No big packed lectures allowed if we’re to safely bring uni students back to campus

Posted on May 29, 2020 by particularkev

A return to face to face teaching at universities and technical colleges “where possible” is one of the goals of the Morrison government’s three step framework for a COVIDsafe Australia.

A look at the space available for teaching shows some return of students is possible.

But nearly all tiered lecture theatres will not comply with the social distancing rule of staying 1.5m apart, assuming they are seated at capacity. Those lectures will have to remain online or the rules around class sizes will need to change.

Back to the campus

Universities moved teaching operations off campus to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic. Many lectures and tutorials are now done online.

The campuses have been quiet since teaching moved online.
Flickr/Gordon Wrigley, CC BY

Universities have the challenge of working out how to safely get staff, students (and researchers) back to campus.

But the teaching space data from eight Australian universities reveals a number of problems in returning to campus while meeting social distancing rules. Some of these can be overcome, but others, including the key goal of increasing face to face teaching, will be much harder.

Until we reach Step 3, when up to 100 people may be permitted to gather in one space, opening up a campus is impractical. Under Steps 1 and 2 only 20 people are allowed in one space.

Come up to the lab

It should be possible to reestablish most laboratory based teaching and research to meet Step 3 guidelines without too many complications. The space data shows most laboratories provide about 4m² per person on average, although space between benches in some older labs may pose issues.

Where open plan offices are being used, they will have to meet social distancing rules.

Most university open plan offices have a density that is significantly lower than the 4m² average set by the guidelines, although achieving the 1.5m distancing rule may require some adaptations, such as additional screens.

Staff will be needed on campus as students return, but simple provisions similar to that used in retail shops, including floor signs and barriers, will be adequate to achieve the distancing guidelines. The continuing trend to move student services online will also help.

Cramped lecture rooms

Teaching space is much more problematic. The space data shows it is not possible to deliver conventional lectures in most existing tiered auditoriums during Step 3 restrictions. The absolute limit of 100 students in one space, narrow seat aisles and close seat spacing make them difficult to adapt.

Online lectures will still be necessary for the foreseeable future.

It is possible to deliver small group teaching, in groups of 19 to 100, but the space data we examined show only about one-third of non-lecture and non-laboratory teaching hours could be delivered on campus across a typical 50-hour week.

The smallest room that could accommodate a group of 19 students and an academic is 80m² under Step 3 guidelines. Only about 20% of campus teaching spaces are big enough although this percentage does vary from campus to campus.

Universities will need to move the furniture to keep students safely distanced apart.
Flickr/Dan Munnerley, CC BY-NC-ND

Successfully delivering small group teaching will probably require a lot of work on existing course structures and plenty of furniture relocation. But the opportunity to provide this type of teaching to the limit of capacity will be valuable in supporting retention and improving student experience.

Students love campus life

A campus is the largest capital investment a university makes and there are valid reasons why this is so. Attrition, retention and student experience data all suggest face to face teaching and other aspects of campus life are effective ways to attract, engage and retain undergraduate students.

A campus is also essential to deliver laboratory-based research. STEM research accounts for the majority of university research income and delivers many useful things, including perhaps a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

The timing of Step 3 is in the hands of state governments. For example, Queensland says it will move to Step 3 on July 10 while Tasmania has chosen July 13.

By the start of Semester 2 in late July or early August, it is probable that most states will have moved to Step 3.

UNSW, which moved to a three term model last year, will commence Term 2 on June 1, too early for Step 3.

Getting to campus

Another challenge though for universities is that of getting staff and students to campus on time. The capacity of public transport has been severely reduced by social distancing rules under Step 3.

In many cases it will not be practical to operate a campus with a full student or staff load.

Because campus populations are likely to be considerably reduced for a significant period of time, the challenges currently faced by on campus shops, food outlets and recreational facilities will continue.

The faint silver lining to all of this could be a long-term shift towards small group teaching, supplemented by high quality online materials, rather than reverting to the large lecture as we knew it.

Students will need to keep their distance at campus cafes and shops.
Flickr/Kaya, CC BY-NC-ND

Geoff Hanmer, Adjunct Professor of Architecture, University of Adelaide

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

7 questions answered on how to socialise safely as coronavirus restrictions ease

Posted on May 23, 2020 by particularkev

Hassan Vally, La Trobe University

You can almost hear the collective sigh of relief as coronavirus restrictions are eased across Australia.

But as we emerge from our bunkers and dust off our social skills, we must think about how to navigate this transition safely.

The winding back of restrictions does not mean the pandemic is over, although it is a recognition of how well we have done to control the spread of COVID-19 in Australia. There is still a long way to go, and it’s everyone’s responsibility to limit the chances of the coronavirus spreading.

So what should a social gathering look like now we’re allowed to get together? Here are answers to some common questions.

How big should my gathering be?

At the time of writing, you can have five visitors in your home and gatherings of up to ten outdoors in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. In Tasmania you can only have two visitors to your home; in the ACT, South Australia and the Northern Territory you can have ten, while in Western Australia you can have 20.

Whatever the restrictions in your state or territory, it’s important not to crowd too close together. You need to use common sense in deciding how many people to invite.

Do we still need to socially distance and wash hands regularly?

We should carry on doing the things that have so far proved successful in curbing the coronavirus.

This includes staying at least 1.5 metres from other people, and being vigilant about hand hygiene.

Make sure you have plenty of hand sanitiser available if you are hosting or attending a social gathering, so you can disinfect your hands regularly without having to go to the bathroom repeatedly.

