5 ms·

The timestamp is likely when the entry was opened in the system. Not when the test was made. Normally that's the same. But it's not enforced, as for example

The timestamp is likely when the entry was opened in the system. Not when the test was made. Normally that's the same. But it's not enforced, as for example a test center which lost it's internet connection temporary is still allowed to add tests once the connection is back up. So we don't know for sure that the test is manipulated. We only know for sure that it was placed later in the system, not that it was made later. Which is still very suspicious.

whimsicalism 5y ago
I think this is a pretty big stretch. What does it mean for the "entry to be open in the system"? You think it is more likely the test center lost its internet connection for multiple days than that Djokovic lied?
- dathinab 5y ago
  > You think it is more likely the test center lost its internet connection for multiple days than that Djokovic lied? No never wrote anything like that. I just wrote that the date in the system is from when the information was put in the system, and that there are reasons why it is allowed to put information into a system about an older test. I didn't say that I think it's likely that it had been the case in this case. The internet connection is just an random example(1). Someone more involved with the process could probably list many other reasons such a thing can happen. It just means that it's just an hint that something unusual happened but not at all a prove that the test was made later. It even less means that anyone from the operators of the system recording the tests was involved, it's enough for a single laboratory which can evaluate tests to enter a fake result, there are probably tens or even hundreds of such laboratories in most EU countries. There are even chances that the manipulation was quite different then what it seems to be, like the positive test has been made at that point in time, but it was intentionally hold back from being put into the system, because the person wanted to be able to lie about not having had covid. Now hat is clearly a unlikely thing. But possible. Anyway the point is that "datum of recording" != "datum of test" is on itself not _that_ unusual in general. But if it happens in this specific context with another test being made shortly after before the first tests result was put into the system etc. it is _very_ suspicious.

whimsicalism 5y ago

I think this is a pretty big stretch. What does it mean for the "entry to be open in the system"? You think it is more likely the test center lost its internet connection for multiple days than that Djokovic lied?

dathinab 5y ago
> You think it is more likely the test center lost its internet connection for multiple days than that Djokovic lied? No never wrote anything like that. I just wrote that the date in the system is from when the information was put in the system, and that there are reasons why it is allowed to put information into a system about an older test. I didn't say that I think it's likely that it had been the case in this case. The internet connection is just an random example(1). Someone more involved with the process could probably list many other reasons such a thing can happen. It just means that it's just an hint that something unusual happened but not at all a prove that the test was made later. It even less means that anyone from the operators of the system recording the tests was involved, it's enough for a single laboratory which can evaluate tests to enter a fake result, there are probably tens or even hundreds of such laboratories in most EU countries. There are even chances that the manipulation was quite different then what it seems to be, like the positive test has been made at that point in time, but it was intentionally hold back from being put into the system, because the person wanted to be able to lie about not having had covid. Now hat is clearly a unlikely thing. But possible. Anyway the point is that "datum of recording" != "datum of test" is on itself not _that_ unusual in general. But if it happens in this specific context with another test being made shortly after before the first tests result was put into the system etc. it is _very_ suspicious.