8 ms·

My understanding is that a major hurdle was the FDA requiring test results be reported back to health authorities. Or at least there has been a lot of disagreem

My understanding is that a major hurdle was the FDA requiring test results be reported back to health authorities. Or at least there has been a lot of disagreement on the issue [2]. It's a bit unclear if the reporting via the app is 100% mandatory but I would bet on it sending at least something indicating positive/negative by default. This would be a dealbreaker for me. If I'm buying a test kit it's because I want to know, not because I want the world to know.

save_ferris 6y ago
> I want to know, not because I want the world to know. I understand this attitude, but just to be clear, the FDA != "the world". Their job is to protect the health of the pubic and work to mitigate the spread of a highly-contagious virus that will likely hit 2M global deaths in fairly short order. It's your choice not to take the test, but the reality is that if you've received medical care in the last 10 years, several parties probably already have access to that data. If your medical provider's EMR system uses cloud servers, then at least one of the big firms has access to it. And that's not even considering the possibility that your (anonymized) medical records haven't been sold to third parties for research purposes. Last year, outlets reported that Ascension Health, one of the largest healthcare providers in the US, was sharing medical data on millions of Americans with Google[0] without disclosure. At least in this case, you're being informed before agreeing to service how your data is going to be used. We're largely losing that right in this world. 0: https://www.engadget.com/2019-11-11-google-ascension-patient-records-project-nightingale.html https://www.engadget.com/2019-11-11-google-ascension-patient...
- KorematsuFred 6y ago
  "Their job is to protect the health of the pubic and work to mitigate the spread of a highly-contagious virus that will likely hit 2M global deaths in fairly short order. " This is a good example of how heavy handed approach beats reasonable regulation. Somehow I should consent for cookies (which I don't even know what they do) on websites I explicitly visit but my consent not needed for collecting health data ? Having a cheap and simple covid test will greatly help arrest the spread of COVID whether or not FDA gets that data. Having said that there might be some marginal benefit for FDA to have some data for which the FDA should incentivize users by asking them to give consent, offer discounts and promise anonymisation. A lot of people will call me a Libertarian sshole for pointing this out, but remember a rogue admin like Trump weaponized various terrorism related programs to target large groups of immigrants. Later Miller used covid as a weapon against lot of immigrants effectively bringing entire immigration system to halt. Such collection of data will BE used against some undesirable groups in future and this is something people should fight against.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - gsk22 6y ago
    How will one data point (did this person test positive?) be used against minority groups? I'm as skeptical of govt data collection as the next HNer, but I fail to see how this particular piece of information could be weaponized.
    - mulmen 6y ago
      Off the top of my head: Micro: A positive test is reported to the FDA. DHS gets this information. It is determined the individual "exposed others to Coronavirus". A "common sense" remedy is applied like, say, prohibiting the individual from boarding airplanes. Individual is now on a possibly secret "no fly list" with terrorist connotations. Macro: Minority groups are skeptical of the government because of historic abuse. They tend to take fewer tests. Majority groups trust the government because of being treated well historically. They tend to take more tests. More cases are found in majority groups per capita because they took more tests per capita. Data shows more cases in majority areas. More resources are sent to majority areas. Minority areas are neglected and do not receive the resources they need. This perpetuates the experience of mistreatment and discourages future cooperation. The chilling effect is real, and concern is reasonable on the part of individuals. Who wants to defend a group of bioterrorists anyway?
      - asah 6y ago
        It certainly seems like a person oughta be able to opt-out... the data they need is all statistical anyway.
      - reissbaker 6y ago
