7 ms·

This is very sad development for me, Djokovic's countryman who really bought his story. Nut facts are facts. I can share my own (positive) test, which confirms

This is very sad development for me, Djokovic's countryman who really bought his story. Nut facts are facts. I can share my own (positive) test, which confirms timestamp and id theory. My test was taken on the 7th January, it was a rapid test, not a PCR. But it's in the same government database: https://pcr.euprava.gov.rs/validate.php?cqcode=1641591150Q!A!EMiAKyIGblU0kEC2nKRD2DNBb23KZ4J5dn8ruBpwqKP1PR https://pcr.euprava.gov.rs/validate.php?cqcode=1641591150Q!A... Timestamp: 1641591150, which translates to GMT: Friday, 7. January 2022. 21:32:30. That seems to be right, it was taken earlier on the 7th and probably entered later to the central database. Also, ID of my test is: 7601263. Djokovic IDs are 7371999 (16/12 test) and 7320919 (22/12 test). It really looks like IDs are incremental, and that his test that was supposedly taken on the 16th was taken on the later date. One consolation fact is that he wasn't positive when he took photos with kids on 17th. EDIT: I messed up and copied Novak's QR url! fixed now!

grujicd 5y ago
Ok, this is getting strange. There are two ways to get test results: - it's automatically sent to email (if they have it) - you can download it from ezdravlje.rs portal The test I shared above is the one I got on email. However, I went to portal, downloaded pdf, and now I have two copies. They're different! IDs and all the data are the same, but QR codes are different. This is the new one: https://pcr.euprava.gov.rs/validate.php?cqcode=1641923234g3DWOTqw9NocsR3M9sx2AnAAwbPVByAjUD$uXqiuc1q0gJjGwI https://pcr.euprava.gov.rs/validate.php?cqcode=1641923234g3D... Timestamp on new pdf is: 1641923234, which is GMT: Tuesday, 11. January 2022. 17:47:14 So it appears that timestamp is related to when pdf is generated, and when you download it from the portal it's generated at that point of time, i.e. there are no pdf documents sitting on government server! So this timestamp is definitely no proof of forgery. But test ID might be - that one is still suspicious. And one more thing, when I switch tabs with my two QR codes - page content is the same but shifted a bit. I didn't look into html/css to see what's different.
- zo1 5y ago
  This is super important for everyone to see. The timestamp is not proof of time of test but rather the time that the test was "generated" for download. Anyone prominent on Twitter should respond and assist with this information. I've done these kinds of systems many times in the past and there could be any amount of reasons why a timestamp is included like this. Especially with weird government regulations, policies and rules that mandate all sorts of info to be included inside government documents. Like adding a year or date to when a company was registered to a company's company registration no.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    Nah, let's just run with the story first, could generate a fair amount of clicks!
    - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
      I've been beating this drum for a while, but HN really needs to just ban direct links to Twitter threads. I can't remember the last time I saw one on the front page that was actually true.
      - aspenmayer 5y ago
        So new policy is to shoot the messenger, then?
        SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
        When the messenger is spreading false information all the time, yeah, you shouldn't let them be a messenger anymore. I wasn't being hyperbolic: the vast majority of Twitter threads that I've seen make it to the HN frontpage, easily above 75%, are factually incorrect ragebait.
        aspenmayer 5y ago
        Sucks to be the fourth messenger then. Blanket bans would also block post by amazing Twitter users like foone. It sounds like you just don’t like or use Twitter. Is that accurate?
- DominikPeters 5y ago
  Can you see from your records whether the confirmation number (i.e. 7601263-535518) is fixed at the time of the report, e.g. sent as part of the email? An alternative that comes to my mind is that the number is assigned when the report is first generated, which could in principle explain why Djokovic's numbers are out of order if the first time he accessed his PDF was on 26 Dec.
  - grujicd 5y ago
