There is a risk to mandating a single option for everyone. If that option would eventual start to show serious problems later on, everyone would face the risk of experiencing similar problems. Having a multitude of options available for different groups, and pursuing all of these could have a better overall outcome than focusing on the current objective of vaccinating everyone with a very new technology.
Though this processing of big data, the algorithm will make discoveries about the world that it is incapable of disclosing to humans. Instead it will act on these discoveries in an attempt to optimize some objective. There is a much more profound benefit of this arrangement: if the humans were to become aware of the discovery, they may be incapable of handling it. Humans will panic at the implications.
The social status type system could offer a way to greatly reduce the need for police force to apprehend a suspected criminal. All that would be necessary would be to change that person’s credit score so that he will no longer be able to use most of public or social resources. That change is status is sufficient for that individual to eventually seek out a remedy that will allow the government to deal with him appropriately. No police force required.
The absolute and accumulated numbers are only important for political gains for electing parties and politicians. A government by data and urgency has no such politician elections so these numbers are not meaningful as long as the survival rate is sustainable. From an operational perspective, what matters is maintaining sufficient capacity to handle the new cases.
The biggest failing of science in the current COVID situation is its inability to react to new evidence that its original conclusions were wrongly decided, and the assurances to governments were incompetent. We implicitly accept that any initial science-based decisions attains some law-like status that is automatically presumed to be true until there is overwhelming evidence that it is wrong. In particular, such decision making does not permit a simple apology for making a mistake following new data that clearly disproves the original science.
We live an era of rapid succession of new challenges and opportunities as humanity continues to progress to a more capable population. There is no time to waste on clinging to old theories merely out of respect to the past science. We need a government that reinvigorates the true science of the activity of figuring out new truths of the current world based on recent measurements that our predecessors never encountered.
Government was already acting in an authoritarian matter to close down all non-essential activities enforced by law. Given the newness of 5G, it could have easily been included in the non-essential activities.
I see a very grim future for current governments that are already trapped by their decisions with the only option to ratchet up the restrictions and government dependencies. It is possible that a brighter future could emerge under an algorithmic driven government with the properties described above of punctuated liberty with extensive data use.
Unless we permit the algorithms to project the trends into the future, thus inventing modeled data for future values, the algorithms would conclude on policies that may not be distinguishable from the current politically biased decision making. Government by data must permit dark data, data generated by models, as equals to bright data of trusted observations.
The proposal to remove justice from the state’s responsibility is risky. But so is the proposal to remove truth from the state’s responsibility for justice. We are heading, perhaps inevitably, to the second option. We could at least consider the first option.