be quarantined. I don't love the tone, but the number of deaths is an indicator of cost when considering the trade-off.

TeeMassive 5y ago

And young adults are among the least affected. There are no justifications for this kind of medical surveillance.

woofie11 5y ago
There are perfectly good justifications: More Americans died than combat deaths in WWII at this point. Young Americans can be permanently disabled, and can share diseases with old professors. There are also perfectly good justifications for not wanting a police state. Until both sides understand that the other side has a point, we're not going to land anywhere reasonable. If we had 100% compliance with the easy things: * Social distancing of 6 feet * Universal usage of 80% or more effective masks * Vaccines * Everything that can be done outdoors is We probably wouldn't need the hard things. Reasonable measures by everyone are far more effective than part of the population throwing all precautions to the wind, and part insisting on a draconian police state. I'm concerned about economic shutdowns, closing schools, failing businesses, police state measures, and similar. Avoiding those means we all need to acknowledge the very real risk of COVID19, and while we might not agree with medical surveillance, that the people pushing for it have different values but aren't crazy.

alert0 5y ago

I am really sick of the word share. Share your data with us, share your heart rate with us, we just share this with a few of our partners. Sharing is caring, I guess.

alibarber 5y ago
Yes I’ve struggled to take it seriously since day one - ‘the sharing economy’, like I’m paying you to rent a room in your house (Airbnb). That’s just ‘the economy’.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  I think maybe they mean something along the lines of, you, the individual, provide the capital and the labor and take on the risk, and then you "share" some or most of the revenue with us.
  - BostonEnginerd 5y ago
    That’s my biggest issue with “sharing” economy companies. They are asking people to take on enormous risks -buying homes and cars - and then just algorithmically delist them when a problem occurs with no liability.
    - blacksmith_tb 5y ago
      Yes, that's pretty much the business model right there - taking advantage of loopholes in the regulations (until they're patched), it's version 2.0 of 'privatize the profits, socialize the costs'.
Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
An appropriate response to a company asking anyone to share anything is asking for revenue share.
- taneq 5y ago
  I mean we're sharing things, after all. It only seems fair.

eesmith 5y ago

Agreed. In the previous paragraph to that quote: > As he sees it, handing over health information is a relatively small price to pay if it means halting the spread of a virus that has ravaged the nation. That "if" is doing a lot of work. Does BioButton actually help? Does it help even after mass vaccinations? If it doesn't help, then why pay any price, no matter how small? Or, just after what you quoted: > He says the wearable technology seemed the least invasive way to catch symptoms early and give students tools to know if they might have early signs of, or potential exposure to, Covid-19. How many false positives will it give? If there are 100 false positives to one true positive, then the signal will be drowned out in the noise.

visarga 5y ago
> How many false positives will it give? If there are 100 false positives to one true positive, then the signal will be drowned out in the noise. On the other hand the consequences of a false positive are much smaller than those of a false negative. Inconvenience vs serious health problems or death.
- eesmith 5y ago
  Absolutely this requires a cost-benefits analysis! So, what is the false positive rate? I pulled the 100-to-1 out of my ass. Maybe it's 10K-to-1 or only 5-to-1. Maybe the false negative rate is 19-to-1, which would also make it rather useless. Dunno. Does the school know? Is that information public? Sure would be nice to have, yes? What does "inconvenience" mean? I think you're talking about inconvenience for the students. If so, I want you to consider what "inconvenience" means for the school administration. They have many policies they could enforce. They could have mandatory campus-wide testing every three days, and if someone tests positive then the campus is closed until tests are negative for three weeks, and during that time all on-campus residents are in quarantine, and classes switch to 100% remote teaching. Inconvenient, yes? But if the question is simply "Inconvenience vs serious health problems or death" then surely this inconvenience they could put up with, yes? It'll surely be more effective than this BioButton! Instead, it sounds like the administration wants something which is more convenient and cheaper to their budget. If so, shouldn't they demonstrate that this convenience isn't some sort of high-tech smoke&mirrors to avoid paying for something that is actually effective?

visarga 5y ago

Is the privacy of many more important than the life of few?

GeneralMayhem 5y ago
Is giving up your privacy bringing them back to life? The problem isn't the relative weighting, it's the implication that they're in any way linked.
textgel 5y ago
Yes. Obviously. There's plenty of privacy destroying actions a society could take that would "save lives" but we don't do these exactly because of the encroachment on civil liberties they would entail.
strken 5y ago
That's a false dichotomy between option A), have your students sit exams in person and kill people, and option B), grossly invade your students' privacy with obnoxious spyware. Option C), just trust your students to take exams at home and slightly dilute the signal of your test scores, has always been on the table and is a totally viable alternative.
greatgib 5y ago
Just consider the number of persons that died in the history fighting to earn and preserve your privacy!
stefan_ 5y ago
There is no fucking connection between the two. We can have privacy and no deaths.
MikeUt 5y ago
If you answer "no", the same logic can be used to strip you of all your rights. How much domestic violence and murder could be prevented if every home was required to have cameras and microphones installed?
meowster 5y ago

wolverine876 5y ago

We must make these judgments and trade-offs all the time in society. We surrender freedoms regularly: You aren't free to drive on the wrong side of the road; you have to surrender personal info for a credit card, passport, plane/train/bus ticket; if you have another deadly, highly contagious disease, you can be quarantined. I don't love the tone, but the number of deaths is an indicator of cost when considering the trade-off.