    My two PDFs with different QR codes have the same test ID (7601263-535518). So that one is not generated on the fly. But we don't know 100% if it's generated on database insert (altough it very much looks like that), or if there are some batches depending on lab, PCR batch, etc.
- penumbra_3 5y ago
  Yup, its timestamp for creation of PDF. Just tested on my old PCR tests and timestamp i get in URL is from 11.1.2022. and PCR swab was done on 27.2.2021.
- grujicd 5y ago
  I have 2 more datapoints. My wife went with me to the testing on the same date. If you're negative on rapid test, they usually take PCR as well. Since she was negative on the first one, there was a PCR too. These are her QR urls: Rapid test: https://pcr.euprava.gov.rs/validate.php?cqcode=16415703349MJi4QNr3Ohxz3cgzFrtDBM4CSNHfigF$tg4AiN4YoVJSPtDUO https://pcr.euprava.gov.rs/validate.php?cqcode=16415703349MJ... Timestamp: 1641570334, time: GMT: Friday, 7. January 2022. 15:45:34 PCR: https://pcr.euprava.gov.rs/validate.php?cqcode=1641924832NyL5YS!wsSf!8sEKBcvi!hpbktN2TKm8BJv11xGmKwndWBeXvj https://pcr.euprava.gov.rs/validate.php?cqcode=1641924832NyL... Timestamp: 1641924832, time: GMT: Tuesday, 11. January 2022. 18:13:52 I downloaded PCR from portal today, that's why it has today's timestamp. What's interesting is that her test IDs are 7601574 and 7631146 while they were taken within 15 minutes from each other. There's some 30k difference, and I think Serbia runs around 40k tests a day. PCR samples are sent to central lab and processed later, that would explain why PCR's ID is much higher. However I don't think we have definite proof of how these test IDs are generated. Different labs could be assigned batches of IDs, PCR tests itself could have preassigned IDs (you can see they have same ID when you're tested, but I'm not sure it's the same ID as presented in results). If test ID is generated when results are inserted into database, then they should always be incremental and Novak's test IDs point to forgery. But there could be other explanations. My conclusions: - timestamps are not proof of forgery - test IDs are suspicious, but we can't be sure.
  - pajowu 5y ago
    Hey, it'd be great if you'd reach out to zerforschung at hallo@zerforschung.org :)
    - grujicd 5y ago
      I've sent a brief email with links to these posts. Let's see if they publish a correction!
  - mandarino 5y ago
    Great analysis!
  - truthhunter 5y ago
polote 5y ago
- oarsinsync 5y ago
  > Who cares? Covid is nothing for kids Over 800 children (aged 0-12, more than half aged 0-5) being hospitalised per week right now in the UK. EDIT: previously stated hospitalisations were per day rather than per week, corrected above.
  - logifail 5y ago
    > Over 800 children (aged 0-12, more than half aged 0-5) being hospitalised per day right now in the UK Hospitalised with Covid or due to Covid? Is there a public source for those figures? EDIT: the data at this link[0] doesn't seem to agree with your claim [0] https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare?areaType=nation&areaName=England https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare?areaType=...
    - passing_by_and 5y ago
      There is a bit of data here -> https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/hospital-activity/monthly-hospital-activity/mar-data/ https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas... It is not directly helpful (or unhelpful) to your point or to the parent as data doesn't seem broken down in that way. However, in all these sorts of discussions it would be really great if things had context. So, for example (and sake of argument) if someone says 800 children per day were admitted, we had a comparison. Is it high, low? How about a rate per 100,000 comparison across other countries? Not asking for anyone to do this, merely attempting to articulate my point. A bit of eyeball math shows 12 million people in UK under 16. Even if 800 a day was true...should I worry? Anyhow, thank you for moving discussion forward.
    - oarsinsync 5y ago
      Agreed, I miswrote per day when I should have written per week. I have edited and corrected above. Thanks!
raegen 5y ago
Skipping the part where I discuss my general doubt of intellectual capabilities of the fellow commenters here. - Datum uzorkovanja (Date of sampling): 22.12.2021 14:12:10 - Datum izdavanja rezultata (Date of issuance of results): 22.12.2021 16:15:49 => I will ignore the time needed to get the actual swabs to the laboratory and do the necessary paperwork etc and round this to ~2 hours of time available for testing. - Vrsta analize i proizvodjac testa (Type of analysis and test manufacturer): Real Time PCR test-SARS-CoV-2, , Sansure Biotech INC; Hunan Province See, unless my fellow countrymen have developed a way to do PCR tests 5 times faster than the fastest tests available in the (rest) of the world, this test in itself is a joke. This is the reason PCR testing: costs, is usually indicated by symptoms already present/positive antigen test. You're welcome. Take care
