Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[The Larch]

Article from the FT about the anti-lockdown protests in Spain:

Spain's moneyed classes step up anti-government protests
Nightly shows of disapproval illustrate how the crisis is deepening divisions between left and right


   Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
   https://www.ft.com/content/cc75eabd-2a0d-47c6-8019-db73c30590a6

   As Spain's parliament prepared to prolong the government's powers over the country's two-month lockdown, Blanca Carrillo de Albornoz took to the streets of one of Madrid's smartest neighbourhoods to protest, a Spanish flag thrown over her dress and a pan lid in each hand.

She — and thousands of others in the district of Salamanca and beyond — bang pots and pans at 9pm every night to signal their disapproval of the lockdown and the Socialist-led government that imposed it. The protest often lasts longer and is much louder than the now sporadic applause for health workers.

"This government has to resign now," said Ms Carrillo de Albornoz, an interior designer, as she strained to make herself heard over the combined noise of several hundred fellow demonstrators and a police helicopter hovering above. "They are governing by decree, and you can't govern a country by decree." 

Now that coronavirus infection rates and the daily death toll are diminishing in Spain, fear is being replaced by anger. The nation's polarised political tribes are fighting over the lockdown, its loosening and the aftermath.

Passions are highest, and the battle lines most clearly cut, in some of Madrid's wealthiest districts, where protesters have been accompanied by members of the hard-right Vox party.

"The Spanish government is trying to eradicate the country by converting it into a dictatorship like Venezuela," said Ignacio Boné, a law and international relations university student, gesturing at the police officers standing by the demonstration in the Salamanca district. "It's a communist government that doesn't let us demonstrate in the street — this police deployment is idiocy."

The protests, generally of a few hundred people at a time, are growing, despite the police deployments to ensure social distancing. They have spread to the street outside the Socialist party's headquarters.

Tempers in Madrid are further inflamed by a clash between Pedro Sánchez's government and the administration of the region, which has been denied permission to loosen the lockdown in line with most of the rest of the country. 

That impasse has led Isabel Díaz Ayuso, the regional government chief, to describe Madrid's 6.6m inhabitants as "hostages".

Mr Sánchez's government responds that it is concerned by a resurgence of infections in the country's most densely inhabited region, which has the highest accumulated number of cases and deaths, and that more time is needed to bed in an early detection system for the virus in Madrid.


   Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
   https://www.ft.com/content/cc75eabd-2a0d-47c6-8019-db73c30590a6

   The government makes little attempt to sugarcoat its view of the protesters. "There are some countries like Italy where the citizens are demonstrating because certain social needs aren't being met," said María Jesús Montero, Spain's budget minister and government spokeswoman. "But what the [demonstrations] are asking for in Spain is freedom of movement; that is to say, freedom of contagion."

Podemos, the radical left party that is the junior partner in the coalition, has been even more acidic. "As ridiculous as the 'demonstrations' of the upper class may be — hitting road signs with golf clubs and silver spoons — this thing is serious," said Pablo Echenique, the party's spokesman in parliament. "A privileged minority cannot ignore the rules and endanger us all."

But government critics say the demonstrations now range far beyond the well-heeled parts of Madrid that have long opposed the Socialists and are profoundly alarmed by Podemos.

"The revolt of the balconies, of the pots and pans, of the masks, is unstoppable," said Santiago Abascal, the Vox leader, in a parliamentary debate on Wednesday, as he asked people in their cars to join a "caravan of protest" this weekend.

"If these protests began in what the government calls upper-class neighbourhoods, I don't want to even think about what will happen in industrial and working-class areas in some months' time," said Alvise Pérez. The anti-government activist recently unfurled a giant, six-storey poster of Mr Sánchez as Big Brother in an apartment building near Madrid's prestigious La Castellana avenue. 

What angers protesters like him and Ms Carrillo de Albornoz is the so-called state of alert — the extraordinary legal order that gives the minority coalition wide-ranging powers to deal with the crisis. 

Many accuse the government of abusing its temporary decree-issuing powers through steps such as giving Pablo Iglesias, the Podemos leader, a seat on the body that co-ordinates the intelligence services. Others recall comments by a top law enforcement official last month — which the administration described as a misstatement — that he was "seeking to minimise the hostile climate to the government crisis-management".

Nevertheless, Mr Sánchez is likely to win backing in parliament on Wednesday for a further two-week extension of the state of alert, after striking a deal with the pro-market Ciudadanos party. Under the accord, the government will look at alternatives to the measure rather than merely seeking to renew it once again. 


   Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
   https://www.ft.com/content/cc75eabd-2a0d-47c6-8019-db73c30590a6

   But there is every sign that the tensions that have built up during the lockdown will remain even when the state of alert is history.