How should we greet each other?

The same rules about physical contact still apply, so we should not be hugging for now. We could adopt some of the new ways of greeting, such as the elbow bump or the foot shake. Or just stick to saying hello for the moment.

Should I bring my own cutlery to a dinner party?

Assuming you trust the general hygiene standards of your friends (which I sincerely hope you do), this is not necessary. Cutlery should be washed properly with detergent in hot water and handled only with freshly washed hands.

Cutlery is no different to any other food surface such as crockery, glassware or chopping boards – just make sure it’s as clean as possible.

Can we share food?

Although there is no evidence coronavirus is spread through food, there is still a risk of cross-contamination while eating food from a shared plate. So this is probably not a sensible thing to do right now.

While it might feel less sociable, avoiding shared grazing plates is a simple tactic to limit the risk of virus transmission. It might even stop your friend scoffing all the dip.

Similarly, avoid the temptation to clink glasses with your friends. It’s only a small risk but we should take every opportunity to reduce the virus’s chances.

Should I wear a mask?

A mask is not essential for social gatherings, assuming you maintain a safe distance and wash your hands regularly. Having said that, a mask can give people some extra reassurance so they can relax a bit more.

That’s assuming it is worn (and taken off) correctly, and that people understand a mask does not guarantee protection from infection. There is no harm in wearing one, but remember to be extra friendly as your friends can’t see your smile!

I don’t feel 100% – should I take a raincheck?

It is important to factor in your personal health and risk factors in determining how you navigate your newly reinstated freedoms. For example, a 75-year-old with a pre-existing health condition, such as a heart condition or asthma, should still be very careful about limiting their contact with others, as the implications of getting sick are very serious.

You should also consider your responsibility to other people. A 25-year-old who feels slightly unwell should err on the side of caution and not socialise, to protect others.

Despite the lockdown lifting, we still need to take responsibility for our own health and also be considerate about the health of others. That way we can all start to enjoy one of the most rewarding aspects of humanity: being sociable.

Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, La Trobe University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

False positives, false negatives: it’s hard to say if the COVIDSafe app can overcome its shortcomings

Posted on May 19, 2020 by particularkev

Dinesh Kumar, RMIT University and Pj Radcliffe, RMIT University

The Australian government’s contact-tracing app, COVIDSafe, has been touted as crucial for restarting the country’s economy and curbing COVID-19’s spread.

But until more data are collected, it’s hard to estimate how effective the app will be. Nonetheless, there are some predictable situations in which COVIDSafe’s design may mean it will struggle to fulfil its purpose.

False positives

COVIDSafe uses Bluetooth to digitally “trace” people with whom a user has come into contact, with the aim of alerting anyone who has interacted with a confirmed COVID-19 case. But this technology carries a risk of “false positives”, wherein a user may be falsely alerted despite not actually having come into contact with the virus.

This is because Bluetooth radio waves pass through walls and glass. They can only measure how physically close two people are; they can’t tell whether those people are in the same room, in different rooms, or even in different cars passing each other.

In a high-density apartment building, depending on the strength of Bluetooth signals, it’s possible COVIDSafe could falsely alert plenty of people.

The Department of Health has acknowledged this complication, saying:

If this happens and one of the contacts is identified as having coronavirus, state and territory health officials will talk to the people to work out if this was a legitimate contact or not.

Nonetheless, this process may cause unnecessary distress, and could also have negative flow-on effects on the economy by keeping people home unnecessarily. False positives could also erode public trust in the app’s effectiveness.

False negatives

On the other side of the coin, COVIDSafe also has the potential for “false negatives”. Simply, it will not identify non-human-to-human transmission of the virus.

We know COVID-19 can survive on different surfaces for various periods of time. COVIDSafe would not be able to alert people exposed to the virus via a solid surface, such as a shopping trolley or elevator button, if the person who contaminated that surface had already left the scene.

COVIDSafe is also not helpful in the case of users who become infected with COVID-19 but remain asymptomatic. Such a person may never get tested and upload their contact data to the app’s central data store, but may still be able to pass the virus to those around them. More data is needed on asymptomatic transmission.

And regarding the decision to classify “close contacts” as people who have been within a 1.5m distance for 15 minutes – this may have been based on research from Japan for when people are in an open space, and the air is moving.

However, this research also showed micro-droplets remained suspended in the air for 20 minutes in enclosed spaces. Thus, the 1.5m for 15 minutes rule may be questionable for indoor settings.

Downloads vs usage

Recently, Iceland’s contact tracing app achieved the highest penetration of any such app in the world, with almost 40% of the population opting in. But Icelandic Police Service detective inspector Gestur Pálmason – who has overseen contact tracing efforts – said while it was useful in a few cases, the app “wasn’t a game-changer”.

Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison has said on multiple occasions COVIDSafe requires a 40% uptake to be effective.

Since then, federal health minister Greg Hunt has said there’s “no magic figure, but every set of people that download will make it easier and help”. This was echoed more recently by Department of Health acting secretary Caroline Edwards, who told a Senate committee there was no specific uptake goal within her team.

Past modelling revealed infection could be controlled if more than 70% of the population were taking the necessary precautions. It’s unclear what science (if any) was forming the basis of Australia’s initial 40% uptake goal for COVIDSafe.

This goal is also lower than proposed figures from other experts around the world, who have suggested goals varying from 50-70%, and 80% for UK smartphone owners. But the fact is, these figures are estimates and are difficult to test for accuracy.

