Scrutable

The thing I am most worried about at the minute is the difference in the estimated number of new cases each day in the community (8000 ?) and the number of positive tests (1500). Can only track and trace based on positive tests

No, that's good.

It means contact tracers are sitting around playing Candy Crush, enabling the government to boast about deploying ample resources. There will be some impressive stats soon, about how every one of the 1,500 positives have been contacted by a tracer.

If the stats were run on the 7,000 to 8,000 actual cases per day it would be a lot harder for the government to look competent, and this could lead to demoralisation of the people in the face of the Nazi enemy the invisible enemy. It is right to avoid that.

It's obvious that air bridges between two low infection countries makes a lot of sense. There's no point in imposing 14 day quarantine for travellers between Norway and Greece, or Iceland and Croatia.

But why is the UK discussing it? Who exactly do we think we'll partner up with? Hey guys, who wants to air bridge with us, you come here and don't need to quarantine, we'll visit you and won't need to quarantine, it'll be great for our tourist and travel industries.

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 02, 2020 8:23 am

But why is the UK discussing it? Who exactly do we think we'll partner up with?

Places that really need the money?

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 02, 2020 8:42 am

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 02, 2020 8:23 am

But why is the UK discussing it? Who exactly do we think we'll partner up with?

Places that really need the money?

Talking to ourselves?

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 02, 2020 8:42 am

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 02, 2020 8:23 am

But why is the UK discussing it? Who exactly do we think we'll partner up with?

Places that really need the money?

It's whether they want our money so much that they'll risk trashing their economy for a second time.

And won't German holidaymakers be saying they'd like to go on hols to the Balearics but they don't want to be on sunbeds next to any Brits, so can the hotel assure them everyone from the UK is strictly barred?

I am in awe of Marina Hyde

“Otto Von Jizzmark”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... em-britain

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 01, 2020 4:45 pm

plodder wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 01, 2020 4:30 pm

Analysis of Covid-19 in sewage as a potential metric for managing the end of the lockdown, some nice graphs etc:

https://www.kwrwater.nl/en/actueel/sewa ... or-corona/

Possibly the same research as covered here: https://twitter.com/steamtraen/status/1 ... 17315?s=21

Superb, thanks chops

So when are tinder hookups going to be ok?

Asking for a friend

Martin Y wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:07 am

You're talking about the technique of pretending to hang up then pretending to answer as the legitimate contact point when the victim dials the number.

The solution to that is fairly straightforward, at least for people who are sufficiently on the ball to think they ought to seek confirmation: If you get a call that might be such a scam, call someone you know first, before you call the public contact tracing number. That's good advice to give any elderly parent who might get calls they're unsure about: call me first for reassurance.

Yes. But that solution only works until enough people use it. Then the scammers detect the number dialled, call it themselves and join the two calls together. The other person called *might* notice the calling ID is wrong, but that can easily be withheld and even (not so easily) spoofed.

I think all UK phone lines now allow called party clearing which clears the call after a timeout even if the caller stays on the line. The timeout might be 30 seconds, but if you rely on it you'd need to test it on your line.

Gfamily wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:34 am

Does anyone know of a simple checklist that contains details like this, that could be printed off and left near the phone of friends and relatives who might be vulnerable.

Something that will remind them while they are still on a call to look out for things that should make them suspicious.

Assume it's a scam if:

1. They called you
2. They're not someone you know personally whose voice you recognise
3. You are about to give out any confidential personal information (credit card number, account details, birth date, relative's name, etc)

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 03, 2020 1:29 am

Yes. But that solution only works until enough people use it. Then the scammers detect the number dialled, call it themselves and join the two calls together. The other person called *might* notice the calling ID is wrong, but that can easily be withheld and even (not so easily) spoofed.

I think all UK phone lines now allow called party clearing which clears the call after a timeout even if the caller stays on the line. The timeout might be 30 seconds, but if you rely on it you'd need to test it on your line.

I hadn't thought of that. I suppose that would be possible, though it would be quite a technical escalation for them to arrange for the dialling tones and ringing tone to sound normal especially as they're presumably not in this country. It's a bit John Le Carre but If I was suspicious they might do that I guess when I call someone I know it should be to ask them to ring me straight back to check my line is clear. But of course the simpler option is to use a different phone.

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 02, 2020 8:10 am

No, that's good.

It means contact tracers are sitting around playing Candy Crush, enabling the government to boast about deploying ample resources. There will be some impressive stats soon, about how every one of the 1,500 positives have been contacted by a tracer.

