[HN Gopher] Google promised its contact tracing app was complete... ___________________________________________________________________ Google promised its contact tracing app was completely private, but it wasn't Author : EastSmith Score : 416 points Date : 2021-04-27 12:31 UTC (10 hours ago) (HTM) web link (themarkup.org) (TXT) w3m dump (themarkup.org) | foolzcrow wrote: | The elite have planned on controlling us for at least 80 years. | [deleted] | renewiltord wrote: | Yeah, I wasn't going to touch this shit. Especially when all | these people who were going on and on about privacy suddenly | decided to about face, it made me very suspicious. No way. | Ceezy wrote: | Do we know what kind of users info are contained in these logs? | It seems a bit misleading. | FrameworkFred wrote: | ...to which the scorpion replies: "I couldn't help it. It's in my | nature." | bpodgursky wrote: | This is trite, inaccurate, and proves you didn't read the | article whatsoever. | pyronik19 wrote: | The last entity in the world I would want to trust with all of my | location data is google. | robrenaud wrote: | Which is why Apple/Google engineered this to not use GPS | location data, instead each phone locally kept track of nearby | bluetooth IDs. Which made the app scale quadratically rather | than linearly with usage (10% adoption means 1% of possible | transmissions caught), which made it basically useless without | large scale adoption that it never got. | | Google/Apple timidly did some basically useless engineering, | when they could have instead made a significant dent in | limiting the spread of covid. | | If they were going to make the timid, quadratically scaling | decision, they should have boldly made it opt out. A quadratic | scaling, privacy preserving protocol plus a timid opt in | strategy might have cost 30k lives if it ubiquitous/automatic | contact tracing would have stopped 10% of the spread. | ChrisArchitect wrote: | just seems like google witch hunt from some random app security | firm. | | Would rather hear from some of the notable developers of say the | Canada Covid Alert App about what they think about this | [deleted] | twirlock wrote: | That's so surprising how the company that hates privacy and tries | to take our data against our will still hates privacy and still | wants to take our data against our will. | cheaprentalyeti wrote: | Maybe I'm stupid but I thought the whole point of a Traffic | Analysis app would have been to violate privacy. | kenmacd wrote: | The protocol was designed for privacy. In that it seems to have | done okay if the worst thing we can complain about is that | manufacturer apps that can already see your location, your | email, your search history, and your pictures, could also read | your generated codes. | fudged71 wrote: | My region never got access to this app, so I'm curious | | For those who have it, did it change your behavior? Did you have | contact and it made you avoid crowded spaces? Did you get tested | because of contact logs? | zachberger wrote: | I have had it installed since it became available in | California. I received one exposure notification on April 11th | from an exposure on April 1, which seems too late to be useful. | I immediately tested and it was negative. | PossiblyDog wrote: | Why do you think this was too late? | | 14 days is the the CDC's window for contact tracing and self- | isolation, based on how long it takes symptoms to show up | after exposure. This seems in line with that. | zachberger wrote: | And here is what the exposure notification looks like: | https://imgur.com/a/qyLHxUQ | jrochkind1 wrote: | I don't know of anyone in the USA who has used these apps. They | never really took off. Since they rely on a "network effect" to | be useful... even if you installed one, few people you came in | range of would have it installed. | | https://apnews.com/article/us-news-smartphones-coronavirus-p... | Forge36 wrote: | I tried it, it was state specific and required self reporting | positive cases to alert others. I suspect the heavy opt in | nature made it much less useful. I'm curious if it was useful | in some areas | proactivesvcs wrote: | Brit here. I refused to install the NHS Covid app until they | revamped it to improve privacy. I once received a notice that | my device recorded a beacon which was later submitted as from a | infected person, but it didn't require me to take action as it | was otherwise outside of criteria (either distance or | duration). They eventually removed these warnings as they are | not helpful. | | If it informed me that I had to quarantine and/or get tested I | would definitely do so. | pvorb wrote: | I've been using the German version since it came out in July, I | think. It's working great in that I've never been warned even | once, but my social interactions also have been limited to | going to the supermarket on Saturdays for a bit more than one | year now. So probably it was correct to never warn me. Adoption | is also low, so you really can't tell. | woutr_be wrote: | I've been using it here in Hong Kong ever since the government | made it mandatory. I did have to get tested after someone in my | gym tested positive. | dripton wrote: | I installed the contact tracing app as soon as it was | available, and still have it running. I've never gotten a | contact from it. Some of that is probably me being careful and | not being around others much, and some of it is probably that | almost nobody else is running it. | avereveard wrote: | people often forget the other half: the confirmed cases need | to be uploaded. in Italy, that was the biggest weak point, | even places with a fairly wide install base didn't get much | benefit since the ausl didn't had the processes in place to | share the test results, as the ingress effort was fragmented | and left to be implemented with local resources, a mess of | regional responsibilities and uncertain protocols, i.e. https | ://corrieredelveneto.corriere.it/veneto/politica/20_ott... | (source in italian) | [deleted] | dagmx wrote: | I installed it immediately. However I've never got a notice, | but I've also never tested positive so it's hard to say how | well it worked, or know how many around me had it too. | | It did give me a little peace of mind when I went grocery | shopping however. | breischl wrote: | Headline seems to be conflating two different kinds of promises. | My recollection is that the promise was that Google and the | government wouldn't (couldn't) track you with the data. That | appears to be generally true. Finding a bug that exposes some | data is unfortunate, but it seems the be an unintentional | mistake. | | tl;dr, they didn't try to do anything evil, they just failed to | be 100% perfect. | | Also as /u/arsome points out elsewhere, the other apps that can | read this data could get better data more easily through another | method anyway. | arsome wrote: | This title is kind of exaggerated. In order to obtain this data | you'd need to get the Bluetooth identifiers from the system log. | In order to get the system log, you need root or adb. At that | point you can just log GPS directly, inject code straight into | the COVID tracking app, etc. All bets are off. | mkesper wrote: | This is the interesting thing about it: | | The signals that a phone's contact tracing data generates and | receives are saved into an Android device's system logs. | Studies have found that more than 400 preinstalled apps on | phones built by Samsung, Motorola, Huawei, and other companies | have permission to read system logs for crash reports and | analytic purposes. | arsome wrote: | But again, they also have system privileges on your phone and | if they wanted to dump location data or bluetooth scans they | could do so trivially. | | About the worst that could come of this is an accidental | capture in a crash report. | ballenf wrote: | So maybe Google shouldn't have guaranteed privacy of this | app on a phone OS where such a promise is impossible to | deliver? | Sebb767 wrote: | Basically any device can be seen as compromised if anyone | malicious had hardware or root access - including the | manufacturer. If you don't trust your manufacturer, you | have far bigger problems than bluetooth IDs in the log. | dylan604 wrote: | But that's just it. I DON'T trust Google one iota. | nthj wrote: | Then you shouldn't have an Android device. This isn't | complicated. | dylan604 wrote: | I don't have an Android device presicely because of this. | I don't use Google Chrome, search, etc. I block all | GA,Tagmanager,blahblahblah as well. | Dah00n wrote: | The only option you have is a phone like the Nokia 3310 | then. Android and iOS are equally bad, just in different | quantities of bad in different areas. | prepend wrote: | In regards to privacy they are not equally bad. And for | this contact tracing app they aren't equally bad. | oefrha wrote: | Great, this "issue" is irrelevant to you and your off- | topic rant adds exactly nothing to this discussion of a | clearly defined risk. For other people who have made a | relevant device choice, the point stands that it's a non- | issue since there's no