Google Sister-Company's Coronavirus Website Rolls Out To Confusion 104
A website intended to facilitate nationwide testing for coronavirus that was promoted by President Trump in a news conference on Friday quickly reached capacity when it went live in a small pilot project late on Sunday night. The New York Times reports: The website, created by Verily, a life sciences unit of Google's parent company, Alphabet, fell far short of the wide-ranging capabilities administration officials described on Friday. In its initial rollout, it was meant to point people to testing locations in two San Francisco Bay Area counties. It ran into two issues: First, it was telling people with symptoms of the virus that they were not eligible for the screening program. And second, they were asked to create an account with Google or log in to an existing Google account and sign an authorization form. Still, within a few hours of launching, Verily said it could not schedule any more appointments at the time because it had reached capacity.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Idiots are flooding into A&Es all over the country when they have the merest inkling that they might be infected and demanding to be tested and are being told, sometimes in no uncertain terms, to bugger off as they aren't presenting with symptoms, but are actually potentially compromising actual emergencies and wards. This is partly because GP surgeries are restricting access / closing their doors for precisely the same stupid reason.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the point of testing for a virus? It's not like there's a cure for ANY virus. Feel sick? Go home and go to bed. Can't breath and your oxygen levels are dropping, hospital. Coronavirus, H1N1, flu, cold, what's the difference?
OMG I have the RHINOVIRUS!!!!!!11!
Re:If you are sick you have it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Then people you came into contact with can then isolate themselves to prevent them spreading it before their symptoms show up. Not everyone would, but many people been doing that, proactively isolating. But people aren't going to do it because someone they had contact with had a bad cold or some other minor illness.
Maybe they should. Somebody coughed on my 75 year old mother a couple years ago and she died.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
About 30% with the virus show few symptoms and will spread it everywhere they go. The testing is all about looking like they are doing something after they have completely fucked up emergency services through mindless greed and cost cutting to fund tax cuts for the richest. Now when those services are needed they are missing, so instead mindless games like testing scam, make it look like you are doing something, when you are doing nothing at all.
The losses to the economy driven by cutting back emergency ser
Re: (Score:2)
Some testing is about looking like they are doing something, but more serious testing is vital for questions like "Is this person whose job involves meeting lots of people safe to have in that position?" Unfortunately, testing once doesn't answer that question two days from then.
Testing at the existing restricted levels is valuable for deciding on medical treatment plans. And that's probably it.
If I read the tea leaves correctly, though, we're going to need a cheap test that everyone takes frequently from
Re:If you are sick you have it (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, in South Korea, the massive testing has shown that virtually everyone in their 20s or younger is an asymptomatic carrier. It’s because of Korea’s excellent testing that we can make statistical inferences in other countries, but we still don’t know the breadth of the problem.
Testing means knowledge.
Re: (Score:1)
They understood Communist China was the problem and had allowed wuflu to escape.
Re: If you are sick you have it (Score:2)
Communist China has it contained. I'd say it was capitalist Korea - with its much higher infection rate - that dropped the ball.
Re: (Score:3)
Communist China has it contained. I'd say it was capitalist Korea - with its much higher infection rate - that dropped the ball.
But is that infection rate higher because they can actually test en masse unlike the rest of the world?
Re: (Score:3)
China eventually contained it, but at extreme cost. They *did* drop the ball. But they sure weren't the only ones. Italy may just have had bad luck, as they didn't have much warning, but the US and Britain have done an exceedingly poor job of handling things. Most other countries I don't really know enough about to have an opinion, but my guess is that just about everyone "dropped the ball".
Re: (Score:1)
To find the sick people and get them away from the not sick people.
Then to track the past weeks of the sick people and test the people who had contact.
Test them. Isolate the sick.
Random people wondering around with wuflu spreads more wuflu.
Few nations have the ICU care for that kind of spread of wuflu.
ie dont end up like Italy and other failed EU nations.
Re: (Score:2)
To find the sick people and get them away from the not sick people.
I don't feel sick. Should I get tested?
Re: (Score:2)
Not with the number of tests that are available.