- mijotz 5y ago
  my company bought a pcr machine for our medical office 45 minut turn around and its not naat but PCR
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- carlmr 5y ago
  >See, unless my fellow countrymen have developed a way to do PCR tests 5 times faster than the fastest tests available in the (rest) of the world, this test in itself is a joke. While I have no clue how they work in detail they offer 60 min express PCRs in Germany at least at my airport.
  - raegen 5y ago
    Those are NAATs, which, while they are based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR), are not the same as PCR reported in the test.
  - aix1 5y ago
    Also these guys in Canada offer 60- and 20-minute PCR tests: https://www.bonvoyagemedical.com/ https://www.bonvoyagemedical.com/
meelosh 5y ago
The question I have is this - is the test ID generated when the test results are generated for the first time (either sent by email if they have it, or accessed through eGov or eHealth portal), or are they generated as soon as test results are complete? If it's the former, then it's theoretically possible that the first (positive) results have been downloaded for the first time on Dec 26, and thus have a higher ID number. Unfortunately, no data points from me, even though I have been tested MANY times due to my profession. They've got my email, so they obviously get generated immediately. However, I do have a data point for screenshots when QR code of the positive test stated that the result was negative. This is something that happened to me as well (back in 2020, once, and never since then). It was a bug, obviously. The second part of the ID is person-specific (all my test results have that second part identical, regardless of when they were taken) - it seems that if a positive test is followed by a negative test, that happens sometimes.
- tominous 5y ago
  Third option: the test ID is generated well before the test is taken. When I donate blood the nurse pulls out a sheet of around 20 pre-generated identical barcode stickers, and attaches one to each piece of paper and bag of blood. This uniquely identifies my donation end-to-end. Djokovic's PCR tests were done at two separate labs. It is quite possible that each lab is bulk-allocated a unique range of IDs every day or week from the central authority. You'd see big "time jumps" from one lab to the other if you assumed the ID was always in time order. Depending on how they handle their range (e.g. if they are handing physical stacks of barcode stickers around) the code may not even always be in time order in the same lab.
crnigruja 5y ago
Additionally, on Novak's PCR test from Dec 16th on the website, the test result "NEGATIVE" had been changed to "POSITIVE" sometime around 14h00 on January 10th. Noticed by several people, including myself (took screenshot even myself before and after). BTW, apparently my IP address has now been blocked accessing to that website :) I get this message now: "Ваша адреса је блокирана 24 сата! Vaša adresa je blokirana 24 sata! Your address is blocked for 24 hours!"
- techcode 5y ago
  I just got blocked for 24 hours as well. After opening https://pcr.euprava.gov.rs/validate.php?cqcode=1641591150Q!A!EMiAKyIGblU0kEC2nKRD2DNBb23KZ4J5dn8ruBpwqKP1PR https://pcr.euprava.gov.rs/validate.php?cqcode=1641591150Q!A... just fine -tried to see what happens when you change the digits to cqcode=1641591151... :) While I guess in these cases governments don't really worry about enumeration aka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem - it's still often a security risk that means you usually try to avoid it. Even when internally you have auto-incremental ID - you can provide a non-sequential public ID (e.g. at least use SkipJack/Skip32 of that incremental value).
- befreeordie 5y ago
  Rate limiting has been implemented on this validation page from the start to prevent crawling and abuse. And please do not lie about changes on the test! Really bad thing to do right now, not just for Novak, for everyone in his situation.
pavle81 5y ago
[dead]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