additional risk. | dylan604 wrote: | Actually, Google and Apple teamed up on a contact tracing | concept. Even when it was first annouced, the fact that G | was attached meant that I wasn't interested. Apple's | involvement only lessened the distrust slightly to me, | but not enough for me to want to bother with it. | domnomnom wrote: | As someone in a similar boat without an android, I think | it adds to the discussion. It makes me feel warm and | fuzzy inside to see such rants. | procombo wrote: | Hardly. Your privacy also depends on what devices your | neighbors use. Bluetooth/Wifi/etc packet broadcast, etc. | Apple does _some_ things to midigate privacy risks for | their users, but not enough. | heavyset_go wrote: | This. My wireless networks, MAC addresses etc are | collected on Google's end by my neighbors' Google devices | for things like advanced location tracking. | rantwasp wrote: | buy an iphone? | ryukafalz wrote: | Then if you have an Android phone, you have no reason to | believe your location data is private from Google, with | or without the contact tracing app. | | I'm not saying this isn't a problem, I'm in the same boat | here, just that the contact tracing app doesn't really | add to it. | radicalbyte wrote: | I consider Facebook malicious, and I've just learnt that | their pre-installed app basically has root on my Android. | | How is _that_ not the story here? | arsome wrote: | No, the Facebook app most likely does not have any | special permissions. These are typically granted by | manufacturers based on their own signing keys. | ahupp wrote: | A preinstalled fb app does not have any special | permissions. | Bud wrote: | How are you even remotely surprised by that? If you are | expecting any privacy or security from a combo of | Facebook and Android, you've been asleep for the last 13 | years. | gruez wrote: | What type of guarantees did they promise? | shawnz wrote: | This seems like saying they shouldn't have guaranteed | privacy because someone could be looking over your | shoulder while you type your password. Maybe that's true, | but it also seems like a uselessly impractical way to | interpret things. | macinjosh wrote: | > About the worst that could come of this is an accidental | capture in a crash report. | | So.. this data is exposed and available even though they | said would/could never leak. Seems pretty cut and dry to | me. It is a black and white issue. Accidental disclosure is | still a disclosure. | joshuamorton wrote: | It's accidental exposure to someone who already had root | and could record the data themselves. | shadowgovt wrote: | I think there's a practical difference between what an | app _could_ do with root permissions and what is widely | understood to be likely or acceptable. The "anything the | app could do it is doing" model isn't really the right | model to apply for vendor apps that are generally trusted | by consumers (and observed by security researchers). | We're not talking malware with root; we're talking the | regular system health and monitoring apps that vendors | install. | | So it's real unlikely that MotoCare is intentionally | trying to de-anonymize someone's COVID-19 data by code | injection or continuous GPS logging. It is extremely | _likely and expected_ that the app is periodically | grabbing the syslog as a crash report, and that means | Google 's claim of keeping your data private now has to | implicitly assume that MotoCare, _without doing anything | special other than its regular behavior,_ is _also_ | keeping your data private. That 's not a claim Google | should be implicitly making on behalf of MotoCare (let | alone on behalf of every app that could hypothetically be | installed on your system and is understood to be well- | behaved in the sense that it just reads the syslog). | | It's really incumbent on a privacy-protecting application | to not put private data in the syslog. If it's in the | syslog, it's not private (even though it's more private | than, say, a notification on the homescreen). | lofi_lory wrote: | I imagine for semi-criminal actors, injecting code or | "accidentally" using systen data, are still two different | scenarios. I mean, state actors could also just follow you | around, or place agents as friends and family... so why | bother about anything? | not_knuth wrote: | Link to studies? | derpus wrote: | The researcher linked to the paper (https://haystack.mobi/p | apers/preinstalledAndroidSW_preprint....) in their original | blog post on Appcensus | (https://blog.appcensus.io/2021/04/27/why-google-should- | stop-...) | [deleted] | compiler-guy wrote: | Google did claim that the identifiers are ephemeral. They may | be hard to access but they aren't ephemeral. This sets up the | possibility of post-hoc attacks. | | Sure, if you get root, all bets are off generally, but now if | you get root, you can figure out identifiers used before you | got root, which isn't what Google said was possible. | [deleted] | PossiblyDog wrote: | The identifiers are ephemeral. | | About 10 minutes for a given RPI (what gets broadcast over | Bluetooth), 1 day for a TEK, and 14 days of local TEK | history. The generated RPIs aren't retained, and the TEKs - | which can be used to re-derive the RPIs - never leave the | device unless you choose to report a diagnosis. All of this | is destroyed after 14 days. This report doesn't change any of | this. | | I recommend reading the GAEN cryptography spec: | https://blog.google/documents/69/Exposure_Notification_- | _Cry... | | The issue here is that privileged apps that are bundled with | the OS could snoop on the system log to capture new RPIs when | they're generated in real-time. Which isn't great... but | privileged apps can already do much worse. If one of these | apps is malicious, they could just log your GPS position | directly (for example). | | Heck, an application with root could just read the 14-day TEK | history directly off disk. Once we're talking privileged apps | and processes running as root, all bets are off. You need to | be able to trust the device's firmware. | [deleted] | jrm4 wrote: | I get that this might not be useful from a technical point of | view for this crowd, but it's not exaggerated _at all_ even if | the point of failure isn 't Google and the app; if we want to | be serious about fixing privacy issues, we can't just wave away | vulnerabilities that we've accepted for a long time out of pure | convenience and apparent difficulty to solve. | nl wrote: | Yeah it's a ridiculous assertion. | | It's basically arguing that because the phone knows it's own | identity it's not private. | joeblau wrote: | On iOS, none of that is even possible with physical access. | Nothing that you're saying sounds hard for a malicious actor to | pull off. The interesting thing is that you're getting is a | historical log without the need to install anything. | arsome wrote: | > Nothing that you're saying sounds hard for a malicious | actor to pull off. | | A malicious actor would need to be your phone manufacturer, | Google or someone with a root exploit (jailbreak in iOS | terms) or this "vulnerability" would be completely useless. | | All of those parties could just as easily push code to your | device any number of other ways that could do far worse than | reading your logcat for BT IDs. | | I understand the concern, but if you're at the point where | you can't trust the parties who push automatic updates with | high privilege levels but you do need to be concerned about | reading logcat your threat model here is pretty strange. | Aerroon wrote: | Isn't the difference based on time though? The device | manufacturer can push a patch, but they would get access to | the information after the patch, whereas access to the log | gives you information from before the patch. Or have I | misunderstood? | hundchenkatze wrote: | The device manufacturer has access to the device (at the | hardware level even) the moment they start building it. | They don't need to push a patch to gain access, they | could access your logs at any point throughout the | lifespan of the device. | londons_explore wrote: | On iOS, you have to trust Apple and everyone who writes code | for Apple, directly or indirectly. | | If any Apple code that runs as root is evil, then your | location data can be stolen in exactly the same way. | | In the case of Android, the equivalent is code written by | Google, the OEM, the chipset maker, and anyone those people | gave root access to (which is often a _long_ list of | 'sponsorware' apps). | | Overall, the class of vulnerability is the same, but Apple | just does a far better job of vetting and controlling the | list of people/code. | UncleMeat wrote: | And people complain incessantly that they don't really own | their iphones because they cannot install their own code on | it. You can't win. | wutbrodo wrote: | How is this an instance of "you can't win"? Not "owning" | your phone is a downside of iOS's approach, and avoiding | the security issue as parent commenter mentions is an | upside (ie a "win"). This martyr complex over phone OSes is | very 2010. | t0mas88 wrote: | He means as a phone