Alright, I guess invasion of privacy happens far below the level of the phone OS.
Certainly tower "operators" can access the logs, which to me is "the phone company". And can't the government can ask for phone company records?
I do know with certainty that the government requires taps built into telephony equipment. See CALEA.
For those wondering about the phone tracking, my brother just drove from Minnesota to Florida to visit his fiancé. He didn't get hit with any texts, but I warned him about the tracking. I'm curious to see what his return is like since he has to go through Illinois and Kentucky.
For those who haven't yet, check out "Dumbing Us Down" and "Weapons of Mass Instruction" by John Taylor Gatto. Nick Delgadillo mentioned him on the podcast about homeschooling. They're a fascinating look into why so many people have just willingly given in to this stuff.
I'm going to piggy back your and Jovan's line of dialogue and put a plug in for thelasypsychiatrist.com. He hasn't updated his blog in years, but if you read through some of his later posts (e.g. Hipsters on Foodstamps) he's got some very interesting analyses of how modern society operates.
The Last Psychiatrist
Just as I expected the UK Government has gone ahead with the idea...
UK app to track coronavirus spread to be launched | Politics | The Guardian
What are people's thoughts on this app?
Regarding our current situation, here are the options I can make out.
A
We heavily prioritize minimization of total deaths. This involves keeping transmission at essentially a screeching halt until anti-virals and/or vaccine are ready.
This is likely to be at least a year, and quite possibly years (I may update my thinking on this once I learn more about vaccines).
Our society will be damaged beyond belief if this strategy is taken, and it will only be effective if everyone plays the same game.
B
We go back to "normal", and achieve rapid herd immunity. Assuming an infection CFR of 0.5 percent, this will mean about 35 million deaths worldwide, and about 1.5 million deaths in the United States.
This would be catastrophic, to be sure, and may damage our society in ways more horrific than we can imagine.
C
We contract and expand periodically, essentially allowing for periodic "blood letting". We eventually reach herd immunity. Even if anti-virals and vaccines aren't developed, less people die in total compared to B, because herd immunity protects those who haven't achieved immunity. I think you need ~70 percent of population to be immune for herd immunity, but I haven't yet gone down that rabbit hole. And the slower timescale of this strategy compared to B allows for more time for antivirals/vaccine development.
D
We find a stable middle ground where transmission is allowed, but at a smaller rate. This means that peak demand on healthcare system is not "overwhelming", but deaths will still occur, both in the obviously vulnerable, and in the smaller cohort of young healthy adults that this virus seems to capriciously target. As in C, herd immunity is eventually achieved, and more time is granted for antivirals/vaccine development.
The best strategy may differ from community to community, and here's the bitter twist:
The more information we have (about the virus, or about how many people are currently infected/already recovered), the more optimal our decision making will be. But we need time for more information, which increases the damage of what we are currently doing.
This is an optimization problem, to be sure, and it may not be an easy one.
Are there any options I've missed? Does anyone disagree with any of the premises?
If true.. super frustrating.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo Has Not Yet Accepted Remington's Offer to Help With PPE, Ventilators