grujicd 5y ago

Ok, this is getting strange. There are two ways to get test results: - it's automatically sent to email (if they have it) - you can download it from ezdravlje.rs portal The test I shared above is the one I got on email. However, I went to portal, downloaded pdf, and now I have two copies. They're different! IDs and all the data are the same, but QR codes are different. This is the new one: https://pcr.euprava.gov.rs/validate.php?cqcode=1641923234g3DWOTqw9NocsR3M9sx2AnAAwbPVByAjUD$uXqiuc1q0gJjGwI https://pcr.euprava.gov.rs/validate.php?cqcode=1641923234g3D... Timestamp on new pdf is: 1641923234, which is GMT: Tuesday, 11. January 2022. 17:47:14 So it appears that timestamp is related to when pdf is generated, and when you download it from the portal it's generated at that point of time, i.e. there are no pdf documents sitting on government server! So this timestamp is definitely no proof of forgery. But test ID might be - that one is still suspicious. And one more thing, when I switch tabs with my two QR codes - page content is the same but shifted a bit. I didn't look into html/css to see what's different.

zo1 5y ago
This is super important for everyone to see. The timestamp is not proof of time of test but rather the time that the test was "generated" for download. Anyone prominent on Twitter should respond and assist with this information. I've done these kinds of systems many times in the past and there could be any amount of reasons why a timestamp is included like this. Especially with weird government regulations, policies and rules that mandate all sorts of info to be included inside government documents. Like adding a year or date to when a company was registered to a company's company registration no.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  Nah, let's just run with the story first, could generate a fair amount of clicks!
  - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
    I've been beating this drum for a while, but HN really needs to just ban direct links to Twitter threads. I can't remember the last time I saw one on the front page that was actually true.
    - aspenmayer 5y ago
      So new policy is to shoot the messenger, then?
      - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
        When the messenger is spreading false information all the time, yeah, you shouldn't let them be a messenger anymore. I wasn't being hyperbolic: the vast majority of Twitter threads that I've seen make it to the HN frontpage, easily above 75%, are factually incorrect ragebait.
        aspenmayer 5y ago
        Sucks to be the fourth messenger then. Blanket bans would also block post by amazing Twitter users like foone. It sounds like you just don’t like or use Twitter. Is that accurate?
DominikPeters 5y ago
Can you see from your records whether the confirmation number (i.e. 7601263-535518) is fixed at the time of the report, e.g. sent as part of the email? An alternative that comes to my mind is that the number is assigned when the report is first generated, which could in principle explain why Djokovic's numbers are out of order if the first time he accessed his PDF was on 26 Dec.
- grujicd 5y ago
  My two PDFs with different QR codes have the same test ID (7601263-535518). So that one is not generated on the fly. But we don't know 100% if it's generated on database insert (altough it very much looks like that), or if there are some batches depending on lab, PCR batch, etc.
penumbra_3 5y ago
Yup, its timestamp for creation of PDF. Just tested on my old PCR tests and timestamp i get in URL is from 11.1.2022. and PCR swab was done on 27.2.2021.
grujicd 5y ago
I have 2 more datapoints. My wife went with me to the testing on the same date. If you're negative on rapid test, they usually take PCR as well. Since she was negative on the first one, there was a PCR too. These are her QR urls: Rapid test: https://pcr.euprava.gov.rs/validate.php?cqcode=16415703349MJi4QNr3Ohxz3cgzFrtDBM4CSNHfigF$tg4AiN4YoVJSPtDUO https://pcr.euprava.gov.rs/validate.php?cqcode=16415703349MJ... Timestamp: 1641570334, time: GMT: Friday, 7. January 2022. 15:45:34 PCR: https://pcr.euprava.gov.rs/validate.php?cqcode=1641924832NyL5YS!wsSf!8sEKBcvi!hpbktN2TKm8BJv11xGmKwndWBeXvj https://pcr.euprava.gov.rs/validate.php?cqcode=1641924832NyL... Timestamp: 1641924832, time: GMT: Tuesday, 11. January 2022. 18:13:52 I downloaded PCR from portal today, that's why it has today's timestamp. What's interesting is that her test IDs are 7601574 and 7631146 while they were taken within 15 minutes from each other. There's some 30k difference, and I think Serbia runs around 40k tests a day. PCR samples are sent to central lab and processed later, that would explain why PCR's ID is much higher. However I don't think we have definite proof of how these test IDs are generated. Different labs could be assigned batches of IDs, PCR tests itself could have preassigned IDs (you can see they have same ID when you're tested, but I'm not sure it's the same ID as presented in results). If test ID is generated when results are inserted into database, then they should always be incremental and Novak's test IDs point to forgery. But there could be other explanations. My conclusions: - timestamps are not proof of forgery - test IDs are suspicious, but we can't be sure.
- pajowu 5y ago
  Hey, it'd be great if you'd reach out to zerforschung at hallo@zerforschung.org :)
  - grujicd 5y ago
    I've sent a brief email with links to these posts. Let's see if they publish a correction!
- mandarino 5y ago
  Great analysis!
- truthhunter 5y ago

polote 5y ago

oarsinsync 5y ago
> Who cares? Covid is nothing for kids Over 800 children (aged 0-12, more than half aged 0-5) being hospitalised per week right now in the UK. EDIT: previously stated hospitalisations were per day rather than per week, corrected above.
- logifail 5y ago
  > Over 800 children (aged 0-12, more than half aged 0-5) being hospitalised per day right now in the UK Hospitalised with Covid or due to Covid? Is there a public source for those figures? EDIT: the data at this link[0] doesn't seem to agree with your claim [0] https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare?areaType=nation&areaName=England https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare?areaType=...
  - passing_by_and 5y ago
    There is a bit of data here -> https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/hospital-activity/monthly-hospital-activity/mar-data/ https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas... It is not directly helpful (or unhelpful) to your point or to the parent as data doesn't seem broken down in that way. However, in all these sorts of discussions it would be really great if things had context. So, for example (and sake of argument) if someone says 800 children per day were admitted, we had a comparison. Is it high, low? How about a rate per 100,000 comparison across other countries? Not asking for anyone to do this, merely attempting to articulate my point. A bit of eyeball math shows 12 million people in UK under 16. Even if 800 a day was true...should I worry? Anyhow, thank you for moving discussion forward.
  - oarsinsync 5y ago
    Agreed, I miswrote per day when I should have written per week. I have edited and corrected above. Thanks!