Yes, you should, but not at the expense of people who need it more. And if you're not sick, and not elderly that's about half the population.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the point of testing for a virus?
For you? Nothing. For the entire rest of society, there are many points. Literally every country is currently determining and enacting national policy based on tests, so the point is to not feed them bad data.
Re: (Score:2)
OMG I have the RHINOVIRUS!!!!!!11!
Hey, my stuffed rhinoceros, Oserous, got that last year and felt miserable for two weeks, you insensitive clod. I also had to quarantine him away from all the other stuffed animals while he was sick. Tough times, for sure, but we all got through it.
Re:If you are sick you have it (Score:5, Informative)
In Italy we don't send people home to die. Please don't spread misinformation. Hospitals are close to be saturated but still able to provide intensive care to who needs it. We are working hard to expand the capacity at the same time. Maybe in the future things will degrade but we're still able to cope.
Re: (Score:3)
In some countries that's true. OP is in Belgium, I have friends and family there. Hospitals were already stretched and rationing care severely before these events, local populations have pointed at Germany, France and Netherlands bussing illegal immigrants into Belgium for the last few decades and lawmakers forcing the OCMW to take care of everyone.
If you have a system that's already overworked, putting in more load isn't going to do it any good.
Re: (Score:2)
What bullshit is this "bussing illegal immigrants into Belgium"? Where did you hear that, Brietbart or somewhere even worse?
Or was your "local populations have pointed at" very careful wording to avoid saying it was actually true and it's just some propaganda that certain locals fell for?
Re: (Score:2)
It's true that the report from the medic that I read didn't say they sent them home to die. It said the took the respirator off older people who needed it to use on younger people who needed it...and left the older person to die.
Possibly this was just one place, but their triage basically said that anyone over 60 would be given oxygen and allowed to die. Because they didn't have as good a chance of surviving as the younger patients who were treated instead.
I think "sending them home to die" is a short-han
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe in the future things will degrade but we're still able to cope.
The mortality rate is currently 6x higher in Italy than the rest of the world for the virus. You certainly don't look like you're coping, though this may be related to data.
Re: (Score:2)
Hospitals are close to be saturated but still able to provide intensive care to who needs it.
Sorry, that seems to not be true [reuters.com].
Not viable here. (Score:5, Informative)
That's not really viable here. Lots of people either don't have paid sick time or (like me) don't have enough to use at the moment (due to prior illness, I have about two hours of sick time accrued right now, I get one hour per 35 hour plus work week). I could get by for two weeks if I had to (it would hurt, I'd probably be working it off for months), but lots of people in the US couldn't, they need a paycheck to survive.
Shitty labor policies combined with a poor government response are turning this into far bigger of a mess in the US than elsewhere. The decades of greed are catching up all at once. Just be glad that to most healthy people under 70, this merely presents as a nasty flu. This could have happened with any virus, potentially one that's a lot more fatal. This ought to be a wake up call that the systems we have are completely incapable of handing this kind of situation and need to be amended.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How's that big screen TV and cell phones and wtf ever such that you live hand to mouth and cannot handle 2 weeks without pay.
Everyone can live slightly below their means and save some, but you know...
You will get angry at this, but I will get angry in response. The vast majority of hand to mouth people don't need to live that way -- there're always people living that way on less.
Re: (Score:2)
I priced large screen TVs the last time I went searching for a monitor. They're relatively cheap. The cell phone is the expensive one, and it's an on-going cost. But even that's cheap compared to food and rent.
I'm not angry at you, I just think you're stupid. You *are* right that many people live beyond their means, where you're wrong is in thinking that if they were careful they wouldn't. Sometimes that's true, but often it isn't. And you save a lot more by living in a poorer part of town than you c
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
I have about two hours of sick time accrued right now, I get one hour per 35 hour plus work week
I can't believe any developed country can have such a stupid policy. Aside from anything else January and February are the most common times for illness so you need it all then.