According to a poll for the ABC newspaper this week, just over 50 per cent of people believe that the government's decisions on which regions it allows to loosen the lockdown are based primarily on political considerations. Pablo Montesinos, a leading MP in the main opposition People's party, questions why the government publishes neither the names of the officials responsible for such decisions nor the reports that serve as their basis. He added that the protesters' "anger at government lies and inefficiency" was legitimate but that they had to observe social distancing.

Ms Montero, the government spokeswoman, highlighted a separate survey this week by Spain's publicly funded Centre for Sociological Research showing overwhelming support for the country's measures against coronavirus. But that research also indicated that the 46 per cent of the population with confidence in the government was outweighed by 48 per cent with little or no confidence. 

"This crisis came to a country that was already deeply polarised and it has deepened the divisions between left and right," said Lorenzo Bernaldo de Quirós, president of Freemarket, a Madrid-based consultancy.

At present the polls indicate that the centre-right PP has grown most in support during the lockdown as Vox has lost backing. Under new leadership Ciudadanos is shifting from solely denouncing government policy to trying to temper it. But Mr Bernaldo de Quirós argues that the political confrontation will only intensify.

"One thing is highly likely," he said. "When the lockdown finally ends we are going to have massive protests with pots and pans by the right and huge counter-demonstrations by the left."

[Iormlund]

What strikes me about that article is both an anonymous German source and a French minister that there are big issues with two big American tech companies basically deciding public policy based on their internal protocols. This is important now in the context of covid-19, but is a bigger philosophical and political issue as governments move more services to digital and apps (such as the general other work NHSX does). As one of the French regulators note - Apple and Google may be taking the right position but there's no process for independent judicial review or decisions by independent authorities.

It's not like governments have proven to be defenders of privacy either. Most Western governments have been increasingly monitoring their citizens for decades, either illegally or making use of anti-terror hysteria. I certainly don't trust my government with my private data at all (or any previous government really).

[The Brain]

If a government thinks they have some kind of right to randomly dictate stuff to private actors then they should adjust their attitude. Either sweeten the deal or force the private actors by legislation. But don't act like private actors have a moral obligation to go along with whatever pops up in government heads.

[Sheilbh]

It's not like governments have proven to be defenders of privacy either. Most Western governments have been increasingly monitoring their citizens for decades, either illegally or making use of anti-terror hysteria. I certainly don't trust my government with my private data at all (or any previous government really).

Sure. But then the alternative is, at the minute, Google and Apple (plus Facebook and Amazon probably)?

Also I don't disagree but Western governments are subject to review by the courts and elections. So if we don't like what they do, we can kick them out. If we don't like what Google and Apple we can...not have a smartphone? Not use 90+% of websites?

But also the issue here is ultimately one of power and sort of sovereignty. In this case the policy decision that governments or public authorities can make aren't just being limited by what's legally allowed, which is right and subject to public debate, elections, constitutional rules, legal frameworks and in the public sphere. They're also being limited by what two private companies determine they will allow which is none of those things.

If a government thinks they have some kind of right to randomly dictate stuff to private actors then they should adjust their attitude. Either sweeten the deal or force the private actors by legislation. But don't act like private actors have a moral obligation to go along with whatever pops up in government heads.

But this is the other way around. Private actors are dictating to government what they can and can't do.

I agree this probably does need legislation - I note that the German official basically said they'll deal with this later and the French minister has said that France will remember Apple's approach and take appropriate action in the future. But I just wonder in general are smartphone OS and general use of tracking on websites now becoming something that is closer to a common good and maybe need to be carved out from private companies. Maybe governments need to make them neutral and open to all who want to participate/operate (a bit like the public telecoms network) with consumers able to choose, rather than still have two gatekeeping companies?

[Iormlund]

Sure. But then the alternative is, at the minute, Google and Apple (plus Facebook and Amazon probably)?

Alternative to what? Google and Apple are curtailing the snooping powers of the government, not setting themselves to gather our data. They would so anyway whether one went with centralized apps or not (since they have unrestricted access to the devices). If you want more privacy (or rather less erosion of it) there is absolutely no downside to siding with the OS manufacturers on this one.

And what do Facebook and Amazon have to do with mobile OSs?

Also I don't disagree but Western governments are subject to review by the courts and elections. So if we don't like what they do, we can kick them out. If we don't like what Google and Apple we can...not have a smartphone? Not use 90+% of websites?

If the sad Snowden affaire taught us anything is that even if that were true people in general put no value in privacy.

But also the issue here is ultimately one of power and sort of sovereignty. In this case the policy decision that governments or public authorities can make aren't just being limited by what's legally allowed, which is right and subject to public debate, elections, constitutional rules, legal frameworks and in the public sphere. They're also being limited by what two private companies determine they will allow which is none of those things.