A survey conducted by University of Sydney researchers suggested in Sydney and Melbourne, COVIDSafe’s uptake could already be at 40% – but lower in other places.
Shutterstock

Demographic bias

There are many other uncertainties about COVIDSafe’s effectiveness.

We lack data on whether the app is actually being downloaded by those most at risk. This may include:

elderly people
frontline and essential service workers
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
people with underlying medical conditions
those with less access to health care
people experiencing homelessness
those with less access to COVID-19 information.

We also know COVIDSafe doesn’t work properly on iPhones and some older model mobile phones. And older devices are more likely to be owned by those who are elderly, or less financially privileged.

What’s more, COVIDSafe can’t fulfil its contact tracing potential until it’s downloaded by a critical mass of people who have already contracted the virus. At this stage, the more people infected with COVID-19 that download the app, the better.

A tough nut to crack

Implementing a contact tracing app is a difficult task for our leaders and medical experts. This is because much remains unknown about the COVID-19 virus, and how people will continue to respond to rules as restrictions lift around the country.

Predictions of the disease’s spread have also shown a lot of variation.

Thus, there are many unknowns making it impossible to predict the outcome. The important thing is for people to not start taking risks just because they’ve downloaded COVIDSafe.

And while the government pushes for more downloads and reopening the economy, ongoing reviews will be crucial to improving the app’s functionality.

Dinesh Kumar, Professor, Electrical and Biomedical Engineering, RMIT University and Pj Radcliffe, Senior Lecturer, Electrical and Computer Engineering, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

In some places 40% of us may have downloaded COVIDSafe. Here’s why the government should share what it knows

Posted on May 17, 2020 by particularkev

Robert Slonim, University of Sydney

It’s 18 days since the government launched its digital contact-tracing app COVIDSafe. The latest figure we have for downloads is 5.4 million, on May 8, about 29% of smartphone users aged 14 and over.

My own mini-survey suggests that in Sydney and Melbourne the takeup could already be 40% – a figure the government has mentioned as a target – while in other places it is much lower.

Oddly, it’s information the government isn’t sharing with us.

Total number of COVIDSafe app users (millions)

The importance of downloading and using the app is growing day by day as we relax restrictions. We are able to see what has happened in countries such as South Korea that have relaxed restrictions and then experienced a second wave.

5.4 million Australians after 13 days is a promising start.

As can be seen in the above graph produced by my colleague Demetris Christodoulou and me, 5.4 million downloads represents about 28.7% of Australians with smartphones.

It compares favourably to the 22.4% of Singaporeans with smartphones who downloaded their app within 13 days of its launch.

But the government is only making public a single figure indicating “total” downloads. It would be far more useful if it provided disaggregated community, city and state level data, and below, I attempt to fill the breach.

Letting us know more about which communities are downloading the app would help with health, motivation and transparency.

Health

Knowledge about potentially-dramatic variations in where the app was being downloaded could help guide policy.

Hypothetically speaking, if 70% of Melbourne’s smartphone users had downloaded the app but only 20% of Adelaide’s users, this could have distinct implications for the ability to successfully trace COVID-19 outbreaks in the respective cities and for the right amount of easing of restrictions in each city.

It could also help residents of those cities make more informed decisions about their own safety, such as whether and how to shop and whether to wear a mask.

Motivation

While COVIDSafe originally generated more than 500,000 daily downloads, the number has fallen to less than 100,000, suggesting that new efforts to motivate more downloads is urgently needed.

Providing geographical details could energise downloads in three ways.

First, people often feel enormous pride when their community steps up to help others. Knowing how well the community is doing is likely to motivate more people to help.

Second, knowing how well other communities are doing can be a powerful incentive to catch up; few people want to be in the community that isn’t doing its part.

Third, if state leaders make decisions about relaxing restrictions partly on the basis of local downloads, community members will see a direct connection between downloading the app and the freedoms that will be available to them.

Transparency

The government’s appeal to download the app is built around trust.

It has asked us to trust it by downloading the app. In return it should trust us with better information.

People in Adelaide, Alice Springs, Brisbane, Cairns, Canberra, Darwin, Geelong, the Gold Coast, Hobart, Launceston, Melbourne, Newcastle, Perth, Sydney, Townsville, Wollongong, rural communities and other places deserve access to information the government already has that could help them make better choices.

The sort of data authorities are keeping to themselves

Given the lack of transparency to date, I conducted my own online survey among 876 residents of Sydney, Melbourne and regional communities with less than 50,000 people.

My survey results, run with a sample of people using the online survey platform PureProfile, indicate the proportion of people who had downloaded the app by May 11 was 50.5% in Sydney, 44.0% in Melbourne and 36.1% in less populated communities.

Controlling for age and gender, there was no significant difference between downloads in Sydney and Melbourne. Both were significantly higher than rural communities.

Restricting the responses to people who have a mobile phone that is capable of downloading the app, the proportion of downloads increases to 53.8% in Sydney, 47.8% in Melbourne and 41.2% in less populated communities. An extra 7.2%, 6.9% and 5.7% of respondents said they would either definitely or probably download the app in the next week.

This survey evidence indicates that there are stark regional differences in the downloads, and that although the national level of downloads is about 29%, some locations such as Sydney and Melbourne may have already surpassed (or will soon supass) the 40% government stated target.

Of course the government shouldn’t rely these survey results, because it’s got the actual information. It is time it shared the detailed download information it has with us, both to reciprocate our trust and let us make more informed decisions.