        > With terrorist connotations. That went from a reasonable thing that might happen — you're temporarily prevented from boarding a plane while you are bearing a highly contagious, deadly illness that can spread to whoever you breath on — to... Now you're labeled a terrorist because you got sick? That seems like a pretty large leap. Especially since millions of Americans have already tested positive for COVID using the existing infrastructure (that reports to health authorities already) and none of this has happened. Why do you think having at-home tests will suddenly result in labeling every positive case a terrorist? > Who wants to defend a group of bioterrorists anyway? I feel like the main stretch of imagination here that I find difficult to believe is that everyone who contracts COVID (which will likely be millions more Americans) will be labeled a terrorist, because they took the test at home instead of at a doctor's office or testing site. The existing testing infrastructure that has tested millions upon millions of Americans, and found millions of positive cases, already reports to health authorities: why would having a more convenient test that does the same thing result in dystopian madness?
- amluto 6y ago
  I would argue that a much more effective approach would be to incentivize and isolation. If you report (correctly) that you have a positive test, you stay home, and the government provides food and benefits for however long you should isolate. And your employer is forbidden from retaliating. Isolating sucks, but it shouldn’t be more of a hardship than absolutely necessary.
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    "Someone on Instagram told me how to get a weeks worth of free food! Simply order this coronavirus test and then dip it in drain cleaner! It'll come out positive, and the government will send loadsa free stuff!" The UK pays a £500 incentive to anyone who gets covid-19, and suddenly a lot more people started getting infected... If you're young and poor, it's a pretty sweet deal since the mortality and complications rate is so low for young people.
    - bb123 6y ago
      They only pay £500 if you're already on low income. Is there any basis to your claim that suddenly a lot more people started getting infected? It's my recollection that cases were already rising fast when this was announced.
      - londons_explore 6y ago
        I know 4 people who deliberately got infected to claim the £500. Three have been paid (one is stuck in paperwork hell). I know of two others who tried to, but despite their efforts couldn't get the test to come back positive.
    - ddeck 6y ago
      >The UK pays a £500 incentive to anyone who gets covid-19 Not exactly anyone. In addition to being told by the NHS to isolate at home based on a positive diagnosis or close contact with one, you must be: - Currently employed or self-employed. - Unable to work from home and will lose income as a result of self-isolating. - Currently receiving low-income benefits. You need to provide evidence of all of these items. There are probably avenues for exploitation, but it's intended to be directly replacing income lost as a result of the isolation. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/test-and-trace-support-payment-scheme-claiming-financial-support/claiming-financial-support-under-the-test-and-trace-support-payment-scheme https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/test-and-trace-su...
stjohnswarts 6y ago
Exactly. This can only be used against you by your insurance company to raise your premiums.
mehrdadn 6y ago
Normally I care more about privacy than other people, and for a lot of illnesses I'd find this more than understandable, but for this pandemic, I don't understand your sentiment. Not only has it already infected over 74M people and killed 1.5M of them (and counting...) from all walks of society (hardly making you unique!), but by sharing 1 bit of information about yourself, you can help others avoid that fate. What exactly is so scary about the FDA knowing if you had COVID that terrifies you and trumps (no pun intended) everything else?
- tboyd47 6y ago
  It seems to me that the point of mandatory reporting is to impose quarantining by force on people who wouldn't otherwise have done it. But if the test itself is not mandatory, then it defeats the purpose. i.e. If I have the choice between taking the test or not, and I know the test is going to report me if my result is positive, leading to consequences I see as negative, then I can just choose not to take the test. If I see the consequences of a positive test (quarantine, isolation, etc.) as necessary then I would just do it voluntarily and the government wouldn't need to step in.
- TheAceOfHearts 6y ago
  If it was consensual I wouldn't have an issue with it. The fact that I'm not being given a choice means I'll just avoid taking the test. Consent matters.
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    I mean... you understand why it's not consensual here, right? It's not because they're trying to use your data for marketing purposes, it's because they need it to address public health. When you send your kids to school (if you have any, or hypothetically) and they ask for the immunization records, do you refuse to tell them and decide to home-school instead, because you don't like mandatory things? Does the context not matter at all?

