Difference between revisions of "Events/HackCovid/2020-03-28/Group5"
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| 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. | ||
| + | <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> | ||
| + | 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. | ||
Latest revision as of 09:58, 28 March 2020
return to the main page of the HackCovid
ETHICS
Presentation
Ethical framework tracing contacts
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.
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
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.