Robert Slonim, Professor of Economics, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

70% of people surveyed said they’d download a coronavirus app. Only 44% did. Why the gap?

Posted on May 17, 2020 by particularkev

Simon J Dennis, University of Melbourne; Amy Perfors, UCLA School of Medicine; Daniel R. Little, University of Melbourne; Joshua P. White, University of Melbourne; Lewis Mitchell, University of Adelaide; Nic Geard, University of Melbourne; Paul M. Garrett, University of Melbourne, and Stephan Lewandowsky, University of Bristol

In late March, we posed a hypothetical scenario to a sample of Australians, asking if they would download a contact tracing app released by the federal government; 70% responded in favour.

But a more recent survey, following the release of COVIDSafe, revealed only 44% of respondents had downloaded it.

The Australian government’s COVIDSafe app aims to help reduce the spread of COVID-19 and let us all return to normal life. But this promise depends on how many Australians download and use the app. The minimum required uptake has been variously estimated at 40-60% of the population.

Our ongoing research, led by the Complex Human Data Hub of the University of Melbourne’s School of Psychological Sciences, surveyed the Australian public to understand their opinions and use of the COVIDSafe app, and other possible government tracking technologies.

Our research is helping us understand the conditions under which Australians will accept these technologies, and what’s holding them back.

Is there community support for COVIDSafe?

COVIDSafe uses Bluetooth to establish an anonymous contact registry of who a user has been close to, and for how long. If that user tests positive for COVID-19, they can voluntarily upload their contact registry to a central data store accessible only by state and territory health officials. Human contact tracers then alert those at risk and advise them on appropriate isolation measures.

Gaining broad community support for COVIDsafe requires the app’s perceived public health benefits to outweigh concerns of personal privacy, security and potential risk of harm.

As of May 7, from a sample of 536 survey participants, 44% reported having downloaded the COVIDSafe app. Promisingly, another 17% said they had not, but planned to.

We also asked all our respondents what technology they thought COVIDSafe used. Only 60% correctly responded with “Bluetooth”. Others responded with “location data” (19%), “mobile phone towers” (5%), or that they did not know (16%). This breakdown differed between people who had downloaded the app and those who had not, as shown below.

Why are people opting in?

For those who downloaded COVIDSafe, most reported doing so to monitor others’ health (28%), their own health (19%), and in the hope of returning to normal activities sooner (18%). The least motivating factor was “to help the economy” (14%).

Most people who had not downloaded the app said they were weighing the pros and cons (22%), had not had time (19%) or had technical issues (12%). A small number were waiting for legislation that stipulated how the data could be used (6%).

This may be good news for the government, as many of these reasons are relatively straightforward to address.

Of those who reported they would not download the app, privacy was the main concern (31%).

Downloads does not equal usage

Whether those who download COVIDSafe are using it properly will largely determine its effectiveness.

Of those who had downloaded COVIDSafe, 90% said they had registered and kept Bluetooth switched on either at all times (77%) or when they left home (15%). Also, 58% said they had tried to share the app with others – helping to increase the rate of uptake.

Yet, there remains some doubt as to whether turning Bluetooth on is sufficient for the app to work productively on iPhones.
According to app developers, COVIDSafe works best on iPhones when the app is open, on the front screen (foreground), and the phone is unlocked.

But since these iPhone-related issues can be fixed (albeit potentially with some level of difficulty), it would be worthwhile for the government to invest in this.

International comparisons

Before the release of COVIDSafe, our research also tracked social support for similar apps and tracking technologies in other countries, including the UK, US, Taiwan and Germany.

We asked respondents about two hypothetical scenarios of government tracking.

The first scenario was similar to Australia’s COVIDSafe app rollout. In it, people were asked to download a voluntary government tracking app allowing them to be contacted if they had been exposed to COVID-19. In this scenario, 70% of our respondents said they would download the app.

The second scenario was less voluntary, wherein all people with a mobile phone had their location tracked. Governments would use the data to trace contacts, locate people who were violating lockdown orders and enforce restrictions with fines and arrests, if necessary. Interestingly, in this scenario even more people (79%) said they would download the app. If people could opt out, 92% indicated they would support the policy.

Importantly, these scenarios were completely hypothetical at the time, which may account for the intention-behaviour gap. That is, the gap between people’s values and attitudes, and their actual actions.

So, while 70% of people in our first survey said they would download a hypothetical government app, a later survey showed only 44% had actually downloaded COVIDSafe after its release.

This graphs shows the proportion of participants who indicated they would download a voluntary government app (in green), and who found mandatory tracking through telecommunications companies acceptable (purple) in Taiwan, Australia, UK, Germany, and the US under various situations. ‘Sunset’ refers to a sunset clause, in which governments legislate promises to stop tracking and delete the associated data within six months. ‘Local data storage’ refers to when tracking data is stored on a user’s device, rather than a central repository. This data was collected prior to the announcement of the COVIDSafe app.

Australians showed high levels of support for both scenarios, particularly in comparison to other western democracies, such as the UK and the US.

An evolving situation

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has repeatedly linked COVIDSafe’s uptake to a potential easing of lockdown restrictions. But more recently, federal defence minister Marise Payne said the app’s uptake wouldn’t be a deciding factor for when restrictions were lifted.

When asked if the government should use the app’s uptake levels to decide when restrictions should be lifted, only 51% of our survey participants responded “yes”.

Overall, our data show Australians are generally accepting of the use of government tracking technologies to combat the COVID-19 emergency. However, only time will tell how this translates to real-world uptake of the COVIDSafe app.