The company you work for is run by complete fucking idiots I'm afraid. You probably knew that. By forcing sick people to infect their coworkers they are just destroying their own business.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Holy crap on Belgium and Italy! After the savaging the US press gave Trump early on, with 40 cases and 0 deaths, I can't imagine the evisceration being suffered by the Belgium and Italian leaders!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the reason Trump got savaged is because 40 cases is definitely a massive under-estimate due to lack of testing, which is his fault.
His administration got rid of the pandemic response unit in the CDC, following his policy to generally try to defund and decimate that organization. He reacted slowly the pandemic, at first calling it a hoax.
The Belgian and Italian numbers are so high because they are honest and testing people. Well actually there is another reason, they both tend to assume anyone with f
Re: (Score:2)
His administration got rid of the pandemic response unit in the CDC, following his policy to generally try to defund and decimate that organization.
I can't speak as to the accuracy of your second statement, but the first is false. The eliminated positions were in the national security council (part of the white house staff) and not in any way, shape, or form, part of the CDC or any other medical organization. You can debate the wisdom of this (current circumstances would argue that this was probably not a good idea) but by mischaracterizing what happened, you are part of the "fake news" problem. It is easy to claim that stories are misinformation whe
Re: (Score:2)
And only one actual related NSC (not CDC) position was eliminated. The others were re-organized as part of a larger NSC re-organization because the NSC had blown up to 4x it's usual size under Obama. Based on the National Biodefense strategy, they became staff for the newly created counterproliferation and biodefense directorate [washingtonpost.com] which took over their previous responsibilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise it is just assumed you have it. You call the doctor and you have a cough and a fever? Corona! Go in quarantine for 2 weeks.
That's the general advice everywhere. Stay home, *self* quarantine, call the ambulance if you end up with a respiratory infection. Note the "self" part. You aren't being carted off to some quarantine facility which incidentally... also happens to be the same advice they would have give you 6 months ago: "stay home, don't go to work".
The only difference is now they are saying, you may have coronavirus don't come in contact with anyone. This isn't groundbreaking.
Private Sector Collaboration Failed! ? (Score:2)
Seriously, how many of YOU could have rolled this out in a weekend? A few lines of Perl wouldn't cut it.
Re:Private Sector Collaboration Failed! ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so Mr. Smarty, what would you have them do? They can't make appointments for unconfirmed people - that is just asking people to submit malicious fake info and get all the appointments.
What information do you NORMALLY give to your doctor? Name, address, phone number, insurance info. And the only reason they need that much is to call to remind about your appointment, bill the appropriate agency, and possibly track you down when you haven't paid. If they didn't need to bill anyone, your name and phone number would be sufficient. If they didn't need to call to remind you (or trace you for a positive result), they could just issue a sequence number like at a deli counter, and tell you wher
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to. You can check if you are eligible for the test without logging in. If you are then you need to give them some contact details so you can get the test done, obviously. And you can sign in with Google but you can also just supply an email address and other relevant data like name and D.O.B. and address. The stuff you will have to give to any organization administering these tests.
Re:Private Sector Collaboration Failed! ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Healthcare.gov?
Re: (Score:2)
That was actually successful by most standards. Keep in mind that on top of government buracracy, it was initiated with only support of 2/3s of the stakeholders.
And 1/3 lost power, so during development and ongoing operations, 2/3s of the stakeholders were looking to tank the project! STILL, the site has provided over 8 million Americans with health insurance that the private sector failed for over a decade. And the icing, the federal site worked better than most of the local smaller state level
Re: (Score:3)
Uh huh. That's why we need people like Barack telling us how wonderful Solyndra is (was) [c-span.org]. /sarcasm
Yeah, Trump doesn't think enough before he speaks. But this is not some catastrophic blunder. Nor would any president be too slow to trust a web site produced by a major company like Alphabet--whether right or wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
But this is not some catastrophic blunder.
No, it isn't, but even by itself, it creates unnecessary and avoidable confusion in a situation that is already a bit too exciting. So maybe a modicum of maturity and preparation would have been better. As a part of the track record, well, it kinda adds emphasis to my original point.
Re: (Score:2)
Good lord, what is this unbearable trend to make everything about Trump?