manufacturer you can't win, either | you have an open OS and get criticised for not locking it | down or you have a locked down OS and get criticised for | not opening it up. | jonny_eh wrote: | Sandboxing exists. | UncleMeat wrote: | Of course it does. Sandboxing even exists on Android. The | criticism here is that if you have some system that has | root and can poke through sandboxes that you can access | this data. | | You either have full access or you don't. | jonny_eh wrote: | That wasn't my point. It was that iPhones need not limit | apps to the "App Store" in the name of protecting the | system, since it can sandbox apps, wherever they come | from. | fulafel wrote: | How is this prevented in ios if you have root (=jailbreak)? | JAlexoid wrote: | It's the fact that it logs other people's data, not just it's | own, that makes it less than perfect anonymity. | | But then again... You'd need to have a list from the "other | side", to actually deanonimize this data. At that point, you | can just get WiFi and Bluetooth physical addresses. | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | Isn't it saying that a bunch of preinstalled apps also have | access to this info? | privacyking wrote: | And what is the most common privacy-violating preinstalled | app? Facebook. | rubidium wrote: | It's a little surprising how much effort went into things early | in the pandemic that didn't pan out. | | Official contact tracing in the US is a complete dud and had | negligible impact on the spread. People informing their | fiends/family "hey I just got Covid you should probably | test/isolate" was what practically can make a difference. | | Ventilators were the critical thing until we realized they were a | very sub optimal treatment. | | All the surface cleaning was a massive waste too... and the | chemicals used in some places destroyed a bunch of furniture. | | Masks, fresh air, don't go out when sick or after close contact | with someone when sick. Simpler things that make the most | difference. | stjohnswarts wrote: | People wouldn't even wear masks, even more wouldn't have had a | "government tracker" willingly in their pocket whether it not | it was innocuous and anonymous or not. | pvorb wrote: | > [...] and the chemicals used in some places destroyed a bunch | of furniture. | | and several throats due to the excellent advice of a smart | person. | Smaug123 wrote: | Re ventilators specifically, remember that we had basically no | treatment for severe Covid last March. The best we could do was | sedate you, force air into your lungs, and hope for the best. | Now we know that dexamethasone helps in severe cases, we have | monoclonal antibody treatments, and generally we are better | able to treat someone who would have needed a ventilator if | we'd treated them last March. | | In general, I'm with the Tyler Cowen thought bubble: whatever | we spent on _actual treatments_ which didn 't work out, it | wasn't enough. | | Some of your criticisms are pretty incontrovertible. The Less | Wrong zeitgeist in April 2020 (perhaps even earlier) was that | surface cleaning was dubious - | https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/riB8m9PBvXJziFYMv/on-covid-1... | - much like they were extremely early on the "loss of taste and | smell" train | (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ACyGvQchWzGjGkKgS/march- | coro...). | nradov wrote: | The latest research indicates that Methylprednisolone is more | effective than Dexamethasone. | | https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0885066621994057 | | https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/math- | plus... | Smaug123 wrote: | Even better! (I merely stated two treatments I knew of | which were found to be effective well after the point when | we were making ventilator-related decisions. I am doubtless | unaware of many more.) | pradn wrote: | Also remember how the CDC didn't advise wearing a mask for the | first month or two of the pandemic? We came around to that, | too. | c3534l wrote: | Yeah, because there were problems making sure there was | sufficient supply for medical staff. | caddemon wrote: | That doesn't mean that misleading the public about the | effectiveness of masks in the early pandemic was the right | way to go about it. The CDC came out and said that masks | wouldn't protect the wearer. | | I also saw blog posts from people in public health | departments at respectable universities about how masks on | laymen have no effect because we can't wear them right/will | touch our face too much to adjust them. Whether they | believed that at the time is unclear to me, but that was | the theory being pushed by a bunch of experts to explain | the CDC guidance. | | I think we were overestimating the transmission risk from | surfaces/face touching at that time. I also think we | underestimated the effectiveness of basic cloth masks | thinking that only filters would be useful. COVID is more | likely to spread via larger droplets than some other | viruses. However a closer look at literature from Asia on | the previous SARS pandemic should have suggested that masks | are more likely than not worth promoting. | | So I have to wonder if they considered what would happen | if/when they had to flip the story once masks became more | available. I doubt they expected it to become such a | critical part of the pandemic response, otherwise they | probably would have been more careful with messaging. Of | course these decisions were made under a lot of pressure | with not much time to strategize - I just hope they learn | from this and reconsider a bit how they communicate. | Because I do think this exacerbated the anti-mask issue. | IMO they could have even avoided Trump making it political | if one of the day 0 rallying cries was to ramp up mask | production. | wutbrodo wrote: | > about how masks on laymen have no effect because we | can't wear them right/will touch our face too much to | adjust them. Whether they believed that at the time is | unclear to me, but that was the theory being pushed by a | bunch of experts to explain the CDC guidance. | | This is even more hilariously stupid than it sounds, as | the same studies showed that only 10% higher a proportion | of medical personnel than the general public can properly | fit their masks. And yet it would be insane to claim that | it's useless for medical personnel to wear PPE. | mcguire wrote: | It's a pity they didn't ask our advice; we could have | told them exactly what to do to minimize damage. | wutbrodo wrote: | Given the impression I've gotten from your habit of | replying with midwit snark to my comments, I don't | suggest that you try doing so. | | But yes, there are plenty of fields full of intelligent, | quantitative people that are better at basic scientific | literacy and modeling uncertainty than our public health | infrastructure has shown themselves to be. This isn't | just theoretical; every single "heterodox" conclusion I | was exposed to that was based on the science instead of | whatever the fuck goes on at the CDC/FDA ended up | becoming CDC/FDA policy, several months later. | | Medical culture's innumeracy[1], religious adherence to | omission bias, and refusal to model reality outside of | the exact parameters of an RCT is potentially adaptive | for the normal clinical context. But it's an extremely | poor fit for a pandemic, and has cost thousand and | thousands of lives over the course of this one. | | It's a travesty that the CDC, FDA and WHO couldn't | collectively manage to provide information a fraction as | useful as accurate as (eg) Alex Tabarrok's freaking | Twitter account. | | For someone of your, uh, limitations, it's probably | better to slavishly follow public health advice, in the | absence of the ability to do any critical thinking. For | anyone with a median IQ, understanding when | political/bureaucratic/cultural failures are cause for | skepticism of public health conclusions is a must. | | [1] Famously, studies show 80% of doctors unable to do | the most basic of statistics relevant to their job, like | being able to interpret the chances of breast cancer | given a positive mammogram. Over half of the doctors | surveyed were off by a factor of NINE in their estimate | (90% vs 10%). This isn't a random medical-themed math | game with no clinical relevance; one's risk of breast | cancer is influenced by multiple factors and false | positives mean invasive procedures like biopsies that | themselves are not riskless. | caddemon wrote: | That's literally exactly the problem when experts mislead | the public. Particularly if it was intentional to save | mask supplies or prevent other stupid behavior, that | completely erodes trust and it becomes a game of "what is | the expert actually trying to say" when future statements | are made. | | If it was a mistake due to incomplete information, then | it happens, but discussion about what went wrong should | be encouraged and there should be transparency (perhaps | at a later date) about what could be done differently in | the future. Experts are going to be right more often than | laypeople, but they