Detailed results of the survey data from Australia, as well as the UK, US, Spain, Switzerland, Germany, and Taiwan, are continually being reported here.

Simon J Dennis, Director of Complex Human Data Hub and Professor of Psychology, University of Melbourne; Amy Perfors, Associate Professor, UCLA School of Medicine; Daniel R. Little, Associate Professor in Mathematical Psychology, University of Melbourne; Joshua P. White, Research Assistant – Complex Human Data Hub, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne; Lewis Mitchell, Senior Lecturer in Applied Mathematics, University of Adelaide; Nic Geard, Senior Lecturer, School of Computing and Information Systems, University of Melbourne; Senior Research Fellow, Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, University of Melbourne; Paul M. Garrett, Post Doctoral Research Fellow, University of Melbourne, and Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair of Cognitive Psychology, University of Bristol

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Vital Signs: rules are also signals, which is why easing social distancing is such a problem

Posted on May 16, 2020 by particularkev

Richard Holden, UNSW

Australia’s states and territories have begun relaxing the restrictions put in place to contain COVID-19.

From today, for instance, the most populous state, New South Wales, is allowing outdoor gatherings of ten people, the use of public pools and playground equipment, and home gatherings with up five visitors. Restaurants and cafes can also serve up to ten diners, so long as they follow the “four square metres rule” (meaning a premises will need a dining area of 40 square metres to seat ten patrons).

Many will welcome these developments. But they represent a difficult choice for governments.

Allowing the public greater freedoms will help boost both morale and economic activity. But it risks a second-wave outbreak of COVID-19 and a return to more stringent restrictions.

Easing off on social distancing rules while keeping COVID-19 under control with good but imperfect testing and contact tracing is a tough balancing act.

It’s made even tougher by the fact government rules do more than simply define what is permissible.

The rules also send a message to the public about the information authorities have, influencing personal perceptions and therefore behaviour, regardless of whether it is permitted.

Hearing the wrong story

So governments need to take into account not just the direct effect of rules but, crucially, the broader message absorbed by the public.

There’s a risk people will hear only part of the story, interpreting the easing of restrictions as a sign we’ve beaten the virus and are on our way back to normal.

This, in part, explains why New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian urged continued vigilance when she announced relaxing of restrictions on May 10. “Just because we’re easing restrictions doesn’t mean the virus is less deadly or less of a threat,” she said. “All it means is we have done well to date.”

An extra layer of complexity

Trying to ensure the public doesn’t misinterpret government messages makes decisions on when and how to ease restrictions particularly complex.

The key risk, of course, is that people infer from relaxed restrictions that the government now thinks risks are minimal and everyone can go back to life as it was in January 2020.

This signalling effect means governments need to be more cautious about relaxing restrictions.

On the other hand, the longer they seek to impose rules, particularly if other jurisdictions are easing restrictions, the more they risk losing their authority.

This conundrum can be seen in Australia’s second-most-populous state, Victoria. It has regularly imposed rules going further than those recommended by the federal government.

ABC Q&A host Hamish MacDonald captured this nicely when he asked Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews this week:

Dan Andrews, you would have seen all of the images of people out in Victoria over the weekend, clearly going beyond what was formally allowed in terms of social distancing. Have some Victorians, do you think, seen this federal three-step plan, observed that you’re going to take somewhat longer to deliver on some of the steps, and just taken matters into their own hands?

It doesn’t help that the Victorian and federal governments differ despite both apparently acting on the advice of public health experts.

“Follow the medical advice” has been a powerful aphorism, but it is likely to weaken the further the response to COVID-19 moves from the “hammer” phase – using strict social distancing measures – to the “dance” phase – using more targeted measures such as contact tracing to contain the spread of the virus until there’s a vaccine.

Leading by example

One thing leaders can do to mitigate this problem is communicate to the public through their own behaviour.

Other countries have seen some some disturbingly mixed messages. Britain’s prime minister, Boris Johnson, for example, proudly talked about shaking hands with COVID-19 patients just weeks before he almost died from the virus. US President Donald Trump, among other things, has refused to wear a mask while Americans are being encouraged or required to.

Australia’s politicians have generally done better. A notable example was federal Health Minister Greg Hunt admonishing mining magnate Andrew Forrest to maintain proper social distance at a press conference last month. That was a powerful reminder, as has been the sight of the prime minister, the chief medical officer and cabinet members standing appropriate distances apart.

The ‘horror-case scenario’

Perhaps what governments fear most is a breakdown in public compliance with social distancing that leads to large enough second-wave outbreaks to warrant a return to the conditions that applied in April.

This would be a huge blow, both to the economy and the national psyche – which is what will drive business and consumer confidence. Household spending accounts for nearly 60% of GDP, so confidence is crucial to recovery.

That confidence will depend not only on what rules governments put in place but what messages they send to the Australian public in coming months.

Richard Holden, Professor of Economics, UNSW

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Contact tracing apps are vital tools in the fight against coronavirus. But who decides how they work?

Posted on May 14, 2020 by particularkev

Seth Lazar, Australian National University and Meru Sheel, Australian National University

Last week the head of Australia’s Digital Transformation Agency, Randall Brugeaud, told a Senate committee hearing an updated version of Australia’s COVIDSafe contact-tracing app would soon be released. That’s because the current version doesn’t work properly on Apple phones, which restrict background broadcasting of the Bluetooth signals used to tell when phones have been in close proximity.