If the stats were run on the 7,000 to 8,000 actual cases per day it would be a lot harder for the government to look competent, and this could lead to demoralisation of the people in the face of the Nazi enemy the invisible enemy. It is right to avoid that.

You thought I was joking.

But no. Our Prime Minister has just slammed Starmer for his demoralising talk, accusing him of "casting aspersions on the efforts of tens of thousands of people who set it up from a standing start" and eviscerating him for his "endless attacks on public confidence". Well said, Prime Minister. Well said.

lpm wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 03, 2020 11:22 am

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 02, 2020 8:10 am

No, that's good.

It means contact tracers are sitting around playing Candy Crush, enabling the government to boast about deploying ample resources. There will be some impressive stats soon, about how every one of the 1,500 positives have been contacted by a tracer.

If the stats were run on the 7,000 to 8,000 actual cases per day it would be a lot harder for the government to look competent, and this could lead to demoralisation of the people in the face of the Nazi enemy the invisible enemy. It is right to avoid that.

You thought I was joking.

But no. Our Prime Minister has just slammed Starmer for his demoralising talk, accusing him of "casting aspersions on the efforts of tens of thousands of people who set it up from a standing start" and eviscerating him for his "endless attacks on public confidence". Well said, Prime Minister. Well said.

I did smile watching PMQ - at least Starmer has got to the nub of the issue, unlike the press, contact tracing isn't going to have much affect if you base it on positive tests that are a small percentage of the new cases each day

Well, this is rude. Holland PM says:

Tourists from the United Kingdom and Sweden are not welcome in the Netherlands from June 15 but people from other EU/Schengen countries are.

Until this discrimination ends I will refuse to wear clogs.

PeteB wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 03, 2020 12:10 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 03, 2020 11:22 am

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 02, 2020 8:10 am

No, that's good.

It means contact tracers are sitting around playing Candy Crush, enabling the government to boast about deploying ample resources. There will be some impressive stats soon, about how every one of the 1,500 positives have been contacted by a tracer.

If the stats were run on the 7,000 to 8,000 actual cases per day it would be a lot harder for the government to look competent, and this could lead to demoralisation of the people in the face of the Nazi enemy the invisible enemy. It is right to avoid that.

You thought I was joking.

But no. Our Prime Minister has just slammed Starmer for his demoralising talk, accusing him of "casting aspersions on the efforts of tens of thousands of people who set it up from a standing start" and eviscerating him for his "endless attacks on public confidence". Well said, Prime Minister. Well said.

I did smile watching PMQ - at least Starmer has got to the nub of the issue, unlike the press, contact tracing isn't going to have much affect if you base it on positive tests that are a small percentage of the new cases each day

Especially if most of the contacts can only think of a person in a shop who was a bit close, but they don't know them

And now they've had to deep clean the House of Commons after Alok Sharma reported feeling unwell even as he gave a speech from the dispatch box.

Well done to the government and Rees-Mogg in particular.

Almost as if reopening the house was a needless partisan exercise, especially as Johnson has to u turn on digital voting for vulnerable MPs.

Martin Y wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 03, 2020 9:13 am

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 03, 2020 1:29 am

Yes. But that solution only works until enough people use it. Then the scammers detect the number dialled, call it themselves and join the two calls together. The other person called *might* notice the calling ID is wrong, but that can easily be withheld and even (not so easily) spoofed.

I think all UK phone lines now allow called party clearing which clears the call after a timeout even if the caller stays on the line. The timeout might be 30 seconds, but if you rely on it you'd need to test it on your line.

I hadn't thought of that. I suppose that would be possible, though it would be quite a technical escalation for them to arrange for the dialling tones and ringing tone to sound normal especially as they're presumably not in this country. It's a bit John Le Carre but If I was suspicious they might do that I guess when I call someone I know it should be to ask them to ring me straight back to check my line is clear.

You are clearly far too honest. That doesn't work for the same reason. The scammers are relaying the call, so they can listen in. If you ask your friend to call you back, the scammers pull the same trick again, this time on your friend, so your friend stays connected to them, while the scammer hangs up and redials the call to you, connecting your friend's call to the new call. When you finally clear the call to your friend, they let the call to your friend drop and keep you on the line - ready to capture your attempt to call the offical number.

But of course the simpler option is to use a different phone.

Yes, that's much simpler and does work.

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:23 am

raven wrote: I rather expect the NHS to keep my records -- including name, dob, address, symptoms etc etc -- for as long as I'm alive and might need them so keeping health data for 20 years does not seem excessive to me. (I'd be happy to see those back Xrays I had 25 years ago turn up again, actually....)

