This looks like a governmental issue in my eyes: it's the government's responsibility to ensure that the roads are reasonable safe and the traffic reasonable regulated, not Google's. If a route is dangerous, something should be done with the route itself (not the suggestion). But if Maps' suggestions breaks regulations and propose an illegal route, I agree!
The roads are mostly reasonable and safe. There are always going to be turns and intersections that are more difficult than the others. Google (and every other consumer map provider for that matter) has a habit of picking unnecessarily complex routes to shave a few seconds. Unnecessarily routing through difficult intersections and using a dozen side streets to cut the corner off a route are just specific examples of that.
You've noticed Google Maps do this? I personally find Google will take the simpler routes even if sometimes a faster route comes up while driving. Sometimes on a longer drive I'll see it is showing a greyed out route I could take that is sometimes even 5-10 minutes faster but it won't suggest it to me.
No whereas with Waze it is a lot more aggressive and it will take faster routes and shortcuts even if it means taking a gravel road to save 30 seconds.
But what you’re saying is all roads that technically conform to standards are equal in safety or should be. That does not seem realistic or practical. For example windy mountain roads vs urban freeways. Or unprotected left turns versus protected left turns. Should unprotected left turns be made illegal.
Why can’t a third party routing software assess safety? It’s not a realistic expectation to expect all roads to be equivalent in safety.
> [...] it's the government's responsibility to ensure that the roads are reasonable safe [...]
Even if you agree with that, it's still not the governments responsibility to make all possible routes exactly equally safe. (That's actually not possible, for any non-zero level of risk.)
So even if the overall risk was low and in some sense reasonable, you might still want to pick the less risky route.
Also keep in mind that different people have different risk appetites.
Where and when does the driver's responsibility come into play? Do we not have a social contract of following rules we already agreed on, or set by the Gov? What else did you want Gov to do?
According to NRK, Der Spiegel has reported that 1.78 million women below 70 years and 864.000 men have had the vaccine. The nine cases thus suggest a risk of 1 in 61.400 for blood clots in women and 1 in 432.000 for men.
In Norway, there are now three deaths after vaccination (antibodies have not yet been reported in all cases, though) in people below 55 years. That's a huge number; for comparison, eight women below 60 years have died from COVID-19 (in total)
Even more so considering that, IIRC, only about 120K people were vaccinated with AstraZeneca in Norway.
There is something strange going on in Scandinavia because UK has reported nothing special with two orders of magnitude more people vaccinated. But it's definitely a cause for concern, at the very least.
The UK vaccinated old people first. At least here in Germany we had the problem that AstraZeneca was only allowed to be used with people <65. That could be one explanation.
Not just immunocompromised. Group 6 was anyone <65yo with a clinical condition which made them more vulnerable. Nearly 7 million people were eligable for that. I imagine they have nearly been done by now, and at least half would have had AZ, so that's 3.5m young(ish) people that have had AZ used.
>There is something strange going on in Scandinavia because UK has reported nothing special with two orders of magnitude more people vaccinated.
I don't want to start conspiracy theories but I wouldn't be surprised if it came to light that, in the UK, reports about deaths and side-effects have been suppressed. In the wake of a disastrous Brexit, the UK is in desperate need of a success story and with the Astrazeneca/Oxford vaccine seen as the British contender, it might have become a question of national pride to have it succeed. British newspapers (well, tabloids) present the UK vaccination rate as a vindictive competition with the EU.
> I wouldn't be surprised if it came to light that, in the UK, reports about deaths and side-effects have been suppressed
If we (I'm British) were accomplished enough to reputation-manage for the vaccine response, I'd have expected the initial (huge) death toll to have been under-reported too - which it clearly hasn't.
It's about as moronic as the people calling individual EU countries' cautious response to the blood clotting cases a political face saving measure by Brussels.
The sample is so small that even if they did it wouldn't be possible to say anything definitive about any possible connection. The death rate here in Norway is minuscule compared to the UK, US, France, etc.
Uh, I did not think that far. So if the vaccination is responsible for the deaths, it almost killed half the number of women below 50 that COVID has since March 2020. Fucking hell, and people outside Norway complain that the governmend is taking action? (EDIT: only one death, not three)
Update: two new deaths following vaccination, with a similar clinical picture, were just reported, they are now investigating if the vaccine is the likely cause
The pysicians have now concluded that the vaccine did in fact cause the immune activation destroying platelets, leading to at least one death in a previously healthy healthy care worker