are still sometimes wrong, and if | that can't be acknowledged it's a systemic problem. | | Ironically, blasting the US for pausing the J&J vaccine | was highly upvoted on HN, even though that was also | expert decision making, and it was actually in the midst | of the issue without the benefit of hindsight. I wonder | why the topic of early pandemic mask messaging seems to | attract downvotes on HN. | wutbrodo wrote: | > Ironically, blasting the US for pausing the J&J vaccine | was highly upvoted on HN, even though that was also | expert decision making, and it was actually in the midst | of the issue without the benefit of hindsight. I wonder | why the topic of early pandemic mask messaging seems to | attract downvotes on HN. | | I suppose for the same reason that so many consider mask | requirements an unacceptable intrusion on their most | sacred freedoms: it's become heavily politicized, most | people only "care" about issues to the extent that | they're able to signal tribal membership, and moral | indignation isnt any less addictive when it's detached | from reality. | watwut wrote: | Medical staff don't use cloth masks, there would be no | issue to recommend those. | xdennis wrote: | - Medics exist to protect patients, not the other way | around. | | - They didn't say: "we need to prioritize medics", they | said "masks have no effect" and sometimes "masks are BAD | for you". | | - They have doctors in Japan/Taiwan/China too, but they | said from the beginning there to wear masks. | mattferderer wrote: | .NET Rocks did a great Geek Out podcast on that which | explained it in layman's terms - | https://www.dotnetrocks.com/?show=1720 | | If I recall, the CDC was recommending treatment that worked | against past similar viruses. This one turned out to be | spread in a completely different way than typical. | wutbrodo wrote: | This excuse doesn't make any sense. Their messaging at the | time was "masks aren't effective, plus we need them for | healthcare workers to care for pandemic patients". If | they're not effective, why would healthcare workers need | them? Higher viral loads put you at higher risk, but the | messaging decidedly wasn't that masks are only protective | at high viral loads. Let alone the incredibly basic prior | on respiratory diseases' vector being limited by _covering | up the sources of spread_. | | The initial recommendation, the flip-flop, and attempts to | explain it away have been universally incoherent, because | the real reason is that the CDC and FDA combine the worst | of the federal government's bureaucratic inefficiency with | medical culture's innumeracy and blind status quo bias. | | Leaving aside the failures of pandemic preparedness | stretching back multiple administrations (the PPE stockpile | had been depleted since 2013, and I don't need to describe | the trump admin's failures..), it would have been trivial | to do what we eventually did, and what many other countries | did: recommend face coverings of any sort, and encourage | people to save n95s for medical personnel. The insane route | we ended up taking had people hoarding n95s anyway and | deeply poisoned the well of trust in public health | authorities in general and masks in particular (helped | along by our president). | caddemon wrote: | They also at one point early on said that wearing a mask | if you have COVID can prevent you from spreading it, it | just won't protect you from getting it at all. This was | simultaneous with the recommendation that laymen not wear | masks, but also with the recommendation that everyone | should behave as if they have COVID because of | asymptomatic spread. The messaging not only raised red | flags based on both Asian SARS experience and just using | common sense, it was also internally contradictory. | ff317 wrote: | > masks aren't effective, plus we need them for | healthcare workers to care for pandemic patients | | I noted this at the time as well, but I read it (perhaps | between the lines a bit) as more like: masks probably | help, but if you all go panic-buy masks like you do TP, | there will be none left for healthcare workers, who need | them more than you do. | wutbrodo wrote: | That's possible, but the route we went with got us the | worst of both worlds. There were gov'ts that simply told | the entire country to use scarves or sew string to cloth | and put it over their mouth. Lying about the efficacy of | all masks to preserve a specific kind is just about the | stupidest approach to the problem I can imagine. | | Note that even if your theory is correct, it also means | that public health authorities have been continually | lying to us after their mask flip-flop, with the Surgeon | General claiming in April that it's because they didn't | know asymptomatic transmission was possible. This is, of | course, horseshit, as there were Chinese reports of | asymptomatic transmission as early as January. | | The only theory which fits all the evidence is the one I | laid out: asymptomatic transmission did not have a solid, | high-quality study behind it yet, and medical culture has | serious problems doing anything but rounding priors and | weak evidence down to "zero evidence" instead of doing | the difficult work of choosing the best option under | uncertainty. It's ludicrous to claim that telling people | to put scarves over their face would deplete , and that | this cost-benefit suddenly flipped the moment the level | of evidence for mask efficacy rose from "no-brainer if | you're capable of modeling uncertainty" to "has a | specific high-quality study supporting it in narrow | conditions". | DanBC wrote: | > Their messaging at the time was "masks aren't | effective, plus we need them for healthcare workers to | care for pandemic patients". If they're not effective, | why would healthcare workers need them? | | Isn't it simple statistics? If you're on a ward with 10 | people who are ill and coughing at you you'll need a | mask. If you're walking about in the street, not getting | closer than 2m to anyone, and not spending much time in | close proximity to anyone, the mask isn't doing much. | wutbrodo wrote: | > Isn't it simple statistics? If you're on a ward with 10 | people who are ill and coughing at you you'll need a | mask. | | I addressed this in my comment: | | > Higher viral loads [and longer exposure] put you at | higher risk, but the messaging decidedly wasn't that | masks are only protective at high viral loads. Let alone | the incredibly basic prior on respiratory diseases' | vector being limited by _covering up the sources of | spread_. | | "Medical workers need masks more because they have more | exposure" is not the same thing as "masks don't work for | the general public", and brazenly and badly lying to the | public has costs that have been demonstrable throughout | the pandemic (helped along by our dear insane President | over the course of the pandemic). | | > If you're walking about in the street, not getting | closer than 2m to anyone, and not spending much time in | close proximity to anyone, the mask isn't doing much. | | This is a general-purpose argument which explains away | the existence of community spread, which we know was | happening (33m US cases later...). Especially given what | we now know about air vs surface transmission, people | were clearly spreading it to each other last spring in | ways that masks would have mitigated. Knowing what we now | know about the difficulty of outdoor spread, people by | definition were not universally adhering to what you're | describing. Leaving aside the non-compliant (some portion | of whom would have worn masks despite violating indoor | gathering guidelines), many people were unable to avoid | this: nursing homes, grocery stores, meatpacking plants, | and all manner of essential workers[1] were clearly | enough to drive robust spread. | | [1] Here's a list of just how expansive the "essential | worker" category was in NYS: | https://www.lawandtheworkplace.com/2020/03/new-york- | state-ma.... | | (Note that I don't mean that as a criticism, just a note | that your postulated world of 100% of people never coming | within 2m of anyone, including outside, is not reflective | of reality) | DanBC wrote: | > This is a general-purpose argument which explains away | the existence of community spread, | | But that wasn't people waking past each other in the | street, that was people working with each other in poorly | ventilated spaces. | | Public health officials during the early stages fully | expected all the other recommendations they were making | to be taken up: proper lockdowns, vigorous test and trace | with good quality supported isolation. | | If you're looking at "late lockdown with poor test and | trace" then yes, you're right, not pushing masks doesn't | make much sense. But it's odd to focus on the mask advice | and not the late lockdowns. | mcguire wrote: | 1. Convincing the public to wear effective masks, | correctly and consistently was known to be very | difficult. Still is. | | 2. Most epidemiologists it the US, at least, believed | that corona- and similar viruses were transmitted by | larger droplets