2/ Think #SwissCovid efficacy is comparable to manual contact tracing? One paper cited is from May 2020, the other July but concerns data collected up until March 2020. Ages ago. We have learned a lot since about the virus, e.g. the heterogeneity of infectiousness
The mistake is to think manual contact tracers won't adapt to what we learn, and will be limited by the efficacy reached by May.
In fact, other digital tools have been developed since to supplement manual contact tracing, some with much more rapid impact than #SwissCovid according to this metric.
Hint: privacy-preserving venue-based tracing is more effective.
3/ This is similar to 1/: those people reporting for tests might be responding to iOS notifications, not SwissCovid notifications. Again, Bayes theorem...
4/ In a rush to cite a preprint that is 25 hours old supporting their conclusions, it seems like the authors of this #SwissCovid study didn't bother reading the cited Oxford/Google study
Many unrealistic assumptions, especially as relating to #SwissCovid
6/ To understand this one, you need to understand how tests are paid for. If someone has no symptom and gets a test, in CH they have to pay for the test. If they say they got a notification, the test is free. For such a small number of cases, fraud is a relevant factor.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So, let's dig in! The day before, May 20th, I went near the venue with Semantic Location History activated. That gives me a glimpse at the infrastructure of surveillance Google is leveraging.
2/n
When I takeout my Google data (and visualize it a bit more with tools developed during the #digipower investigation), I see that Google knows I was there, with 70% confidence and for 565 seconds.
This table is from the paper. "Ratio of persons with + test result after app notification per all SARS-CoV-2 positive cases" ranges from 0.6% to 1.8% in Zurich and 0.2% (!) to 0.6% in Switzerland as a whole, during various periods including the beginning of the 2nd wave. 2/n
Bear in mind these numbers are very likely to be overestimates.
The paper doesn't account for 3 (overlapping) effects:
- household contact w/ notification;
- non-household but already-p2p-traced contact
(see pdehaye.medium.com/lies-damn-lies… );
3/n
In 2007, I participated in an Oxford vaccine trial. This was the 1st time chimpanzee adenoviruses were tested on humans. I was the second to be injected w/ this stuff.
The Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID vaccine is directly based on that tech, with tremendous hope beyond COVID
👇
2007 was a touchy time to participate in a vaccine trial. The year before a trial for Theralizumab had resulted in 6 volunteers out of 8 suffering a cytokine storm. One of the 6 lost toes and fingers. The last two? They had only received placebos!
As a consequence, the Oxford Jenner Institute had trouble recruiting volunteers for their trials. One of my fellow @MertonCollege Fellows explained to me the science and the goals for their 2017 campaign and convinced me to participate.
When Cummings sent his job ad, I wrote a thread on how revealing it was of his world view, and particularly that he would name check a journalist like @carolecadwalla
Indeed, Cummings understands the systemic level very well. But as I said then, he fails to understand how others build meaning and why that is important.
The UK virus strategy is to #FlattenTheCurve, like everywhere else, but with a twist. The epidemiologists operate under the assumption that the behavioral scientists ("nudge unit") are correct, and it is impossible to ask for strong efforts for more than a week.
@carolecadwalla The fact that Cummings felt compelled to refer to you in this job ad is actually hugely relevant. He understands the systemic level very well, but fails at understanding how others make sense of the systemic, and why that is important.
@carolecadwalla He also fails to understand there is circularity in the particular context of elections (i.e. process of how the average p makes sense of what's best, given tons of influence). That circularity gives more legitimacy to your stories than his calculations as a way to build meaning
@carolecadwalla His job ad is largely obsessed with "causation" and "counterfactuals", which is a very narrow view of what "meaning" is. Meaning here are explanations that others can relate to, in the sense that they can come up with their own plan of how to relate to it.
There is ABSOLUTELY a story here, documenting Facebook's resistance to the "Download your History" feature (yet their use of this White Whale for PR purposes right now, even yesterday at Davos by Sandberg) 1/n
This is not a frivolous request. The reason to ask is that this feature would make a lot of v interesting research much easier and potent (+granular, personal feedback). E.g. this research on Twitter would transfer over completely
I have known this for a while. In fact, as I was working in 2016 w/ @HNSGR on his @CamAnalytica uncovering, I became convinced neither journalism or research alone would cut it. User-centric data, in the spirit of @mydataorg could bridge the two motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/…