Power is the issue alright. Governments always want more and will use any excuse to get it (9-11! think of the children!). I for one am glad someone is minimizing the damage here, even if it's Google and Apple.

But I just wonder in general are smartphone OS and general use of tracking on websites now becoming something that is closer to a common good and maybe need to be carved out from private companies. Maybe governments need to make them neutral and open to all who want to participate/operate (a bit like the public telecoms network) with consumers able to choose, rather than still have two gatekeeping companies?

Ugh. Governments need to start protecting our privacy. Not opening it to even more actors. For fucks sake.

[Sheilbh]

Alternative to what? Google and Apple are curtailing the snooping powers of the government, not setting themselves to gather our data. They would so anyway whether one went with centralized apps or not (since they have unrestricted access to the devices). If you want more privacy (or rather less erosion of it) there is absolutely no downside to siding with the OS manufacturers on this one.

And what have Facebook and Amazon have to do with mobile OSs?

All of those businesses are based on gathering our data. The entire adtech system depends on them tracking our behaviour (including across multiple devices) to form profiles they can sell to advertisers - it's their business model (Amazon excepted) and the fact they have that much information makes government snooping a lot easier.

My point isn't around privacy - though I'd note the French privacy regulator has reviewed and signed off on the French app, and the UK app has done their privacy assessment which is being reviewed by the UK privacy regulator and my understanding is the UK privacy regulator is requiring the government to publish the source code as well as their privacy assessment - on this. The centralised app is clearly less private (I think it's much of a muchness for security). There was a design choice - various European public health authorities wanted the centralised model because it would allow them to also monitor local outbreaks and they could use the information, on an aggregated level, for research in what works best. The issue is these two private companies saying they won't allow that policy decision (which is allowed under privacy law).

If the sad Snowden affaire taught us something is that even if that were true people in general put no value in privacy.

Agreed. And as I say this is sort of the issue. These companies are supporting the Chinese app which I imagine isn't very privacy sensitive, they will be sharing data (as they were in Snowden) with US intelligence agencies - but then limiting the response European states can have through their system. But, there's a level of hypocrisy we accept and if European governments try and force their way on this - what's the argument Google and Apple have against China or Iran doing the same (for China - we know they won't even try and resist it because the market's too big).

Power is the issue alright. Governments always want more and will use any excuse to get it (9-11! think of the children!). I for one am glad someone is minimizing the damage here, even if it's Google and Apple.

What extra power would governments get from a centralised model of the app? Especially as it is still a more privacy-centric approach to doing contact tracing/track and tracing that they'll be doing anyway.

Ugh. Governments need to start protecting our privacy. Not opening it to even more actors. For fucks sake.

Yeah. This is an issue in Europe - we have good privacy laws but so far they're not being enforced. The biggest fines at this point are in the UK, but they've not been finalised yet.

[Iormlund]

What extra power would governments get from a centralised model of the app? Especially as it is still a more privacy-centric approach to doing contact tracing/track and tracing that they'll be doing anyway.

What extra power would they get from a single database where everyone's whereabouts and contacts are constantly logged? Seriously?

Contact tracing is inherently restricted to those affected by COVID 19 and during a very specific timeframe. Automatically tracking every single step of every single citizen in a centralized server goes light-years further than that.

[Zanza]

The German app is made by SAP as that's the most capable software company here.

There was a joke that now the Corona virus first has to change its process to fit to the app. 

[Sheilbh]

What extra power would they get from a single database where everyone's whereabouts and contacts are constantly logged? Seriously?

Contact tracing is inherently restricted to those affected by COVID 19 and during a very specific timeframe. Automatically tracking every single step of every single citizen in a centralized server goes light-years further than that.

That's not how these apps work - and in both France and the UK the privacy regulators have said they can't keep any data they collect after the oubtreak or keep running the app. And actually the initial privacy asssessment in the UK has already been published (https://faq.covid19.nhs.uk/DPIA%20COVID-19%20App%20PILOT%20LIVE%20RELEASE%20Isle%20of%20Wight%20Version%201.0.pdf). The source code will also be released (a beta already has) so people can technically confirm its functionalities. And in the UK the privacy regulator have already said they will supervise what happens to data when the app isn't needed.

The Bluetooth logging assigns every sign-up an identifier, which it sort of passes on to the centralised server. But the app doesn't collect your email address or name, or location and it doesn't have access to your GPS data. The extent of information you provide is the first part of your postcode - there's about 3000 of these in the UK, and access to your Bluetooth.

It accesses the data on your phone to identify which Bluetooth contacts (so other people who've signed up to the app) you've been in contact with. Through the app you can get a link to request a test if you have symptoms and then identify that you've tested positive, or if you're self-isolating for some other reason. The centralised server then pings those Bluetooth IDs that they should start self-isolating.

