Epidemiological sense & purpose

[RobinLinus]

In their '10 requirements for the evaluation of "Contact Tracing" apps' the CCC requires:

The basic prerequisite is that "contact tracing" can realistically help to significantly and demonstrably reduce the number of infections. The validation of this assessment is the responsibility of epidemiology. If it turns out that "contact tracing" via app is not useful or does not fullfil the purpose, the experiment must be terminated.

Is there any validation of this assessment? We know, only 0.9% of the tested people are positive. Thus, it looks like surveillance can hardly reduce the number of infections any further? Also mind that the test's false-positive rate is in the ballpark of 0.2 - 0.5%.

Furthermore, the Stanford department for epidemiology performed a meta study summarizing the results of 24 independent Covid-19 studies. They're concluding that the infection fatality rate is only 0.2% which is in the same ballpark as the seasonal influenza.

So, for multiple reasons, it is most likely that contact tracing cannot "help to significantly reduce the number of infections". On the other hand, the potential for misuse remains. Security experts are warning:

Contact tracing apps have absolutely no value," Bruce Schneier, a privacy expert and fellow at the Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, told BuzzFeed News. "I'm not even talking about the privacy concerns, I mean the efficacy. Does anybody think this will do something useful? ... This is just something governments want to do for the hell of it. To me, it's just techies doing techie things because they don't know what else to do."

Also, former NSA contractor Edward Snowden warns that the pandemic is misused to expand illegal state surveillance.

All in all, this surveillance app implies massive risks and neglectable gains. Therefore, we should follow the CCC's advice: "the experiment must be terminated".

[SebastianWolf-SAP]

Well, we haven't even started with the app - it is yet to be released. Also other countries - especially the ones relying on the decentralized approach - have just recently started or will join soon. So a scientifically valid, large-scale assessment/validation has not been possible so far. But as we also stated in our FAQ, the development and further use of the app is being closely accompanied by scientific research. All parties, especially Apple and Google have repeatedly stated that the infrastructure will be disabled as soon as it's no longer needed, see for example the Apple/Google FAQ. For now, we work under the assumption that it will work - and there are also several studies that support this assumption.

Most serious researchers don't see any indication that the pandemic is over, not even in Europe or Germany. In fact, on a world-wide scale it seems to be accelerating again. The Corona-Warn-App is one component out of many to bring down the numbers even more and to avoid that they grow again or even that a 2nd wave will hit Germany.

Moreover, the consequences of the disease are not binary (dead vs. healthy). Recent research shows that many patients will suffer for a very long time from COVID-19, even if they survived it. Thus, even if the fatality rate is that low, we might face thousands, if not millions of long-term sick or impaired people if we don't avoid infections only in Germany.

In addition, I'd like to ask you to support your statement that the Corona-Warn-App is a "surveillance app" with some facts. From our perspective, we have proven that the opposite is true. Therefore, we consider this statement as inappropriate in a professional environment as it's outlined in our Code of Conduct.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen/Best regards, SW Corona Warn-App Open Source Team

[RobinLinus]

You missed to explain how you "help to significantly reduce the number of infections".

Many top-notch medical researchers such as these Stanford professors around Dr. Ioannidis published data which fundamentally disagrees with your perspective on the pandemic. Is your assessment of the situation based on scientific publications? Can you share them please? As you know, the RKI reports that last week only 0.9% have been tested positive. Also, the test's false-positive rate is in the ballpark of 0.8%. Thus, at this point, we mostly measure noise. There are hardly any infections which you could "significantly reduce".

Furthermore, are there cut-offs to terminate the app? What value do we have to reach to shut it off? What's the goal?

I'd like to ask you to support your statement that the Corona-Warn-App is a "surveillance app"

"Surveillance of patients" is a professional medical term. What is inappropriate about it?

[SebastianWolf-SAP]

The Stanford article which you are referring to is a preprint, as stated prominently at the top of the article. To quote what this means: "It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice." Moreover, there are many studies currently being released - with a lot of interesting, but definitely more differentiating results than what you are implying here. That simply shows that there is no simple truth or accepted consensus among scientists at this point in time.

Moreover, the Technology Review article referenced above includes a link to the epidemiological model which supports the introduction of tracing apps. I share the link directly here for your convenience: https://www.research.ox.ac.uk/Article/2020-04-16-digital-contact-tracing-can-slow-or-even-stop-coronavirus-transmission-and-ease-us-out-of-lockdown

Concerning "surveillance" you already changed your working obviously. In the first post you are quoting Edward Snowden about "illegal state surveillance", now you are changing to "surveillance of patients". I kindly ask you to have a look at the code and the documentation - the app is neither the first nor the second.