TBH, as much as today's Google annoys and infuriates me, if they were building a goddamn web service I would assume that it would work at fucking Google scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Good lord, what is this unbearable trend to make everything about Trump?
How is this not about Trump [wired.com], when the news was literally generated by Trump himself annoucing a service that does not exist?
if they were building a goddamn web service I would assume
TBH, I still assume that people on /. have some basic functional literacy and ability to use the "information superhighway" to inform themselves before commenting on an issue. And I find I am wrong every single time.
Re: (Score:3)
Good lord, what is this unbearable trend to make everything about Trump?
Because Trump himself said (on a Saturday) Google had 1700 programmers working on a nationwide website that would tell you if you were sick and direct you to testing sites and that it would be available the following Monday. And almost none of that was accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He (or whoever told him) obviously misunderstood the actual statement, which is that 1700 employees at Google had volunteered to help build the site. Which isn't exactly the same as they are helping to build it, but it's not so far away as to not be something which could be lost in a game of telephone when information like that is casually passed on from person to person.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least you can admit your literal prejudice in the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Private Sector Collaboration Failed! ? (Score:4, Informative)
So you're saying Google overpromised
No, that's what you're saying.
the President have them the benefit of the doubt
No, the Donald said things about the site that weren't true [wired.com] in the first place. As he usually does.
ORANGE MAN BAAAAAAD!!
Calm down, you're screaming already and this is only your second sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on, the only thing that is verifiable wrong about what he said is that its not Google proper but Verily, another one of the multitude of Alphabet companies. I refer to Alphabet et al as Google all the time. Because Alphabet is a stupid name, they have more companies than its worth keeping up with, and they spend 25 years building their brand as Google to just change it. No they can lay in that bed.
Acting like its some great lie to call an Alphabet company Google is intentionally misleading. You are
Re: Private Sector Collaboration Failed! ? (Score:4, Insightful)
the only thing that is verifiable wrong about what he said is that its not Google proper but Verily
Really, now? After this? [twimg.com] And this? [theverge.com]
Acting like its some great lie...
Nobody is acting like the announcement is some "great lie". It is not even a regularly sized lie, actually, it is just some wishful thinking by someone rather immature who wanted make a good impression, but failed.
You are blinded by partisanship and are grasping.
I am neither "grasping", nor partisan. I just state the simple fact that Trump somewhat irresponsibly exaggerated something because that is what he does, and unlike you, I support my statement with actual evidence and not conjectures and name-calling.
Anyway, I spend too much time on this topic already, you trolls have a nice fight.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I am neither "grasping", nor partisan. I just state the simple fact that Trump somewhat irresponsibly exaggerated something because that is what he does, and unlike you, I support my statement with actual evidence and not conjectures and name-calling.
Anyway, I spend too much time on this topic already, you trolls have a nice fight.
I'm reading reports now (unconfirmed by the WH of course) that Kushner told Trump that Google was doing this and that he overpromised on what they were actually doing and that Trump was pretty pissed off at him. Kushner has also supposedly been a big behind the scenes proponent of the "PR hoax" tack that has led the WH to initially downplay the corona virus and the response. So I will give Trump the benefit of the doubt that he thought what he was saying was (mostly, he can't stop doing a little exaggerat
Re: (Score:2)
It very well could be that Trump did not personally engineer this, but as you point out, encircling yourself with incompetent people and making decisions based on their unfiltered err... input to you is still your problem.
Summa summarum, Trump has to own this because he chose to make the statement, and the buck still stops there.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on, the only thing that is verifiable wrong about what he said is that its not Google proper
Nope. Basically everything Donald said was wrong.
- He got the coverage wrong (not national)
- He got the scope wrong (Google said straight after the press conference that Trump's announcements mushed together a whole lot of different projects and none covered the scope of what he announced).
- He said 1700 people were working on this (LOL).
- He got the name of the company wrong.