For Apple to allow the app the Bluetooth access it requires to work properly, the new version will have to comply with a “privacy-preserving contact tracing” protocol designed by Apple and Google.

Unfortunately, the Apple/Google protocol supports a different (and untested) approach to contact tracing. It may do a better job of preserving privacy than the current COVIDSafe model, but has some public health costs.

And, importantly, the requirement to comply with this protocol takes weighty decisions away from a democratically elected government and puts them in the hands of tech companies.

A difficult transition

Both COVIDSafe and the new Apple/Google framework track exposure in roughly the same way. They broadcast a “digital handshake” to nearby phones, from which it’s possible to infer how close two users’ devices were, and for how long.

If the devices were closer than 1.5m for 15 minutes or more, that’s considered evidence of “close contact”. To stop the spread of COVID-19, the confirmed close contacts of people who test positive need to self-isolate.

The differences between COVIDSafe’s current approach and the planned Apple/Google framework are in the architecture of the two systems, and to whom they reveal sensitive information. COVIDSafe’s approach is “centralised” and uses a central database to collect some contact information, whereas Apple and Google’s protocol is completely “decentralised”. For the latter, notification of potential exposure to someone who has tested positive is carried out between users alone, with no need for a central database.

This provides a significant privacy benefit: a central database would be a target for attackers, and could potentially be misused by law enforcement.

Protecting COVIDSafe’s central database, and ensuring “COVID App Data” is not misused has been the task of the draft legislation currently being considered. However, if the Apple/Google framework is adopted as planned, much of that legislation will become redundant, as there will be no centralised database to protect. Also, since data on users’ devices will be encrypted and inaccessible to health authorities, there’s no risk of it being misused.

For COVIDSafe to comply with the new Apple/Google framework, it would need to be completely rewritten, and the new app would most likely not be interoperable with the current version. This means we’d either have two systems running in parallel, or we’d have to ensure that everyone updates.

Less information for contact tracers

The Apple/Google approach strictly limits the amount of information shared with all parties, including traditional contact tracers.

When a user’s “risk score” exceeds a threshold the app will send them a pop-up. The only information revealed to the user and health authorities will be the date of exposure, its duration, and the strength of the Bluetooth signal at the time. The app would not reveal, to anyone, precisely when a potentially risky encounter occurred, or to whom the user was exposed.

This, again, has privacy benefits, but also public health costs. This kind of “exposure notification” (as Apple and Google call it, though proximity notification might be more accurate) can be used to supplement traditional contact tracing, but it can’t be integrated into it, because it doesn’t entrust contact tracers with sensitive information.

Benefits of traditional methods

As experts have already shown, duration and strength of Bluetooth signals is weak evidence of potentially risky exposure, and can result in both false positives and false negatives.

COVIDSafe’s current approach entrusts human contact tracers with more data than the Apple/Google framework allows – both when, and to whom, the at-risk person was exposed. This enables a more personalised risk assessment, with potentially fewer errors. Contact tracers can help people recall encounters they may otherwise forget, and provide context to information given by the app.

For example, the knowledge that a possible close contact happened when both parties were wearing personal protective equipment might help avoid a false positive. Similarly, learning that someone who tested positive had a close contact with a user, who was with friends who weren’t running the app at the time, might enable us to alert those friends, and so avoid a false negative.

In addition, just having the message come from a human rather than a pop-up might make people more likely to actually self-isolate; we only control the spread if we actually self-isolate when instructed. And, by providing all this data to public health authorities, COVIDSafe’s current approach also grants experts epidemiological insights into the disease.

The two approaches are also supported by different evidence. Apple and Google’s decentralised exposure notification method has never been tried in a pandemic, and is supported by evidence from simulations. However, app-enhanced contact tracing akin to what COVIDSafe does (except using GPS, not Bluetooth) was road-tested in the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, with promising (though inconclusive) results.

Who should decide?

So, should the Australian government comply with Apple and Google’s privacy “laws” and design a new app that’s different from COVIDSafe? Or should Apple update its operating system so COVIDSafe works effectively in the background? Perhaps more importantly, who should decide?

If Apple and Google’s approach achieved the same public health goals as COVIDSafe, but better protected privacy, then – sunk costs notwithstanding – Australia should design a new app to fit with their framework. As we’ve seen, though, the two approaches are genuinely different, with different public health benefits.

If COVIDSafe were likely to lead to violations of fundamental privacy rights, then Apple would be morally entitled to stick to their guns, and continue to restrict it from working in the background. But the current COVIDSafe draft legislation – while not perfect – adequately addresses concerns about how, and by whom, data is collected and accessed. And while COVIDSafe has security flaws, they can be fixed.

Decisions on how to weigh values like privacy and public health should be based on vigorous public debate, and the best advice from experts in relevant fields. Disagreement is inevitable.

But in the end, the decision should be made by those we voted in, and can vote out if they get it wrong. It shouldn’t be in the hands of tech executives outside of the democratic process.

Seth Lazar, Professor, Australian National University and Meru Sheel, Epidemiologist | Senior Research Fellow, Australian National University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The COVIDSafe bill doesn’t go far enough to protect our privacy. Here’s what needs to change

Posted on May 7, 2020 by particularkev

Katharine Kemp, UNSW and Graham Greenleaf, UNSW

The Australian government will need to correct earlier misstatements and improve privacy protections to gain the trust of the millions of Australians being called on to download the COVIDSafe contact tracing app.

The draft Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020, or the “COVIDSafe bill”, released yesterday, is the first step towards parliamentary legislation providing privacy protections for users of the app.