About your request to share more publications: We are already to start going round in circles. We have nothing more to add than what we already stated in our comment above.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen/Best regards, SW Corona Warn-App Open Source Team

[RobinLinus]

Let me simplify my question. The infection rate is already below 0.9% (Source: RKI report). Assuming the test has a false-positive rate of 0.8% is a conservative estimate (Source: Cohen et al.). Therefore, at this point, we hardly find any infections at all.

So, my question is: What does it mean to "significantly reduce the number of infections"? Is the target 0.5%? Or is it it 0.1%? What is the condition for termination?

[mohe2015]

@RobinLinus These are only the people that actually get tested. This app intends to prevent further infections at an earlier time. Also superspreading events are probably easier to detect with an app and these are the majority of infections afaik.

[SebastianWolf-SAP]

There is no single figure or target. The reason for all these measures is gone when the respective specialists and institutions such as the Robert-Koch-Institute (RKI) or the ECDC lower the risk considerably and/or officially declare the pandemic as under control/over. Right now, there is no indication that this is or will be the case in the near future.

Quote RKI: "Das Robert Koch-Institut schätzt die Gefährdung für die Gesundheit der Bevölkerung in Deutschland derzeit weiterhin insgesamt als hoch ein, für Risikogruppen als sehr hoch."

Quote ECDC: "A framework for contact tracing, based on extensive testing, active case finding, early detection of cases, isolation of cases, quarantine and follow-up of contacts, possibly supported by electronic tools and applications." and "A strong risk communication strategy should remind citizens that the pandemic is far from over. People need to be aware that the public health measures to limit the spread of the virus will continue to impact the way we move, work and travel, and our leisure activities for the foreseeable future. This is especially important as Europe moves towards the summer holidays, when changes in people’s behaviour, activities and movements may cause people to switch back to pre-pandemic and potentially risky behaviour patterns."

Mit freundlichen Grüßen/Best regards, SW Corona Warn-App Open Source Team

[RobinLinus]

So, you say, the tracking is terminated only when "the Robert-Koch-Institute officially declares the pandemic as over". That is worrisome for multiple reasons:

1. Your target is very vage. You're working without any scientific measure.
2. There are already barely any new infections.
3. Even without an app, for months, the infection rate has been declining rapidly.
4. For the above reasons you cannot measure if the app has any effect at all.
5. Obviously, any surveillance or tracking technology implies significant risks of misuse. It is ethically wrong to work with such technology without any objectively verifiable constraints.
6. Passing that hot potato on to the RKI leads to diffusion of responsibility.

[cfritzsche]

5. Obviously, any surveillance or tracking technology implies significant risks of misuse. It is ethically wrong to work with such technology without any objectively verifiable constraints.

Could you please explain which surveillance or tracking technology you are talking about here? The app shown in these repositories enables users to be notified of a potential exposure. They can decide to get tested or self-quarantine. Also, a user tested positive can decide to notify his contacts through the app. Nobody is forced to do any of these things. And there is no surveillance. In fact the health authorities have already been complaining in the media that there is no new data they can get, apart from more calls and tests from people notified by the app.

[SebastianWolf-SAP]

Well, the RKI is officially responsible for this application as you can also see in the privacy notice of the app. There is no diffusion of responsibility - it's quite the opposite.

@RobinLinus As said, we are starting to going round in circles. Moreover, you are repeating your unproven accusations. As mentioned, this has consequences with respect to our code of conduct. This is an official warning. If you continue to repeat these false accusations in this organization, this will lead to a temporary or permanent ban.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen/Best regards, SW Corona Warn-App Open Source Team

[RobinLinus]

5. Obviously, any surveillance or tracking technology implies significant risks of misuse. It is ethically wrong to work with such technology without any objectively verifiable constraints.

Could you please explain which surveillance or tracking technology you are talking about here?

Multiple exploitable attack vectors have been discussed before. Furthermore, the ExposureNotification APIs are not auditable. Such critique should be discussed openly. Downplaying the risks of misuse is irresponsible.

In particular, because our government already openly discusses to misuse your app and force people to use it.

[RobinLinus]

@RobinLinus This is an official warning. If you continue to repeat these false accusations in this organization, this will lead to a temporary or permanent ban.

You said:

There is no single figure or target.

But you also say:

There is no diffusion of responsibility

How can anyone be responsible if there is no way to measure any target?

[SebastianWolf-SAP]

@RobinLinus Please read the previous statements exactly and don't imply things which haven't been written. Institutions such as the RKI or the ECDC include a lot of factors in their decisions when they are assessing the risk of the Coronavirus pandemic. They even explain that in detail. I really recommend reading their statements.

And for the rest it seems that we are going off-topic now. If you want to discuss the "multiple exploitable attack vectors", please open another issue.

Moreover, please understand that we are not commenting political statements or legal discussions here.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen/Best regards, SW Corona Warn-App Open Source Team