In fact the only thing that was correct about his statement is that some of his sentences contained verbs.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is going to develop a website — it’s going to be very quickly done, unlike websites of the past — to determine if a test is warranted and to facilitate testing at a nearby convenient location,” Trump said at the press conference. “We have many, many locations behind us, by the way. We cover this country and large parts of the world, by the way. We’re not gonna be talking about the world right now, but we cover very, very strongly our country. Stores in virtually every location. Google has 1,700 engineers working on this right now. They have made tremendous progress.
I highlighted the only part that is true. Google wasn't even at the event, even though many other leaders were.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying Google overpromised, and the President have them the benefit of the doubt when he should not have?
No. Google, or someone in the administration, told Trump what Google was doing and Trump heard what he wanted to hear. What Trump said Google was doing sounds basically like he (or someone) combined (and then exaggerated) the two things that Google (yes, I know one of them is technically a Google affiliate) is actually doing. The man is a pathological liar and serial exaggerator, which is not what we need right now (not that we ever needed that).
Re: Private Sector Collaboration Failed! ? (Score:2)
I bet you do anything your boss tells you to, don't you? No thought, no consideration. The man with plan says jump, you ask him how high and if you can fellate him.
Re: Private Sector Collaboration Failed! ? (Score:1)
You fundies really are humorless...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Google's supposedly had 1,700 engineers on this. Somebody's phoning it in...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, so Google is being lame. No surprise there.
Clearly, we then need to -make- it be 1,700.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The point being, 1,700 is the number that -should be-, at least relatively speaking. You want slowdown or failure on containing coronavirus as long as it makes Trump look bad, apparently.
Re: (Score:2)
Google also said 1700 employees had volunteered to work on the pilot. Obviously, they didn't take all the volunteers, but it's easy to see how that statement could morph into the other after being passed through a few people.
Sounds like a typical government web site (Score:2)
It exists to discourage you from getting any services.
Reached capacity during a small pilot. (Score:1)
You donâ(TM)t say. Because I could swear thatâ(TM)s what a âoesmall pilotâ is supposed to be. Fuck Slashdot has gone full blown TDS because of their Bernie Bro editors.
Re: (Score:2)
They at least understand not to use Unishit on a site not supporting it.
Re: (Score:1)
Blame apple products. Iâ(TM)m not getting up to use a PC for this crappy site.
Look up the word deranged; Trumptards (Score:2)
I'd be amazed Trumptards are literate except I remember the Nazi were the most literate, best educated and one of the most "enlightened" before they were suckered into an evil cult. If you can't see the patterns, you either don't know history or are too slow to make the connections. Braking them free from their cult will involve some force, reason won't work.
The irony and contradiction knows no limits for actually deranged(crazy) people - if you've had to live with somebody who actually was severely mentall
Is Google the tech Juggernaut an (Score:4, Insightful)
Very disappointing for Google as an organization and for it's personal.
Just my 2 cents
Re: (Score:2)
No. No. This isn't google. Despite the fact that you need to have a google account to access, and it's developed by people who previously sat (before being ordered to telework) in a building with the word Google out front, this is NOT google.
Re: Is Google the tech Juggernaut an (Score:2)
Don't worry; they'll make up for it. They will send their self driving cars to your home, and the familiar voice will ask for your name. It will inform you of the nearest testing center, but the automobile is already running a breathalyzer during the conversation. As you head out, it will decide a more suitable destination for you: testing center, hospital, or just lock you inside in the new self- quarantine mode.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you surprised that Trump exaggerated?
When it comes to medical stuff of course they are going to take it slow and careful. The potential for malpractice lawsuits is huge.
1700! (Score:5, Funny)
This is what a website build by 1,700 google employees gets you!
No wonder Google needs to keep retiring their apps, they simple don't have the manpower to maintain them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is what a website build by 1,700 google employees gets you! No wonder Google needs to keep retiring their apps, they simple don't have the manpower to maintain them.
Verily only has ~1000 employees, and they certainly weren't all working on this. I'll leave the origin of the discrepancy as an exercise for the reader.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google is the original source for the 1700 number:
Obviously, someone heard about the 1700 volunteers and then passed it on and someone misunderstood (or it got mangled in a game of telephone) so that it came out as that's how many people were working on it, when they didn't actually have everyone who volunteered actually contribute time.