raegen 5y ago

Skipping the part where I discuss my general doubt of intellectual capabilities of the fellow commenters here. - Datum uzorkovanja (Date of sampling): 22.12.2021 14:12:10 - Datum izdavanja rezultata (Date of issuance of results): 22.12.2021 16:15:49 => I will ignore the time needed to get the actual swabs to the laboratory and do the necessary paperwork etc and round this to ~2 hours of time available for testing. - Vrsta analize i proizvodjac testa (Type of analysis and test manufacturer): Real Time PCR test-SARS-CoV-2, , Sansure Biotech INC; Hunan Province See, unless my fellow countrymen have developed a way to do PCR tests 5 times faster than the fastest tests available in the (rest) of the world, this test in itself is a joke. This is the reason PCR testing: costs, is usually indicated by symptoms already present/positive antigen test. You're welcome. Take care

mijotz 5y ago
my company bought a pcr machine for our medical office 45 minut turn around and its not naat but PCR
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
carlmr 5y ago
>See, unless my fellow countrymen have developed a way to do PCR tests 5 times faster than the fastest tests available in the (rest) of the world, this test in itself is a joke. While I have no clue how they work in detail they offer 60 min express PCRs in Germany at least at my airport.
- raegen 5y ago
  Those are NAATs, which, while they are based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR), are not the same as PCR reported in the test.
- aix1 5y ago
  Also these guys in Canada offer 60- and 20-minute PCR tests: https://www.bonvoyagemedical.com/ https://www.bonvoyagemedical.com/

meelosh 5y ago

The question I have is this - is the test ID generated when the test results are generated for the first time (either sent by email if they have it, or accessed through eGov or eHealth portal), or are they generated as soon as test results are complete? If it's the former, then it's theoretically possible that the first (positive) results have been downloaded for the first time on Dec 26, and thus have a higher ID number. Unfortunately, no data points from me, even though I have been tested MANY times due to my profession. They've got my email, so they obviously get generated immediately. However, I do have a data point for screenshots when QR code of the positive test stated that the result was negative. This is something that happened to me as well (back in 2020, once, and never since then). It was a bug, obviously. The second part of the ID is person-specific (all my test results have that second part identical, regardless of when they were taken) - it seems that if a positive test is followed by a negative test, that happens sometimes.

tominous 5y ago
Third option: the test ID is generated well before the test is taken. When I donate blood the nurse pulls out a sheet of around 20 pre-generated identical barcode stickers, and attaches one to each piece of paper and bag of blood. This uniquely identifies my donation end-to-end. Djokovic's PCR tests were done at two separate labs. It is quite possible that each lab is bulk-allocated a unique range of IDs every day or week from the central authority. You'd see big "time jumps" from one lab to the other if you assumed the ID was always in time order. Depending on how they handle their range (e.g. if they are handing physical stacks of barcode stickers around) the code may not even always be in time order in the same lab.

crnigruja 5y ago

Additionally, on Novak's PCR test from Dec 16th on the website, the test result "NEGATIVE" had been changed to "POSITIVE" sometime around 14h00 on January 10th. Noticed by several people, including myself (took screenshot even myself before and after). BTW, apparently my IP address has now been blocked accessing to that website :) I get this message now: "Ваша адреса је блокирана 24 сата! Vaša adresa je blokirana 24 sata! Your address is blocked for 24 hours!"

techcode 5y ago
I just got blocked for 24 hours as well. After opening https://pcr.euprava.gov.rs/validate.php?cqcode=1641591150Q!A!EMiAKyIGblU0kEC2nKRD2DNBb23KZ4J5dn8ruBpwqKP1PR https://pcr.euprava.gov.rs/validate.php?cqcode=1641591150Q!A... just fine -tried to see what happens when you change the digits to cqcode=1641591151... :) While I guess in these cases governments don't really worry about enumeration aka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem - it's still often a security risk that means you usually try to avoid it. Even when internally you have auto-incremental ID - you can provide a non-sequential public ID (e.g. at least use SkipJack/Skip32 of that incremental value).
befreeordie 5y ago
Rate limiting has been implemented on this validation page from the start to prevent crawling and abuse. And please do not lie about changes on the test! Really bad thing to do right now, not just for Novak, for everyone in his situation.

pavle81 5y ago

[dead]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]