generated by coughing or sneezing. These | droplets would not remain airborne long, resulting in the | advice for social distancing and surface cleaning. The | "flip-flop" occurred very shortly after it was | demonstrated that they were transmitted by aerosol | particles. | | 3. This event primarily demonstrates the difficulty of | communicating science---a "this is the best advice we can | give now based on our limited understanding" is treated | as permanent, universal truth by the general public; any | later changes in that advice is "insane" and "deeply | poisons the well" of trust. | stjohnswarts wrote: | #3 especially, most people don't really understand | science and think statements are absolute so the first | time they heard "no masks necessary with what we know | currently" became "no masks" and "well we've discovered | that masks will help" and people heard "we lied to you | before, now you need masks because we're trying to | control you and take away all your freedoms" at least | that's what happened with the Trump crowd. | Izkata wrote: | > 2. Most epidemiologists it the US, at least, believed | that corona- and similar viruses were transmitted by | larger droplets generated by coughing or sneezing. These | droplets would not remain airborne long, resulting in the | advice for social distancing and surface cleaning. The | "flip-flop" occurred very shortly after it was | demonstrated that they were transmitted by aerosol | particles. | | That makes even less sense, masks only stop the heavier | droplets. The virus is small enough to go right through | cloth masks when aerosols, or get carried out the sides | of surgical marks by your breath. | | But I remember the aerosol realization happening around | summer/fall last year, way after the mask flip-flop | anyway. | wutbrodo wrote: | > The "flip-flop" occurred very shortly after it was | demonstrated that they were transmitted by aerosol | particles. | | This is both false and doesn't make any sense. | | 1) There was ample evidence of the distinct _possibility_ | of airborne transmission, certainly by March. Medical | culture has a severe problem with confusing "absence of | evidence" and "evidence of absence", and the cost-benefit | tradeoff of mask recommendations given what we knew back | then was crystal-clear (and there were people loudly and | consistently saying so throughout). | | 2) The CDC and Surgeon General (of "Seriously people, | STOP BUYING MASKS" fame) have claimed[1] that the "flip- | flop" was due to a change in concern about asymptomatic | spread. It's not a coincidence that this is the _third_ | distinct (and often mutually-contradictory!) excuse I've | heard on this thread: because the real reason is | basically down to systemic cultural rot in the field | (especially at a scale that large and politically- | influenced) and no one wants to admit that. | | > 3. This event primarily demonstrates the difficulty of | communicating science---a "this is the best advice we can | give now based on our limited understanding" is treated | as permanent, universal truth by the general public; any | later changes in that advice is "insane" and "deeply | poisons the well" of trust. | | Scientific consensus changes all the time, and no stigma | is (or should be) associated the work on the earlier, | less accurate model. That's just what science _is_. I'm | not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse or | accidentally so, but my point is obviously that the | initial no-masks assessment was insane, and based on a | shoddy interpretation of both the science of the virus | and the fundamentals of how public policy works. | | [1] https://www.axios.com/surgeon-general-reversal-face- | mask85e2... . | caddemon wrote: | My understanding is that it is not atypical for SARS | though? I thought that was the main reason Asia was big on | masks, which should have suggested that we ought to at | least consider masks. | | My guess is it was some combination of uncertainty about | effectiveness in the general public and wanting masks to be | available for healthcare workers, so they ran with the | messaging they did. IMO if they didn't want to make a | statement that could lead to hoarding in the early days | they should have just said nothing about masks until | production was ramped up. Masks are such a minimally | invasive preventative measure that given uncertainty about | their effectiveness you would normally err on the side of | encouraging. | mcguire wrote: | The other downside of such statements is excessive | belief: "wearing medical-grade masks correctly might | help" is understood as "wearing anything over your face | will provide perfect protection". | caddemon wrote: | Can you point to any countries that encouraged mask use | where that ended up being the general sentiment? It's not | like encouraging mask use means restrictions on shopping, | dining, etc. wouldn't also exist. | | Besides, you could make the same argument for something | like wearing a helmet while bike riding. I'm sure there | are situations where false peace of mind is a problem, | but I don't see why we should assume mask wearing would | be one of them. | | At the time they were obviously operating with limited | information, but it's crazy to me that people continue to | defend the early pandemic mask messaging. They screwed | up, it happens, but it should be acknowledged and there | should be a post mortem. | craftinator wrote: | That was more a political and logistics issue than well | reasoned health position. Any reasonable person knows that | wearing a mask will help stop the spread of an airborne | disease. It's why doctors, nurses, and surgeons wear them. | Basic knowledge of either physics or biology will inform a | person of this. | throwaways885 wrote: | I still can't believe the amount of people that make the | "like using a chain-link fence to stop mosquitos" | analogy... | Rebelgecko wrote: | When the CDC says "Don't wear a mask, it won't help you", | that has the effect of degrading trust in the CDC. People | who know that's BS won't trust the CDC in the future, and | people who don't know that's BS will lose trust when the | CDC flip-flops and says that maybe masks actually are | helpful. I think that contributed to the politicization of | mask wearing in the US. | icelancer wrote: | The noble lie. Never works. Contributes to populism. | teachingassist wrote: | Contact tracing is an sort of interesting solution | | It works great when you have just a few cases and are highly | motivated to stop them from spreading (Asia/Oceania) | | and it doesn't work at all, when you have a lot of cases and | have no interest in doing what's necessary to contain them | (Americas/Europe) | | Mass-market contact tracing, in hindsight, was completely | pointless. I'm not personally aware of anyone who has been | informed accurately of potential infection via a Bluetooth app. | jfoster wrote: | Are you sure? My take on why mass market contact tracing | didn't pan out was that it was insufficiently | implemented/used. If it were on every phone and on by | default, perhaps even mandated, would it still not have | worked? I know that many people take significant issue with | that approach, but it would have made more of a difference, | right? | lofi_lory wrote: | I think in Germany it fails, because reporting positive | tests fails. Nobody doubts, if the app was promoted and | reporting working flawlessly, it would hugely contribute to | managing the spread. | teachingassist wrote: | There are a number of prerequisites, for this to work, that | were not mandated in the US and Europe. | | If someone is informed of a potential or likely infection, | but then typically [chooses to/is able to] go about their | day the same as usual, then what's the point of tracing | them? | | Initial modelling that showed contact tracing to | potentially work assumed: 80% uptake, over 70s to be | isolated in any case, and people to strictly follow | isolation rules, none of which was considered politically | possible in the West: | https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52294896 | jfoster wrote: | Yeah, a lot of it might not be politically or culturally | possible. As far as I can tell, it was always technically | possible to have very good automated contact tracing, | though. | robrenaud wrote: | Adoption was by far the biggest problem. If Apple/Google | just shipped it in the OS and made it opt out, I bet it | would have had a significant impact. Not like turning the | US into Australia, but even a 10% reduction in covid | cases worldwide could have saved 300k lives. | dariusj18 wrote: | > Ventilators were the critical thing | | Ventilators are still a critical thing, but they are a last | resort, not a normal treatment. The reason they were a big deal | was because with a large enough spike we would run out of them | (availability-wise) and I don't think people understand what | that would do to the psyche of the populace. | ddalex wrote: | Sadly this is the case now in India.... | Izkata wrote: | No, in March last year doctors were prematurely jumping to | ventilators because of a