Well then I expect you'll object to the contact tracing records as they are not held by the NHS.

My point was how long records are usually kept for health purposes. The NHS was just convenient example. To my mind, the other bodies that might hold onto the data on Covid cases -- PHE or the contact tracing service, for instance -- are all part of the same state-run health care system, just different branches of it. So it's not much different to the NHS really.

As I said somewhere up thread, what is more problematic is data finding its way into the private sector. Like, say, Deep Mind being let loose on NHS records. That sort of thing needs watching.

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:23 am

raven wrote: There are longitudinal studies that follow patients for decades

Do they include patients without (or even contrary to) their consent?

It is one thing for the NHS (or any medical organisation) to hold my health records for my benefit: it is a completely different thing for those health records to be held and used for the benefit of others.

I don't know what the rules are, but it wouldn't surprise me if some types of study don't require explicit consent. Things like, perhaps, pulling anonymised data on diagnosis rates from records, or looking at how many inhalers typical asthma patients get through in a year.

Personally, if there's one use for my medical records I wouldn't object to at all it's using them for the benefit of other patients. Using them to line the pockets of insurers though....

raven wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:50 pm

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:23 am

raven wrote: I rather expect the NHS to keep my records -- including name, dob, address, symptoms etc etc -- for as long as I'm alive and might need them so keeping health data for 20 years does not seem excessive to me. (I'd be happy to see those back Xrays I had 25 years ago turn up again, actually....)

Well then I expect you'll object to the contact tracing records as they are not held by the NHS.

My point was how long records are usually kept for health purposes. The NHS was just convenient example. To my mind, the other bodies that might hold onto the data on Covid cases -- PHE or the contact tracing service, for instance -- are all part of the same state-run health care system, just different branches of it. So it's not much different to the NHS really.

As I said somewhere up thread, what is more problematic is data finding its way into the private sector. Like, say, Deep Mind being let loose on NHS records. That sort of thing needs watching.

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:23 am

raven wrote: There are longitudinal studies that follow patients for decades

Do they include patients without (or even contrary to) their consent?

It is one thing for the NHS (or any medical organisation) to hold my health records for my benefit: it is a completely different thing for those health records to be held and used for the benefit of others.

I don't know what the rules are, but it wouldn't surprise me if some types of study don't require explicit consent. Things like, perhaps, pulling anonymised data on diagnosis rates from records, or looking at how many inhalers typical asthma patients get through in a year.

Personally, if there's one use for my medical records I wouldn't object to at all it's using them for the benefit of other patients. Using them to line the pockets of insurers though....

You are correct. Studies on anonymised healthcare records like the ones the MHRA do on GPRD (General Practice Research Database) all the time don't need any patient consent. Patients can opt out of their records being sent (in anonymised form) from their GP's surgery (which is also anonymised & only the region of the country included) to the central database, but if they don't opt out, then they have, de facto, consented to them being used for research purposes.
You're also right that apart from helping oneself, helping others is a thoroughly morally and legally legitimate use of medical records. We medicines regulators use patient records, to investigate whether our suspicions that a drug causes a certain side effect are founded, all the time.
Without them accurate assessments of the risk-benefit profile of a medicine would be far harder to make. We would have data on fewer patients, they would take longer and cost a lot more, plus they would be subject to CoIs as we would have to instruct the drugs companies to pay for the studies, rather than just doing them ourselves.

Thanks, always nice to get confirmation of that the vague idea you had of how something works is right!

tom p said: Patients can opt out of their records being sent (in anonymised form) from their GP's surgery (which is also anonymised & only the region of the country included) to the central database, but if they don't opt out, then they have, de facto, consented to them being used for research purposes.

Oh yeah. We got letters to that effect maybe 10? years ago. Kids were still at home, I think. Do parents opt out for minors, I wonder. Can't remember. Then they get asked at 16, I suppose.

raven wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 06, 2020 1:16 pm

Thanks, always nice to get confirmation of that the vague idea you had of how something works is right!

tom p said: Patients can opt out of their records being sent (in anonymised form) from their GP's surgery (which is also anonymised & only the region of the country included) to the central database, but if they don't opt out, then they have, de facto, consented to them being used for research purposes.

Oh yeah. We got letters to that effect maybe 10? years ago. Kids were still at home, I think. Do parents opt out for minors, I wonder. Can't remember. Then they get asked at 16, I suppose.

Ooh, I don't know about if kids get asked again when they are no longer kids, but yeah, parents decide for kids.

Well the government has given up on the idea of getting all primary school kids back into school before the end of the current school year.