save_ferris 6y ago

> I want to know, not because I want the world to know. I understand this attitude, but just to be clear, the FDA != "the world". Their job is to protect the health of the pubic and work to mitigate the spread of a highly-contagious virus that will likely hit 2M global deaths in fairly short order. It's your choice not to take the test, but the reality is that if you've received medical care in the last 10 years, several parties probably already have access to that data. If your medical provider's EMR system uses cloud servers, then at least one of the big firms has access to it. And that's not even considering the possibility that your (anonymized) medical records haven't been sold to third parties for research purposes. Last year, outlets reported that Ascension Health, one of the largest healthcare providers in the US, was sharing medical data on millions of Americans with Google[0] without disclosure. At least in this case, you're being informed before agreeing to service how your data is going to be used. We're largely losing that right in this world. 0: https://www.engadget.com/2019-11-11-google-ascension-patient-records-project-nightingale.html https://www.engadget.com/2019-11-11-google-ascension-patient...

KorematsuFred 6y ago
"Their job is to protect the health of the pubic and work to mitigate the spread of a highly-contagious virus that will likely hit 2M global deaths in fairly short order. " This is a good example of how heavy handed approach beats reasonable regulation. Somehow I should consent for cookies (which I don't even know what they do) on websites I explicitly visit but my consent not needed for collecting health data ? Having a cheap and simple covid test will greatly help arrest the spread of COVID whether or not FDA gets that data. Having said that there might be some marginal benefit for FDA to have some data for which the FDA should incentivize users by asking them to give consent, offer discounts and promise anonymisation. A lot of people will call me a Libertarian sshole for pointing this out, but remember a rogue admin like Trump weaponized various terrorism related programs to target large groups of immigrants. Later Miller used covid as a weapon against lot of immigrants effectively bringing entire immigration system to halt. Such collection of data will BE used against some undesirable groups in future and this is something people should fight against.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- gsk22 6y ago
  How will one data point (did this person test positive?) be used against minority groups? I'm as skeptical of govt data collection as the next HNer, but I fail to see how this particular piece of information could be weaponized.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    Off the top of my head: Micro: A positive test is reported to the FDA. DHS gets this information. It is determined the individual "exposed others to Coronavirus". A "common sense" remedy is applied like, say, prohibiting the individual from boarding airplanes. Individual is now on a possibly secret "no fly list" with terrorist connotations. Macro: Minority groups are skeptical of the government because of historic abuse. They tend to take fewer tests. Majority groups trust the government because of being treated well historically. They tend to take more tests. More cases are found in majority groups per capita because they took more tests per capita. Data shows more cases in majority areas. More resources are sent to majority areas. Minority areas are neglected and do not receive the resources they need. This perpetuates the experience of mistreatment and discourages future cooperation. The chilling effect is real, and concern is reasonable on the part of individuals. Who wants to defend a group of bioterrorists anyway?
    - asah 6y ago
      It certainly seems like a person oughta be able to opt-out... the data they need is all statistical anyway.
    - reissbaker 6y ago
      > With terrorist connotations. That went from a reasonable thing that might happen — you're temporarily prevented from boarding a plane while you are bearing a highly contagious, deadly illness that can spread to whoever you breath on — to... Now you're labeled a terrorist because you got sick? That seems like a pretty large leap. Especially since millions of Americans have already tested positive for COVID using the existing infrastructure (that reports to health authorities already) and none of this has happened. Why do you think having at-home tests will suddenly result in labeling every positive case a terrorist? > Who wants to defend a group of bioterrorists anyway? I feel like the main stretch of imagination here that I find difficult to believe is that everyone who contracts COVID (which will likely be millions more Americans) will be labeled a terrorist, because they took the test at home instead of at a doctor's office or testing site. The existing testing infrastructure that has tested millions upon millions of Americans, and found millions of positive cases, already reports to health authorities: why would having a more convenient test that does the same thing result in dystopian madness?
amluto 6y ago
I would argue that a much more effective approach would be to incentivize and isolation. If you report (correctly) that you have a positive test, you stay home, and the government provides food and benefits for however long you should isolate. And your employer is forbidden from retaliating. Isolating sucks, but it shouldn’t be more of a hardship than absolutely necessary.
- londons_explore 6y ago
  "Someone on Instagram told me how to get a weeks worth of free food! Simply order this coronavirus test and then dip it in drain cleaner! It'll come out positive, and the government will send loadsa free stuff!" The UK pays a £500 incentive to anyone who gets covid-19, and suddenly a lot more people started getting infected... If you're young and poor, it's a pretty sweet deal since the mortality and complications rate is so low for young people.
  - bb123 6y ago
    They only pay £500 if you're already on low income. Is there any basis to your claim that suddenly a lot more people started getting infected? It's my recollection that cases were already rising fast when this was announced.
    - londons_explore 6y ago
      I know 4 people who deliberately got infected to claim the £500. Three have been paid (one is stuck in paperwork hell). I know of two others who tried to, but despite their efforts couldn't get the test to come back positive.
  - ddeck 6y ago
    >The UK pays a £500 incentive to anyone who gets covid-19 Not exactly anyone. In addition to being told by the NHS to isolate at home based on a positive diagnosis or close contact with one, you must be: - Currently employed or self-employed. - Unable to work from home and will lose income as a result of self-isolating. - Currently receiving low-income benefits. You need to provide evidence of all of these items. There are probably avenues for exploitation, but it's intended to be directly replacing income lost as a result of the isolation. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/test-and-trace-support-payment-scheme-claiming-financial-support/claiming-financial-support-under-the-test-and-trace-support-payment-scheme https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/test-and-trace-su...

stjohnswarts 6y ago

Exactly. This can only be used against you by your insurance company to raise your premiums.

mehrdadn 6y ago

Normally I care more about privacy than other people, and for a lot of illnesses I'd find this more than understandable, but for this pandemic, I don't understand your sentiment. Not only has it already infected over 74M people and killed 1.5M of them (and counting...) from all walks of society (hardly making you unique!), but by sharing 1 bit of information about yourself, you can help others avoid that fate. What exactly is so scary about the FDA knowing if you had COVID that terrifies you and trumps (no pun intended) everything else?

tboyd47 6y ago
It seems to me that the point of mandatory reporting is to impose quarantining by force on people who wouldn't otherwise have done it. But if the test itself is not mandatory, then it defeats the purpose. i.e. If I have the choice between taking the test or not, and I know the test is going to report me if my result is positive, leading to consequences I see as negative, then I can just choose not to take the test. If I see the consequences of a positive test (quarantine, isolation, etc.) as necessary then I would just do it voluntarily and the government wouldn't need to step in.
TheAceOfHearts 6y ago
If it was consensual I wouldn't have an issue with it. The fact that I'm not being given a choice means I'll just avoid taking the test. Consent matters.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  I mean... you understand why it's not consensual here, right? It's not because they're trying to use your data for marketing purposes, it's because they need it to address public health. When you send your kids to school (if you have any, or hypothetically) and they ask for the immunization records, do you refuse to tell them and decide to home-school instead, because you don't like mandatory things? Does the context not matter at all?