confusing hypoxia-like symptom: | blood oxygen levels dropping into "you should already be | dead" levels. Ventilator use dropped off once this stopped | and they switched to other treatments for the less serious | cases. | lofi_lory wrote: | Could you elaborate or link a source. I have a hard time | believing acting on lethal blood oxygen levels somehow does | not apply if infected with SARS2. | stjohnswarts wrote: | You should look it up for yourself, there are tons of | articles saying that respirators were being used too | quickly when things like putting the patients facedown | were a better solution in most cases. This is before much | was known about the virus and doctors were using the | tools they knew about. Obviously they are still being | used but much more sparingly than initially. | Izkata wrote: | Some excerpts from here: | https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/08/doctors-say- | ventilators-... | | > What's driving this reassessment is a baffling | observation about Covid-19: Many patients have blood | oxygen levels so low they should be dead. But they're not | gasping for air, their hearts aren't racing, and their | brains show no signs of blinking off from lack of oxygen. | | > [..] | | > An oxygen saturation rate below 93% (normal is 95% to | 100%) has long been taken as a sign of potential hypoxia | and impending organ damage. Before Covid-19, when the | oxygen level dropped below this threshold, physicians | supported their patients' breathing with noninvasive | devices such as continuous positive airway pressure | (CPAP, the sleep apnea device) and bilevel positive | airway pressure ventilators (BiPAP). Both work via a tube | into a face mask. | | > [..] | | > But because in some patients with Covid-19, blood- | oxygen levels fall to hardly-ever-seen levels, into the | 70s and even lower, physicians are intubating them | sooner. "Data from China suggested that early intubation | would keep Covid-19 patients' heart, liver, and kidneys | from failing due to hypoxia," said a veteran emergency | medicine physician. "This has been the whole thing | driving decisions about breathing support: Knock them out | and put them on a ventilator." | | > [..] | | > To be "more nuanced about who we intubate," as she | suggests, starts with questioning the significance of | oxygen saturation levels. Those levels often "look beyond | awful," said Scott Weingart, a critical care physician in | New York and host of the "EMCrit" podcast. But many can | speak in full sentences, don't report shortness of | breath, and have no signs of the heart or other organ | abnormalities that hypoxia can cause. | | > [..] | | > One reason Covid-19 patients can have near-hypoxic | levels of blood oxygen without the usual gasping and | other signs of impairment is that their blood levels of | carbon dioxide, which diffuses into air in the lungs and | is then exhaled, remain low. That suggests the lungs are | still accomplishing the critical job of removing carbon | dioxide even if they're struggling to absorb oxygen. | That, too, is reminiscent of altitude sickness more than | pneumonia. | wpietri wrote: | > Official contact tracing in the US is a complete dud and had | negligible impact on the spread. | | The problem with contact tracing in the US definitely wasn't an | excess of effort: | https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03518-4 | | And more generally, I think it's great that lots of effort went | into things that were then superseded by things that worked | better. Sitting around waiting for perfect knowledge would have | meant a much larger death toll. Indeed, the knowledge about | better treatments came because people tried a great number of | things and then doubled down on the ones that worked. Trying | things is never wasted effort if at the time they were a good | guess about what might work. | Naga wrote: | All the surface cleaning _was_ a massive waste? How about _was | and continues to be_. At least where I live in Ontario, stores | still won 't let you touch products, require hand washing, wipe | down all the carts, etc. It's all theatre that doesn't really | do anything to stop the spread of covid but has the benefit of | making it look like they are doing something. | | Another example is that while schools are closed now again | (because they aren't safe), the government until a few weeks | ago was bragging about how safe schools were because of their | extensive cleaning procedures, which did nothing to make | schools safe since ventilation was the key! | [deleted] | sdljfjafsd wrote: | In Portland retail stores require you to hand sanitize every | time you enter which becomes a bit cumbersome if you enter a | few stores during a trip. And yes, the extra effort has a | cost, because I've been told to sanitize in front of | employees who are interacting with groups of customers at | close distance (while masked tbf). At the end of the day | humans have a small set of things they can juggle in their | minds and that focus should be on ventilation, spacing, and | masking instead of wasting focus on unnecessary surface | cleaning. | olyjohn wrote: | There's a go-kart track near me... and they have someone who | goes around after each session and sprays some kind of fog on | the karts. I presume it's a "sanitizer" but if you look how | sanitizers work, they still take time to act and it takes a | decent quantity of it to work. Meanwhile the steering wheels | are covered in pourous foam / plastic / rubber, which is | soaking up everybody's sweat, germs and bacteria... and some | how this fog, which is safe for the person spraying it to | stand in, sanitizes the entire kart in under a few seconds | and leaves behind no residue... | jborichevskiy wrote: | Still better are the two-person crews in full gear spraying | this fine mist over airport lobby chairs and furniture (and | people sitting nearby) while wearing enough PPO to look | like late stage Chernobyl responders. | | Security performance theater. | robocat wrote: | Perhaps they should add a mitred hat, some beads, a | censer, and a droning chant... | | Change it from theater to ceremony! | barkerja wrote: | Maybe it was/is a dud for COVID-19, but there does appear to | be many gains from this outside of COVID-19. Infectious | diseases that ARE highly transmissible on contact has been | dramatically reduced. | | Am I suggesting we continue with this level of rigor for | cleaning after the pandemic has ended? No. But it does | highlight how much "healthier" we can be as a society with a | little more emphasis on general hygiene. | stjohnswarts wrote: | It almost definitely reduces the spread of flu. I highly | doubt it continues post-covid though. Some people seem to | love the idea of wearing masks indefinitely though so I | think we'll see more of that. | omginternets wrote: | >But it does highlight how much "healthier" we can be as a | society with a little more emphasis on general hygiene. | | The counter-argument to this is that excessive hygiene also | seems to (quite probably) _cause_ health problems [0]. | There appears to be some tension between protecting the | weak and protecting the herd, so it 's not at all clear | that this increase in sanitization will ultimately be a net | gain for public health (to say nothing of environmental | impact). | | [0] I leave it to the curious to run a few google scholar | searches. "hygiene hypothesis" is a good start, pointing to | relationships between excess (or more exactly, a wrong kind | of) cleanliness and poor development of the intestinal | microbiome. | tjs8rj wrote: | I think this is a consequence of "make your product for the | customer". I think it should've been obvious that Americans | weren't Koreans or Kiwis in attitude, numbers, or behavior, and | so the solutions requiring that level of cooperation and | attention should've never left the drawing board. As we've seen | and as should've been obvious: Americans are resistant to | authority for one. Solution that get too overbearing too | quickly can work, but they have to keep that in mind when | considered. At the public health level I hope the architects of | these policies at least recognized that fact, even if the | whirlwind of spins and politicization in the public made it | seem like everything was failing spectacularly. | CarelessExpert wrote: | > It's a little surprising how much effort went into things | early in the pandemic that didn't pan out. | | Is it? | | Thousands of people began dying from a novel mass pandemic, | while years of complacency ensured governments weren't prepared | for this inevitability. | | Who would be surprised that they threw everything they could | against the wall? | | The real question is: will we learn anything from this going | forward? | IQunder130 wrote: | What is there to learn? Events like this are rare enough that | it's hard to justify any overhead for dealing with them in | the off-period and it inevitably gets cut. Same as with that | extreme weather event taking down the Texas grid. | dylan604 wrote: | >What is there to learn? | | Lots actually. Just like Edision found 999 ways