Kansas City expects those who will resume public attendance of various activities including "religious services" after May 6th to be registered as att

[IanM]

A link to the document mentioning this is within the tweet and also below.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1256615144441946118

https://www.kcmo.gov/city-hall/depa...covid-19-kcmo-information-and-response/reopen

 

[Cathoholic]

I hope not. (I hope this is not the new normal.)

 

[Wampa]

Event organizers (not the government) keeping data on attendees for 30 days so that it’s available for contact tracing (if needed) is a reasonable step so that we can re-open safely.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-kansas-city-church/partly-false-claim-churches-in-kansas-city-are-required-to-submit-a-list-of-attendees-idUSKBN22I28T

 

[CilladeRoma]

Nope. Not a good idea at all. The government has no right to request this of the Church. I don’t care how good the intention, this is wrong and should not be allowed.

 

[Pattylt]

The problem then becomes if there is a breakout, they have no way to trace and contact those that were exposed. All they could do is shut it all down again. If we want to reopen and stay reopened, we may have to do some things we don’t like and that violate our individualism for the safety of all…for a time. As long as the time period is defined and reasonable, it’s better than just having to go through all of this all over again! How many cycles of opening up and reclosing are you willing to tolerate to avoid putting your name on an attendance sheet?

 

[CilladeRoma]

Nope. Not buying the “good intention”.
Are we going to do the same for all who ride public transportation, visit stores and any other of a number of things where the virus could be transmitted?

 

[Cathoholic]

PattyIt . . .

The problem then becomes if there is a breakout, they have no way to trace and contact those that were exposed.

So what?

You have the same problem with the flu. (A significant number of people die from that too.)

Yes, people will die from viruses. No matter what we do.

If somebody themselves is worried about it,
just stay home
instead of turning America into a police state
(“Where are your papers!?” Are you properly registered?").

We are past the point of dimimishing returns on this kind of ridiculousness.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Nope. Not buying the “good intention”.
Are we going to do the same for all who ride public transportation, visit stores and any other of a number of things where the virus could be transmitted?

The “fact check” article says that first of all, this is not a requirement, but a recommendation that event organizers keep a list of attendees.
Second of all, it is not specific to churches - the article notes that the recommendation applied to all businesses, such as retail stores, nail salons etc.

Obviously it’s going to be pretty easy for some businesses to put it into practice, such as nail and hair salons where they keep an appointment log, and harder for others, like retail stores where people don’t give their name and phone number just to walk in and buy.

It’s a tossup as to whether a church will be able to do this or not. The Portland, Oregon plan was requiring people to sign up to attend Mass, so they would have a log. If Kansas City decides to do Masses differently, for instance first come first serve with no names given, or drive in Masses, they won’t have a log.

In any event I don’t care if the government knows I went to church. I’ll freely tell anybody who asks I went to church. If the government wants to come and persecute me for going to church, guess it’s martyrdom for me.

 

[MikeInVA]

The problem then becomes if there is a breakout, they have no way to trace and contact those that were exposed.

They’ve been tracing contact since this started by interviewing the infected people. No need to do this.

 

[MikeInVA]

The “fact check” article says that first of all, this is not a requirement, but a recommendation that event organizers keep a list of attendees.

But our bishops have demonstrated an eagerness to comply with all suggestions so far - churches were shut down before the governors enacted lockdown measures. There is no valid reason to do this; it’s an attack on our rights.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I just want to go to church. If they make me sign something I don’t care. If they make me take a selfie and send it to the FBI, I don’t care.

 

[Pattylt]

I feel that those that don’t want to put their name on a list should be the ones to stay home. They’re the ones so concerned for their privacy then don’t go out.

For me, if I return to a public gathering, I not only want to be contacted if some comes up positive, I NEED to know this! I’m in contact with an immunocompromised person. He is extremely high risk. He doesn’t go out but we have to go and get his groceries, meds and help with housekeeping. I really don’t want to I’ll him! So those that want all their privacy are free to stay home and I have no problem putting my name on a list. YMMV

 

[MikeInVA]

I feel that those that don’t want to put their name on a list should be the ones to stay home. They’re the ones so concerned for their privacy then don’t go out.

For me, if I return to a public gathering, I not only want to be contacted if some comes up positive, I NEED to know this! I’m in contact with an immunocompromised person. He is extremely high risk. He doesn’t go out but we have to go and get his groceries, meds and help with housekeeping. I really don’t want to I’ll him! So those that want all their privacy are free to stay home and I have no problem putting my name on a list. YMMV

I think you’re very hard on people who believe that they have a right to worship without having to register with the government. If you are in contact with someone with a immunocompromised person then perhaps you are the one who should not be out in the public?