In the future NHSX have said they will ask for access to GPS data - but this will be something individuals have to choose to do and can turn off at any point. The current postcode level data lets them see if there is, say, an outbreak in E1 and allocate physical contact tracers etc. The purpose of the location data is to identify specific hotspots which will inform lockdown and other policies - for example if bars or train stations are hotspots then you could shut them down, mandate extra cleaning or distancing etc. But that doesn't happen yet and will always require user consent.

There are definitely privacy risks but it's not straightforward (it would require a government agency to piece together lots of information from different sources to re-identify people) and also it's not really anything that the intelligence agencies won't already have.

[Sheilbh]

The German app is made by SAP as that's the most capable software company here.

There was a joke that now the Corona virus first has to change its process to fit to the app. 

Worked with SAP and can confirm.

[Syt]

The German app is made by SAP as that's the most capable software company here.

There was a joke that now the Corona virus first has to change its process to fit to the app. 

[The Brain]

But this is the other way around. Private actors are dictating to government what they can and can't do.

How? I don't see it.

[Sheilbh]

Interesting and positive - total number of covid-19 patients in UK hospitals is now below 10,000 for the first time since March. The number of deaths in hospitals also seems to be at about the level it was just around the time lockdown was ordered.

[Iormlund]

What extra power would they get from a single database where everyone's whereabouts and contacts are constantly logged? Seriously?

Contact tracing is inherently restricted to those affected by COVID 19 and during a very specific timeframe. Automatically tracking every single step of every single citizen in a centralized server goes light-years further than that.

That's not how these apps work - and in both France and the UK the privacy regulators have said they can't keep any data they collect after the oubtreak or keep running the app. And actually the initial privacy asssessment in the UK has already been published (https://faq.covid19.nhs.uk/DPIA%20COVID-19%20App%20PILOT%20LIVE%20RELEASE%20Isle%20of%20Wight%20Version%201.0.pdf). The source code will also be released (a beta already has) so people can technically confirm its functionalities. And in the UK the privacy regulator have already said they will supervise what happens to data when the app isn't needed.

The Bluetooth logging assigns every sign-up an identifier, which it sort of passes on to the centralised server. But the app doesn't collect your email address or name, or location and it doesn't have access to your GPS data. The extent of information you provide is the first part of your postcode - there's about 3000 of these in the UK, and access to your Bluetooth.

It accesses the data on your phone to identify which Bluetooth contacts (so other people who've signed up to the app) you've been in contact with. Through the app you can get a link to request a test if you have symptoms and then identify that you've tested positive, or if you're self-isolating for some other reason. The centralised server then pings those Bluetooth IDs that they should start self-isolating.

In the future NHSX have said they will ask for access to GPS data - but this will be something individuals have to choose to do and can turn off at any point. The current postcode level data lets them see if there is, say, an outbreak in E1 and allocate physical contact tracers etc. The purpose of the location data is to identify specific hotspots which will inform lockdown and other policies - for example if bars or train stations are hotspots then you could shut them down, mandate extra cleaning or distancing etc. But that doesn't happen yet and will always require user consent.

There are definitely privacy risks but it's not straightforward (it would require a government agency to piece together lots of information from different sources to re-identify people) and also it's not really anything that the intelligence agencies won't already have.

And we're back to trust.

You clearly trust your government to abide by these rules and be mindful of your data. Can't say I understand why, given things like Five Eyes or the long history of data mismanagement (with its own Wiki page no less!).

[Sheilbh]

And we're back to trust.

You clearly trust your government to abide by these rules and be mindful of your data. Can't say I understand why, given things like Five Eyes or the long history of data mismanagement (with its own Wiki page no less!).

Some of that isn't trust, it's the technical functionality which anyone who can understand it will be able to verify once the source code is released. There'll be plenty of people doing that and publishing their results - no doubt they'll discover stuff we don't know now.

I trust the UK regulator to enforce on this, more than I trust the Irish regulator to enforce against Google or Apple (I mean purely on a resources perspective the Irish privacy regulator has, I think, about 200 staff members but they regulate Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple plus others on privacy for all of Europe). And also, fundamentally, I don't trust Google or Apple any more than governments - they enabled all of the stuff Snowden revewled or any other mass surveillance concern you have - it's not like they have clean hands. And they monetise that mass surveillance - it's a big part of their business. As I say, if I was being very cynical, I'd say their motivation is that they want to control the way this is done so it's done by them and in their environment so they get that information.

But I don't particularly have a preference on a centralised or decentralised model, I think there's arguments for both. My point is that I think that should be decided by the public health authorities who are subject to law (including privacy laws), can be reviewed by the courts and are ultimately answerable to elected governments/legislatures, not by American tech companies that are subject to law (in the venue of their choice, in this case, Ireland), whose internal decision-making isn't public or subject to review by the courts or electorate and are only ultimately answerable to consumers who have no alternative.