not to make | a light bulb. We also learned (re-learned) that common | sense is not so common, and that people are just really not | into being told what to do. | | >Events like this are rare enough | | Things that used to be "rare" are occurring more frequently | to be considered "rare". Maybe more into the area of | "uncommon". The Texas grid example is something so stupid | to have allowed to happen after it just happend 10 years | prior and with a simple (yet expensive-ish) solution. | COVID-19 has had warnings of its level of spread for years | with SARS, bird flus, etc. Those in charge of disaster | prevention/recovery have failed us. | throwawayboise wrote: | > COVID-19 has had warnings of its level of spread for | years with SARS, bird flus, etc. | | To me this was all "boy who cried wolf" stuff. I | certainly remember media fear porn about SARS, about the | expected severity of the next upcoming flu season, etc. | It never amounted to anything significant in reality. | dylan604 wrote: | But here we are with COVID-19. Each of those flus were | slightly worse than the previous leading up to where we | are now. It's not that the scientists/doctors were wrong | to make the warnings. Similar in how NWS is not wrong to | issue Severe Weather warnings as frequently as they do. | All it takes is the one time to have had advance warning | and to not use it. | tolbish wrote: | The Ebola outbreak should have primed us for this. | lofi_lory wrote: | Neither extrem weather events, nor pandemics are expected | to be freak events in the coming years. SARS1 was a warning | shot. | | I don't think pandemic monitoring and response preparation | are a that expensive, even if you use them just once a | decade or two. | | And lots of failings highlighted by the pandemic are of a | general nature concerning infrastructure debt. If health | care wasn't run at max human capacity for "cost | effectiveness" we may not have to talk about triage. If | broadband internet access and digital literacy were a | thing, WFH would run more smoothly. | throwawayboise wrote: | Nature has its ways of managing unsustainable population | growth. Basically, starvation or disease. Maybe humanity | is just at that point, and there's not a lot we can do | absent some really breaking changes to how we live, work, | and produce what we need. | UncleMeat wrote: | Are they rare enough? SARS wasn't that many years ago and | was caught before becoming a pandemic, but that certainly | wasn't a guarantee. Huge disease pandemics aren't black | swans. They are common events throughout pretty much all | human history. | choward wrote: | One thing we should learn and should have already known | before the pandemic is that public health officials | shouldn't be deliberately lying to the public. | Unfortunately, Fauci has no remorse and hasn't apologized. | He thinks he did the right thing which is a huge problem. | | Another thing is that we should have more explicit goals. | Fauci is still not giving an explicit answer and pretty | much just says that we'll just know when to go back to | normal. Then they wonder why there is vaccine hesitancy. | atonse wrote: | Sure there's a lot to be learned. | | Even something as basic as having a national stockpile | again, learning that we should have a decent manufacturing | base for these kinds of critical items, and all the lessons | about how to communicate with the public regarding health | recommendations. There's plenty to be learned. | jnwatson wrote: | In my kid's high school (in Virginia, US), we have detailed | contact tracing for all positive COVID tests. | | Contact tracing is done, and it seems to be done fairly | thoroughly here. | skybrian wrote: | Another example: instead of contact tracing with PCR tests, | skip the tracing part and have everyone regularly take much | cheaper antigen tests a couple times a week. | | As a result of the lack of vision, there was no urgency in the | US to approve over-the-counter antigen tests and they only | became available in pharmacies last week. | cameronh90 wrote: | We are doing that in the UK and it's pretty controversial, | with many credible medical/epidemiology experts saying it's a | bad idea. | | One risk is people assuming a negative test means they don't | have covid. | | Personally I think they're a good idea, but it really depends | on people understanding and following the guidance. The tests | are not overly simple to administer. | mdoms wrote: | Just because something didn't work in USA doesn't mean it | "didn't pan out". Contact tracing has been used to track down | contacts very rapidly in my country and presumably several | others. | fossuser wrote: | The Bluetooth contact tracing would have been amazing, the | design was smart, privacy preserving, and worked. | | The issue was a few things: | | - Opt-in instead of opt-out | | - People (even those on HN) not understanding how it worked and | loudly and wrongly stating that it was a privacy nightmare. See | this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25629304 | | Unfortunately this lead governments and others to just buy data | from brokers/3rd party app collectors and such that are _not_ | privacy preserving. A pretty frustrating situation. | cactus2093 wrote: | Completely agree with this. And the opt-in problem was | twofold, you needed to opt in to receive notifications (and | in California this option wasn't even available until like 6 | months after the frameworks were available) and also needed | to remember to manually upload your result to the system | after testing positive. The testing centers should have been | asking for people's contact tracing id info and they should | have been the ones reporting results into the system. (They | already have your full name/contact info when you book an | appointment, and the contact tracing id is anonymous, so | again this is not sacrificing your privacy any further). | | It seems like a major factor in why this idea was never taken | seriously by governments was that professional contact | tracers are still using the playbook from 70 years ago from | the polio era where the only thing you try is cold calling | people's home phones. The public health field seemed entirely | uninterested in technological solutions, even though it seems | incredibly obvious that these could have had massive benefits | over the old fashioned way of doing things. | | As with several other things that happened over the course of | this pandemic, I really just can't wrap my head around why | the "experts" were so willing to just let half a million | deaths rack up in the US rather than trying any new ideas. I | would be interested to read more about contact tracing now | though, and if any of them have changed their mind by this | point. | fossuser wrote: | Agreed - the cold calling was a joke and only really | started after community transmission was super widespread | anyway. | [deleted] | Lammy wrote: | I just don't want to be tracked, ever, for any reason, by | anyone. It doesn't matter how the system works or how private | it is. It still normalizes surveillance to those who | participate, and I won't :) | fossuser wrote: | You'll be tracked, it'll just be worse and not in a way | that protects your privacy. | | You'll also be generally ignored by people that care about | solving these problems. | | You'll also make it harder for people that care about the | distinction between pragmatic solutions that protect | privacy and simple solutions that don't. | | When your response to both is the same the response from | governments is: "the privacy people are going to complain | no matter what, so just ignore them". | | Your comment is basically an example of the kind of | misleading knee-jerk response I was talking about. The | bluetooth alerting design is not tracking, but your | response to it is more likely to lead to solutions that | are. | | Clever technological solutions can allow us to preserve | privacy and still do important hard things. The bluetooth | exposure notification design is an example of that, people | that care about privacy should be excited about it. | Lammy wrote: | You're totally ignoring my point. I'm not talking about | the tech. It affects the way people in general will think | about having tech track them. | fossuser wrote: | I understand it, I just don't find it compelling. | | Second order effect arguments are often weak, in this | case - not using a cleverly designed system that doesn't | track them because it could make some theoretical person | more comfortable with the idea of tracking in general | doesn't hold up to me. | | The point of this is that it doesn't track them, but | still achieves the goal of exposure notifications. | | It's like the seat-belts are worse argument - if people | wear seatbelts they'll drive more dangerously therefore | seatbelts are bad. These type of second order arguments | can sound contrarian or smart, but they rarely hold up to | scrutiny. (Similarly masks are bad because they make | people touch their face or w/e nonsense was pushed early | on in the pandemic). | | The average person is tracked completely by modern