Uber blocks drivers who picked up coronavirus-infected man | Hacker News Reader

Uber blocks drivers who picked up coronavirus-infected man

bbc.co.uk

60 pointsZenst14 comments

I found the headline misleading - Uber didn't permanently block the drivers, it temporarily suspended them from driving. Uber also temporarily suspended all the people who had been in the car that day. They also notified all these folks and sent them info on health providers.

That actually sounds pretty prudent and helpful to me. If I were one of those 240 passengers, I'd be a little upset to find out I'd been in a car after someone carrying the virus, but grateful to know I'd been exposed. Then if I started getting symptoms, instead of thinking "well, there's no corona virus in Mexico, it's a cold, I'll just sleep it off," I'd go in for treatment right away.

I realize it sucks for the drivers who are counting on driving income, but WOW is an Uber driver an effective patient-zero, just two cars exposed meant 240 people exposed! Can you imagine if Uber didn't intervene after it knew about the exposure? Future headline: thousands infected in Mexico after Uber fails to quarantine exposed drivers.

They could offer some kind of compensation for drivers they block that did nothing wrong.

This seems worrisome to me, because Uber is not directed by epidemiologists and is in direct conflict with the governments they work for in many places. The measure of suspending passengers will only be effective if those passengers have no other means of transportation; more likely they will take the bus, increasing the risk of contagion rather than decreasing it. I don't trust Uber to make these tradeoffs.

Also, of course, it's unjust, especially if they aren't paying the drivers who got exposed to the virus by the work they did for Uber. But every quarantine measure is unjust; my concern is primarily that this one may be pointlessly or even counterproductively unjust.

I wonder if we will see Uber using this kind of surveillance information for political rather than epidemiological purposes in the future. Presumably it can already be subpoenaed if, for example, a government is indicting a journalist for sedition or treason, or a divorce lawyer is looking for dirt on a spouse. But what about network analysis to identify people who are associated with pro-taxi groups, or companies where suddenly everyone is working late? Is there a stock trading angle there?

They did previously use this data to try to cut off Lyft: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/13/uber-alle... and I think to identify police who might be signing up as passengers.

If Uber didn't do this, and the driver infected someone, everyone would be screaming at them. (Witness people screaming at Uber for transporting a 12 year old who committed suicide - somehow that's Uber's fault.)

There's no way for them to win this unless government steps in and tells them what to do.

Yes, that's true.

There's an easy way for them to win - pay the drivers some amount, perhaps their 50th percentile earnings of late, despite them not driving.

My own employer has a coronavirus policy, now: if you have traveled to China for personal or work reasons, you're expected to work from home for two weeks upon returning. We're not actually a company that has a work-from-home program, and there are people who have left the company because organizationally we won't allow remote work on an ongoing basis. We have a culture that favors in-person meetings over making things available digitally for remote employees. But there's a VPN, and for this purpose, the company says, do what you can do from home and we'll still pay you your full salary.

(That sort of policy, by the way, is better for society than Uber's - a suspended Uber driver would spend their days doing things other than waiting quietly at home. Probably they would try to make money, and especially in the gig economy, they wouldn't have to tell anyone why they've got some free time suddenly. Maybe they'd drive for Lyft. But if Uber said, stay home and we'll pay you to stay home, they probably would.)

Then again, my employer actually has an employer-employee relationship, not a reseller-vendor relationship.

(Another way to solve this, by the way, is enough of a social safety net that the government can feel comfortable stepping in and saying "Stay home, and we'll send you a government paycheck to stay home." Then Uber can keep treating drivers as Galt-endorsed microbusinesses and not as expensive legacy employees, but you still get the same benefits to society. Also, probably you'd have better health insurance for the drivers.)

> There's an easy way for them to win - pay the drivers some amount, perhaps their 50th percentile earnings of late, despite them not driving.

That's not how contracting works.

It's not how it often works, yes, but parties are free to make whatever contract they want. There's no rule that contracting can't work that way.

Wonder what would happen in a scenario where a driver picked up the virus from a previous fare (who is found to have had the virus), Uber takes no action and a new fare a few days later contracts it from the driver (whom Uber knew had the potential to become infected) do they become liable?

Would it be like a common cold where it’s so common it’d be impossible to point the finger at someone as the vector so it’d impossible to “sue someone for infecting them”.

Workplaces are becoming conscious and conscientious about this (cold) and actively ask people to stay home if they know they have a cold or influenza. We’ll see where this heads.

This is interesting with regard to granularity of tracing human movement and interactions, privacy issues aside. Useful for analyzing such a public health issue.

Well done Uber good move! I hope they compensated the driver and gave the other passengers some free credits etc

"coronavirus man"? That seems a shade dehumanizing.

Edit: I think the HN revision of the title, "coronoavirus-infected man", is a lot better. "Coronavirus man" sounds like the name of an awful superhero.

Why? A man that has caught coronavirus. Would an "ill man" be better? A man that has caught an illness.

We need to stop being offended so damn much. The society is getting softer and more punishing to unintentional offenses.

Edit: LOL @ the superhero comment

Reply on news.ycombinator.com