The COVIDSafe bill includes some significant improvements on the protections offered by federal health minister Greg Hunt’s current determination under the Biosecurity Act, which put rules in place to encourage uptake of the app. However, the bill falls short on other substantial concerns.

Improvements incorporated in the bill

The COVIDSafe bill includes several amendments to the privacy protections originally set out in the determination, which the legislation is intended to replace.

The bill, like the determination, would make it illegal to gather or use data collected by the app for purposes other than those specified. Such an offence would be punishable by up to five years in prison.

Importantly, the bill also permits individuals to take some enforcement action on their own behalf if the privacy protections are breached, rather than relying on the government to bring criminal proceedings. It does this by making a breach of those protections an “interference with privacy” under the Privacy Act. This means users can make a complaint to the federal privacy commissioner.

The bill also improves the kind of consent needed to upload a user’s list of contacts to the central data store, if the user tests positive for COVID-19. Instead of allowing anyone with control of a mobile phone to consent, the bill requires consent from the actual registered COVIDSafe user.

The legislation will also apply to state and territory health officials to cover data accessed for contact tracing purposes, in case they misuse it.

Not 1.5 metres, not 15 minutes

A crucial problem with the bill is it allows the government to collect much more personal data than is necessary for contact tracing.

Just before the app’s release, federal services minister Stuart Roberts said the app would only collect data of other app users within 1.5 metres, for at least 15 minutes. He also said when a user tests positive the app would allow the user to consent to the upload of only those contacts.

Neither of these statements is true.

According to the Privacy Impact Assessment of COVIDSafe, the app collects and – with consent of a user who tests positive – uploads to the central data store, data about all other users who came within Bluetooth signal range even for a minute within the preceding 21 days.

While the Department of Health more recently said it would prevent state and territory health authorities from accessing contacts other than those that meet the “risk parameters”, the bill includes no data collection or use restrictions based on the distance or duration of contact.

The government should correct its misstatements and minimise the data collected and decrypted to that which is necessary, to the extent that is technically possible.

An overly narrow definition of protected data

The privacy protections in the bill only apply to certain data. And the definition of that data does not capture critical personal data created and used in the process of COVIDSafe contact tracing.

The bill defines “COVID app data” as data collected or generated through the operation of the app which has been stored on a mobile phone or device. This would include the encrypted contacts stored on a user’s phone.

But if the user tests positive and uploads those encrypted contacts to the national data store, the decrypted records of their contacts over the last 21 days do not clearly fall within that definition. Data transformed or derived from that data by state and territory health officers would also fall outside the definition.

“COVID app data” should be re-defined to expressly include these types of data.

No source code

Ministers have said COVIDSafe’s source code, or at least the parts of it which do not pose “security issues”, would be made available within a fortnight after the app’s release. Yet, there is no sign of this.

The full source code should be made public at least a week prior to the COVIDSafe Act being enacted so experts can identify weaknesses in privacy protections.

The bill also fails to provide any guarantee of independent scientific advice on whether the app is continuing to be of practical benefit, or should be terminated.

Loopholes in the rules against coercion

The bill contains some good protections against coercing people to download or use the COVIDSafe app, but these need to be strengthened, by preventing requirements to disclose installation of the app, and discriminatory conditions. This is especially necessary given various groups, including chambers of commerce, have already proposed (illegal) plans to make participation or entry conditional on app usage.

Some behavioural economists have proposed making government payments, tax break or other financial rewards dependent on individuals using the app. The bill should make clear that no discount, payment or other financial incentive may be conditional on a person downloading or using the app.

The government must abide by its promise that use of the COVIDSafe app is voluntary. Coercion or “pseudo-voluntary” agreement should not be used to circumvent this.

‘Google knows everything about you’ doesn’t cut it

Many have argued Australians who do not yet trust the COVIDSafe app should download it anyway since Google, Facebook, Uber or Amazon already “know far more about you”. But the fact that some entities are being investigated for data practices which disadvantage consumers is not a reason to diminish the need for privacy protections.

The harms from government invasions of privacy have even more dramatic and immediate impacts on our liberty.

Parliament will debate the COVIDSafe Bill in the sitting expected to start May 12, and a Senate Committee will continue to investigate it. Many are likely to wait for improved protections in the final legislation before making the choice to opt in.

Katharine Kemp, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, UNSW, and Academic Lead, UNSW Grand Challenge on Trust, UNSW and Graham Greenleaf, Professor of Law and Information Systems, UNSW

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The COVIDSafe app was just one contact tracing option. These alternatives guarantee more privacy

Posted on May 3, 2020 by particularkev

Kelsie Nabben, RMIT University and Chris Berg, RMIT University

Since its release on Sunday, experts and members of the public alike have raised privacy concerns with the federal government’s COVIDSafe mobile app.

The contact tracing app aims to stop COVID-19’s spread by “tracing” interactions between users via Bluetooth, and alerting those who may have been in proximity with a confirmed case.

According to a recent poll commissioned by The Guardian, out of 1054 respondents, 57% said they were “concerned about the security of personal information collected” through COVIDSafe.

In its coronavirus response, the government has a golden opportunity to build public trust. There are other ways to build a digital contact tracing system, some of which would arguably raise fewer doubts about data security than the app.

All eyes on encryption

Incorporating advanced cryptography into COVIDSafe could have given Australian citizens a mathematical guarantee of their privacy, rather than a legal one.