web | companies, telcos, and random apps and they give up that | willingly already - how does privacy preserving contact | tracing make that worse? I don't buy it. | | It's more likely using services that preserve privacy by | design get people to understand why they're different | than everything else, and why that's valuable. When you | dismiss them along with the bad ones you make it harder | for people to make that distinction. | warkdarrior wrote: | Your point of view will drive the deployment of fully | passive tracking, where you have absolutely no say in | how/when/which data is collected. Things like pervasive | cameras, cell tower dumps, etc., will become the norm | whether you want it or not, but with the added downside | that you have not say in it. | dahart wrote: | > I just don't want to be tracked, ever, for any reason, by | anyone. | | Curious what this means to you in practice? I'm trying to | imagine what zero tracking looks like... and wondering if I | misunderstand what you mean by "ever, for any reason, by | anyone." or if you're really serious about your wish and | mean it as literally as it sounds. | | You don't want your doctor to have records of your previous | visits? (Prefer to be offered the Covid Vaccine every time | from now on?) You don't want the ability to have any | personal bank / investment accounts? Our HN account & posts | are being "tracked", what's an alternative to this | discussion? How should governments manage the basics of | things like social security or driver's licenses? How would | anyone even contact you or employ you without some kind of | telephone number or internet address that can be tracked? | How would you find gainful employment, and do you want to | re-negotiate your compensation daily? | | Framing all information storage as "tracking" and all | information retrieval as "surveillance" seems to turn a | blind eye to the many benefits we enjoy, while stoking a | general and vague fear. I think I'm more privacy conscious | than most, and I think we have some massive privacy issues | at the moment, but I have to recognize the benefits I enjoy | at the same time and seek to find a reasonable and | practical balance. So, I accept some tracking, and what I | want is always opt-in by default and control over who | tracks what. | toast0 wrote: | > Ventilators were the critical thing until we realized they | were a very sub optimal treatment. | | Ventilators and ICU beds are the shortages people are/were | talking about, but the real issue is staff to operate the | ventilators and care for the people in the ICU beds. | | You can work to quickly manufacture more equipment and it was | done, but training people to do ICU nursing isn't fast; | especially when in-person learning is inadvisable. Even if you | train up non-ICU nurses to do ICU nursing, you need to train | replacements for what they were doing (or go without). We don't | have a lot of spare nursing capacity, especially when there is | near-worldwide excess demand. | heavyset_go wrote: | Contact tracing would have worked if there wasn't an | exponential amount of community spread in the US compared to | other countries. | yosito wrote: | It would be interesting to see a metric for which countries | did well with contact tracing and which didn't. Many | countries tried it, and gave up. Some countries tried it and | succeeded. A few countries didn't try at all. | s1artibartfast wrote: | I am personally convinced that US contract tracing results were | suppressed. Massive amounts of data was collected and I believe | it was possible to compile data from it about the situations | and activates where transmission was known to occur. | | My guess is that the data could be used to argue against the | public health policies of the same organizations that were | collecting it. I looks forward to some of the data analysis | released in the coming years. | stonesweep wrote: | > Official contact tracing in the US is a complete dud and had | negligible impact on the spread. | | I am a US citizen, I simply have lost confidence in any promise | made by any tech company in regards to my privacy and roll back | to War Games - the only winning move is not to play. We have | lost all confidence that any data shared will be kept private, | there is little oversight or penalty for abuse of it. | selimthegrim wrote: | Po-Shen Loh's NOVID app from CMU held some promise. | davidthewatson wrote: | Indeed, Novid did have promise. Po's work should be | celebrated. | | The problem is that Novid depends on self-report. Self- | report is not reliable, or else we'd have seen success | around this kind of self-reported contact tracing, which | does not model reality accurately at scale. | | The problem is that a surveillance network is perfect for | this kind of healthcare application, where the balance of | power is toward the invisible surveiller and does not | depend on the surveilled being compliant. | pydry wrote: | I think a lot of people think this way even outside of tech. | srswtf123 wrote: | I agree 110% -- The best solution is to _stop using their | products_ ; put down the smartphones, remove FAANG & co. from | your life entirely. | | You end up less lonely, less depressed, less tracked, and | oddly, somehow now I feel better informed. | mcherm wrote: | > It's a little surprising how much effort went into things | early in the pandemic that didn't pan out. | | It's not surprising at all! | | We had a choice between taking actions some of which might be | wasted (like manufacturing large quantities of vaccines that | hadn't yet completed the approval process, or creating a | contact tracing app that might or might not prove useful), or | not taking any actions until we were done investigating. | | No vaccines have yet been approved for Covid-19. There are, | however, several which have received temporary authorizations | for emergency use. | | I think we made the right choice. Waste a few resources, if | need be, because we don't know for sure which approaches will | pan out. But the ones that DO pan out will (HAVE) save hundreds | of thousands of lives, perhaps millions. | salawat wrote: | Funny. I doubt the horsehoe crab population being decimated | at an industrial scale when a synthetic alternative was | available, but langishing unapproved would agree. | | https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/covid- | vac... | | 3+ different vaccine production lines. 1 species as a supply | bottleneck, and no one giving a damn that there needs be | affordances made to not potentially drive a species to | extinction. | | I'm normally not big on environmentalist concerns as a first | order thing because it tends to get you tuned out in some | circles but the scale becomes absolutely impossible to ignore | in this case. | | Then you had other potential routes for treatment completely | ignored due to the fact they're biologics and cannot be | patented. Echinaecia purpurea among them. (Came in handy for | me early on), and vitamin C to keep immune cell exhaustion at | bay. | | No one ever heard about or researched any of it, nor was | anyone comfortable bringing it up lest one get dog-piled as a | "disinfo-spreading quack". Gotta wait for Big Pharma to bail | you out doncha'know? | | The entire thing has just been one massive shitshow. It's a | Catch-22. There's no way to define anything as medically | sound except to have a company go balls-to-the-wall double- | blind cert study, but no one will do that for something that | can't be patented or have an industrial business model built | around it. | | The externalities are a bit on the extreme side in my view. | throwaways885 wrote: | Americans really do get the short end of the stick. Having | to pay full whack to fund healthcare development while | single payer systems just take the result at bargain | basement prices. | | The only solution is to fund basic science research | directly and remove the perverse incentives, but (as an | outsider) it seems America does not have the political will | to do anything so bold right now. | salawat wrote: | There is some slow movement in that direction, but there | is a lot of opaqueness that has to be worked through and | have public scrutiny turned it's way. | | At the end of the day though, no matter how you slice the | pie of dollars, the motivation of a majority of the | market is to make more money. Not to solve problems one | and done. Always remember, healthcare is an industry | first and foremost; cures aren't good business. Just look | at what Wall Street has to say on the matter. | | https://science.slashdot.org/story/18/04/14/0059236/is- | curin... | | So Market mechanisms don't really work unless you | structure things correctly; which includes building a | prize pool to pull from for each actor to further the | state of the art. Try doing that in the U.S. and people | will get all bent though because all that capital ends up | locked away instead of lining everyone's pockets.. | throwaway122378 wrote: | Surprise surprise | williesleg wrote: | Of course, it's google. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-27 23:00 UTC)