Events/HackCovid/2020-03-28/Group5 - Revision history

Genferei at 09:58, 28 March 2020

2020-03-28T09:58:34Z

2020-03-28T09:55:58Z

2020-03-28T09:55:26Z

2020-03-28T07:22:38Z

2020-03-27T21:02:32Z

Presentation

2020-03-27T17:10:20Z

Created page with "return to the on the main page of the HackCovid '''ETHICS'''<br> == Presentation=="

New page

return to the on the main page of the [[Events/HackCovid/2020-03-28|HackCovid]]

'''ETHICS'''<br>

== Presentation==

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:58, 28 March 2020
Line 11:		Line 11:
	On the other hand, giving up on the idea of “proportionate” (including going for “worst case scenario” - or even more cautiously, precautionary principle measures, exposes the population to the greatest limitation of freedom ever		On the other hand, giving up on the idea of “proportionate” (including going for “worst case scenario” - or even more cautiously, precautionary principle measures, exposes the population to the greatest limitation of freedom ever
	<br>		<br>
		+	If we combine the Worst Case -scenario for state abuse of surveillance with the WC-scenario for the disease, we get an unsolvable, irreconcilable, conflict. So we have to move away from extreme scenarios and trying to assess likely scenarios (and their uncertainty) to be able to balance values in practice. That means we are guaranteed to make mistakes. But I see no easy way out.

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:55, 28 March 2020
Line 8:		Line 8:

	The problem with taking “proportionate” as a criterion, is that you need to be “proportionate” to a state of affairs that will only be visible after 14 days (by the number of ambulances) or appr 5 days (if you are testing well). This has signified a constant struggle to identify “proportionate” by leaders, with a tendency (in my view) to err on the side of too much liberty of movements and too late restrictions of it.		The problem with taking “proportionate” as a criterion, is that you need to be “proportionate” to a state of affairs that will only be visible after 14 days (by the number of ambulances) or appr 5 days (if you are testing well). This has signified a constant struggle to identify “proportionate” by leaders, with a tendency (in my view) to err on the side of too much liberty of movements and too late restrictions of it.
		+	<br>
		+	On the other hand, giving up on the idea of “proportionate” (including going for “worst case scenario” - or even more cautiously, precautionary principle measures, exposes the population to the greatest limitation of freedom ever
		+	<br>

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:55, 28 March 2020
Line 6:		Line 6:
	Ethical framework tracing contacts<br>		Ethical framework tracing contacts<br>
	https://docs.google.com/document/d/19F_hXIlPvDKCk8JTfxNXOuex0r_GpmPEUuoSUMEj-zY/edit		https://docs.google.com/document/d/19F_hXIlPvDKCk8JTfxNXOuex0r_GpmPEUuoSUMEj-zY/edit
		+
		+	The problem with taking “proportionate” as a criterion, is that you need to be “proportionate” to a state of affairs that will only be visible after 14 days (by the number of ambulances) or appr 5 days (if you are testing well). This has signified a constant struggle to identify “proportionate” by leaders, with a tendency (in my view) to err on the side of too much liberty of movements and too late restrictions of it.

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:22, 28 March 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	return to ~~the on~~ the main page of the [[Events/HackCovid/2020-03-28\|HackCovid]]	+	return to the main page of the [[Events/HackCovid/2020-03-28\|HackCovid]]

	'''ETHICS'''<br>		'''ETHICS'''<br>

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:02, 27 March 2020
Line 4:		Line 4:

	== Presentation==		== Presentation==
		+	Ethical framework tracing contacts<br>
		+	https://docs.google.com/document/d/19F_hXIlPvDKCk8JTfxNXOuex0r_GpmPEUuoSUMEj-zY/edit