 

[Pattylt]

If you are in contact with someone with a immunocompromised person then perhaps you are the one who should not be out in the public?

I’m the one that HAS to go out to get his groceries and med, drive him to doctor appts, etc. otherwise, I do stay home. We are beginning to open up here on the restrictions. I don’t plan on taking advantage of them as I still need to be as careful as possible. Writing names on a list would only be used by the health agencies if the virus was identified in a gathering and being able to notify those that attended is vital information, especially for me, so I would know I’d have to strictly isolate for 14 days.

I understand privacy, really I do. I just feel that there are critical situations of public health that may have to temporarily suspend that right. We’ve done it before. We return to normal protocols after the crisis has ended as we will here, too. We only have so many ways we can fight this virus. Most feel that we should ease up on isolation. Ok, so how is the best and safest way to that? Being able to trace infection is one way to open up and yet contain those infected and is much better than just opening up and telling people to wash their hands.

All I’m saying is that IF we want to begin to return to an open society, there may be some interim steps needed. Telling me that I need to isolate so you don’t have to put your name on a list is not much different than me telling you to stay home if you don’t want to put your name on a list. Your rights are no more important than mine nor mine from yours. Let’s be cautious, careful and as safe as we can be for a bit longer.

 

[Wampa]

Soon there will be voluntary, anonymized contact tracing apps for smartphones which will do this much more efficiently and without needing to collect personal information. And it will cover every place we go, including public transportation, church services, stores, etc.

It will be an elegant solution, as long as they implement it optimally for data privacy (storing the info on the handsets, not a central server).

It is said that we’ll need 60% of people to download the apps to achieve the necessary tracing levels. Unfortunately, in the U.S., I doubt we’ll get there, as we’ll hear all these same complaints about the app.

And this, really, is my biggest issue with the “open now” side’s arguments, especially those focused on ‘rights’ and ‘liberty.’ Many proponents give lip service to “we’ll be safe as we re-open,” but they mostly aren’t interested in achieving the testing, isolation of infected, and contact tracing necessary for us to be safe.

This article gives a nice overview of the technological and privacy issues at play with the app rollout:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-on-coronavirus-contact-tracing-idUSKBN22J1N8

 

[Pattylt]

I hesitated to bring this up as those that feel that putting their name on a list would never download an app that has the word “tracking” in it. We can assure all we want that no private information is exchanged and all data remains on your personal device and they won’t believe it or buy into it. If you carry a cell phone and use Google, FB, Twitter, etc. especially if you ever use gps maps, then they already know more about you and your whereabouts! These new tracking apps are much more private.

I’m glad you went there…so I didn’t have to!

 

[Emeraldlady]

We are using an app now in Australia. 5.5 million of us have signed up for it. And you are right, Google and FB apps have way more info on us than this app. does. We can just delete it when the pandemic has calmed down.

 

[Wampa]

If you carry a cell phone and use Google, FB, Twitter, etc. especially if you ever use gps maps, then they already know more about you and your whereabouts! These new tracking apps are much more private.

That is a great point! I was reading an interview with a data privacy expert the other day (covering data privacy law is my profession), and he was noting that most people who will object to the contact tracing apps are already running dozens of apps that vacuum up most of their personal information.

I find it so strange that people will download Facebook (the king of monetizing every scrap of information about you) and other data-sucking apps on their phone, but won’t use a contact tracing app that will actually help us re-open safely.

 

[Pattylt]

Thanks for that info! 5.5 million out of how many potential phones have downloaded…if you know? Would you say over 50%?

Do quite a few or almost no screaming about privacy invasion? In other words, how accepting are the people to this. It’s such a brilliant plan and would be so effective if everyone would overcome their fear of it. It invades no privacy and when the crisis is over…delete it!

I’m under no delusion that at some point in time I may be exposed to Covid. I just really need to aware when I am if at all possible! We may never have a vaccine but we may discover an early treatment or drug that lessens the severity…to know I’ve been exposed and could utilize something like that is huge for me!

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Soon there will be voluntary, anonymized contact tracing apps for smartphones which will do this much more efficiently and without needing to collect personal information.

Yes, they are even working on these in countries that have much stricter privacy laws than the United States. Of course, such apps are very controversial in those countries.

I find it so strange that people will download Facebook (the king of monetizing every scrap of information about you) and other data-sucking apps on their phone, but won’t use a contact tracing app that will actually help us re-open safely.

I agree. As the Sun executive said years ago, “There is no privacy on the Internet. Get over it.”