A team at Canada’s McGill University is working on a solution that uses “mix networks” to send cryptographically “hashed” contact tracing location data through multiple, decentralised servers. This process hides the location and time stamps of users, sharing only necessary data.

This would let the government alert those who have been near a diagnosed person, without revealing other identifiers that could be used to trace back to them.

It’s currently unclear what encryption standards COVIDSafe is using, as the app’s source code has not been publicly released, and the government has been widely criticised for this. Once the code is available, researchers will be able to review and assess how safe users’ data are.

COVIDSafe is based on Singapore’s TraceTogether mobile app. Cybersecurity experts Chris Culnane, Eleanor McMurtry, Robert Merkel and Vanessa Teague have raised concerns over the app’s encryption standards.

If COVIDSafe has similar encryption standards – which we can’t know without the source code – it would be wrong to say the app’s data are encrypted. According to the experts, COVIDSafe shares a phone’s exact model number in plaintext with other users, whose phones store this detail alongside the original user’s corresponding unique ID.

The TraceTogether contact tracing app is part of Singapore’s effort to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. But according to the ABC, less than 20% of the population has downloaded it.
Shutterstock

Tough tech techniques for privacy

US-based advocacy group The Open Technology Institute has argued in favour of a “differential privacy” method for encrypting contact tracing data. This involves injecting statistical “noise” into datasets, giving individuals plausible deniability if their data are leaked for purposes other than contact tracing.

Zero-knowledge proof is another option. In this computation technique, one party (the prover) proves to another party (the verifier) they know the value of a specific piece of information, without conveying any other information. Thus, it would “prove” necessary information such as who a user has been in proximity with, without revealing details such as their name, phone number, postcode, age, or other apps running on their phone.

Not on the cloud, but still an effective device

Some approaches to contact tracing involve specialised hardware. Simmel is a wearable pen-like contact tracing device. It’s being designed by a Singapore-based team, supported by the European Commission’s Next Generation Internet program. All data are stored in the device itself, so the user has full control of their trace history until they share it.

This provides citizens a tracing beacon they can give to health officials if diagnosed, but is otherwise not linked to them through phone data or personal identifiers.

Missed opportunity

The response to COVIDSafe has been varied. While the number of downloads has been promising since its release, iPhone users have faced a range of functionality issues. Federal police are also investigating a series of text message scams allegedly aiming to dupe users.

The federal government has not chosen a decentralised, open-source, privacy-first approach. A better response to contact tracing would have been to establish clearer user information requirements and interoperability specifications (standards allowing different technologies and data to interact).

Also, inviting the private sector to help develop solutions (backed by peer review) could have encouraged innovation and provided economic opportunities.

How do we define privacy?

Personal information collected via COVIDSafe is governed under the Privacy Act 1988 and the Biosecurity Determination 2020.

These legal regimes reveal a gap between the public’s and the government’s conceptions of “privacy”.

You may think privacy means the government won’t share your private information. But judging by its general approach, the government thinks privacy means it will only share your information if it has authorised itself to do so.

Fundamentally, once you’ve told the government something, it has broad latitude to share that information using legislative exemptions and permissions built up over decades. This is why, when it comes to data security, mathematical guarantees trump legal “guarantees”.

For example, data collected by COVIDSafe may be accessible to various government departments through the recent anti-encryption legislation, the Assistance and Access Act. And you could be prosecuted for not properly self-isolating, based on your COVIDSafe data.

A right to feel secure

Moving forward, we may see more iterations of contact tracing technology in Australia and around the world.

The World Health Organisation is advocating for interoperability between contact tracing apps as part of the global virus response. And reports from Apple and Google indicate contact tracing will soon be built into your phone’s operating system.

As our government considers what to do next, it must balance privacy considerations with public health. We shouldn’t be forced to choose one over another.

Kelsie Nabben, Researcher / PhD Candidate, RMIT Blockchain Innovation Hub, RMIT University and Chris Berg, Senior Research Fellow and Co-Director, RMIT Blockchain Innovation Hub, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Coronavirus Update: Australia

Posted on May 2, 2020 by particularkev

General

Australia

Sharing my thoughts with the world from a Particular Baptist perspective

Back to the campus

Come up to the lab

Cramped lecture rooms

Students love campus life

Getting to campus

Share this:

Like this:

How big should my gathering be?

Do we still need to socially distance and wash hands regularly?

How should we greet each other?

Should I bring my own cutlery to a dinner party?

Can we share food?

Should I wear a mask?

I don’t feel 100% – should I take a raincheck?

Share this:

Like this:

False positives

False negatives

Downloads vs usage

Demographic bias

A tough nut to crack

Share this:

Like this:

Health

Motivation

Transparency

The sort of data authorities are keeping to themselves

Share this:

Like this:

Is there community support for COVIDSafe?

Why are people opting in?

Downloads does not equal usage

International comparisons

An evolving situation

Share this:

Like this:

Hearing the wrong story

An extra layer of complexity

Leading by example

The ‘horror-case scenario’

Share this:

Like this:

A difficult transition

Less information for contact tracers

Benefits of traditional methods

Who should decide?

Share this:

Like this:

Improvements incorporated in the bill

Not 1.5 metres, not 15 minutes

An overly narrow definition of protected data

No source code

Loopholes in the rules against coercion

‘Google knows everything about you’ doesn’t cut it

Share this:

Like this:

All eyes on encryption

Tough tech techniques for privacy

Not on the cloud, but still an effective device

Missed opportunity

How do we define privacy?

A right to feel secure

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: