Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Coronavirus: The Thread

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Coronavirus: The Thread

Old 22nd Apr 2020, 09:07
  #5401 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by ATNotts View Post
The early results might have proved very interesting, or of course, what was essentially a dress rehearsal for the main survey might have shown flaws in the methodology or even, as you have suggested the efficacy of the test itself. The public needs to know, beyond the daily "death count" what is happening so that they can see in which direction the country is going, and what plans it's leaders have to return the nation to something akin to normality. Presently the population is largely compliant; but I would suggest that were the lockdown in it's current, albeit fairly light touch approach, to continue for another 6-8 weeks the population may become restless. If they know the process towards the endgame that point may take longer to reach.

There are likely to be very marked differences between, for example inner city areas with poorer people living in close proximity, and those in very rural areas; and areas very reliant on public transport versus those for whom private vehicle is the primary mode of transport Sure you can weight the result by all kinds of demographic factors, but still less that 10,000 respondents will never give as accurate a picture at 20,000, and 20,000 not as accurate as 30,000. And then there is still the question as to whether Porton Down can do what Public Health England have failed to do - that is hit their target, and then get the results in a timely manner. I sincerely hope that they can.

Bear in mind that the only purpose of the initial testing was to demonstrate and refine the testing methodology and sampling protocol, to test whether the assumptions made when that was created hold good. These results won't be of any use for any other purpose. Unless the test protocol is proved to be OK, then any further testing using it would be pointless, as unreliable data is worse than no data.

The test protocol is intended to be able to deliver a rolling update on how the disease is progressing across the whole of the UK, and the intention is to take, and test, around 5,000 samples per week as a part of this. Once the programme has been verified and established, the hope is that it will deliver a realistic picture of the status of the disease across the whole country. The robustness of the dataset should grow with time, and give a better overall picture than a protocol using a dataset from a one-off testing protocol.

It seems a sound approach, as with luck it may show how the disease really progresses with time, and that could be far more useful than just a snapshot.
VP959 is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2020, 09:22
  #5402 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 17,697
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/coron...ed/ar-BB130eAx

more failings

British firm may be forced to send 500,000 visors, desperately needed by NHS staff, abroad as the Government has not ordered any.

Printers Prime Group, of Nottingham, transformed its operation and took on 30 extra staff ready to make up to one million visors a month, which is 35,000 a day.

But the firm is frustrated that despite contacting officials a month ago, no orders have been placed.
Instead, he has been dealing with individual NHS trusts for orders of 1,000 to 30,000 visors.

By the end of this week, there will be 100,000 in stock without allocated buyers, which could end up being sold abroad.He needs a deal to secure his own workers’ jobs.

Jon said: “I have the material to make another 500,000. I have to decide whether to sell that material to Europe as there is demand. They are already making our designs.”
He decided to make the visors after his wife, an intensive care nurse, told him of shortages.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2020, 09:39
  #5403 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
Probably worth bearing in mind what's really going on, though. Right now, we have a mix of well-meaning, but sometimes ill-informed, people producing what they think is adequate PPE, plus some companies that have no background in producing PPE that are jumping on what they see as a bandwagon that may keep their business going at a difficult time.

This company has zero experience of manufacturing PPE, and does not seem to have sought any approval for their product. The risks this presents to front line workers, should they just use such PPE, are significant.

For example, take one very simple aspect, disinfection. All PPE MUST be free from contamination when delivered, there has to be absolutely no chance that someone with the disease (who may be asymptomatic) has handled the item at any stage in production, or the item must go through an acceptable disinfection process, plus it has to be supplied to the end user in a sealed package. The risk is similar in many ways to the "Typhoid Mary" one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon

Some of the small groups who are successfully supplying batches of face shields to the NHS are able to do this because they have set up an approved inspection, disinfection, packaging and supply system. Items are received from manufacturers, checked to ensure that they are adequate, disinfected and sealed in bags. One photo from another angry face shield supplier in the media yesterday showed that they were just ignoring the disinfection and sealed packaging requirement, then complaining that the NHS weren't accepting their product.

The NHS have made it very clear that they are giving priority to companies that have the required approvals in place to manufacture and supply PPE, as they are able to self-certify the quality, effectiveness and safety of their products. The new companies trying to get into this market don't have any approval to do this, which then means that someone else has to inspect, test and certify their product. I've no doubt that some of these companies are pissed off, but frankly they should have done their homework properly, and understood the responsibility they have to only supply something that works and is demonstrably safe to use.
VP959 is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2020, 09:46
  #5404 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: 5Y
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
I've no doubt that some of these companies are pissed off, but frankly they should have done their homework properly, and understood the responsibility they have to only supply something that works and is demonstrably safe to use.
Hey, just try it. What have you got to loose?
double_barrel is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2020, 09:52
  #5405 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,712
Hey, just try it. What have you got to loose?
Time, money and lives......
ORAC is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2020, 10:48
  #5406 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,712

Dutch biotech company joins Jenner Institute vaccine consortium

Contract manufacturing organisation Halix BVis working with a consortium coordinated by the Jenner Institute at Oxford University, and will provide manufacturingfor the large scale production of a COVID-19 vaccine that is being developed by the Jenner.

The team there has been working on the vaccine since January and is poised to start the first phase of clinical trials this week, with 510 healthy volunteers already screened to take part. Rather than progressing sequentially, this early trial is taking place at the same time as manufacturing scale up.

In addition to Halix, the manufacturing consortium pulled together by the Jenner includes companies in India, China, the US, the UK and Italy.
ORAC is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2020, 10:54
  #5407 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: not scotland
Posts: 196
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
Time, money and lives......
Im pretty sure DB was being ironic.
Toadstool is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2020, 11:06
  #5408 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: 5Y
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by Toadstool View Post
Im pretty sure DB was being ironic.
Indeed! Sorry that wasn't clear. It is in fact is a direct quote from a certain well-known character currently occupying a leadership position, suggesting that we have nothing to lose by trying an untested drug regimen.
double_barrel is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2020, 11:21
  #5409 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 146
NHS Staff Testing Unreliable

NHS staff already tested for coronavirus have been informed their test results might have been inaccurate, a health minister has admitted.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...lawed-11976873

So although Dr WB627's test was carried out "too late" Day 6, there is always the possibility that the result was a false negative.

WB627 is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2020, 13:16
  #5410 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4,945
The biggest mistake western countries did was to repatriate their citizens from Wuhan. They should have left them there to be locked down with the rest of the residents of Hubei. They elected to work and live there; take the rough with the smooth.

The Chinese government have managed to contain the virus through their actions. They could have achieved it worldwide.
Fareastdriver is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2020, 13:33
  #5411 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 73
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
Probably worth bearing in mind what's really going on, though. Right now, we have a mix of well-meaning, but sometimes ill-informed, people producing what they think is adequate PPE, plus some companies that have no background in producing PPE that are jumping on what they see as a bandwagon that may keep their business going at a difficult time.

This company has zero experience of manufacturing PPE, and does not seem to have sought any approval for their product. The risks this presents to front line workers, should they just use such PPE, are significant.

For example, take one very simple aspect, disinfection. All PPE MUST be free from contamination when delivered, there has to be absolutely no chance that someone with the disease (who may be asymptomatic) has handled the item at any stage in production, or the item must go through an acceptable disinfection process, plus it has to be supplied to the end user in a sealed package. The risk is similar in many ways to the "Typhoid Mary" one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon

Some of the small groups who are successfully supplying batches of face shields to the NHS are able to do this because they have set up an approved inspection, disinfection, packaging and supply system. Items are received from manufacturers, checked to ensure that they are adequate, disinfected and sealed in bags. One photo from another angry face shield supplier in the media yesterday showed that they were just ignoring the disinfection and sealed packaging requirement, then complaining that the NHS weren't accepting their product.

The NHS have made it very clear that they are giving priority to companies that have the required approvals in place to manufacture and supply PPE, as they are able to self-certify the quality, effectiveness and safety of their products. The new companies trying to get into this market don't have any approval to do this, which then means that someone else has to inspect, test and certify their product. I've no doubt that some of these companies are pissed off, but frankly they should have done their homework properly, and understood the responsibility they have to only supply something that works and is demonstrably safe to use.
May I, as suggested yesterday, you take a look at this. It is from our regional BBC news and shows how school kids are making visors for local health groups:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...-news-21042020
Start at around 7m50 into the piece.
KelvinD is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2020, 13:50
  #5412 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by KelvinD View Post
May I, as suggested yesterday, you take a look at this. It is from our regional BBC news and shows how school kids are making visors for local health groups:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...-news-21042020
Start at around 7m50 into the piece.

I'm well aware of that initiative, I have a 3D printer and am aware of the way that some groups are doing things safely, and others (sadly, like those in that news snippet, which I watched live yesterday evening) aren't.

As above, there is an essential requirement that all PPE that is going to be worn by front line staff MUST be disinfected, as there is a very real risk that any one of those people handling the parts may be an asymptomatic carrier, shedding virus on to the parts as they are handled. This seems more probable with youngsters handling parts, as there seems to be some evidence that more young people have no, or only very mild, symptoms than adults. As above, it's the "Typhoid Mary" issue that makes uncontrolled goodwill gestures like this potentially dangerous.

This isn't just a bit of faff, or a nice to have, as the risk of infecting the very people who we need to look after us if we get ill MUST be kept as low as practical. Giving them something that may be infective, that they then place close to their face, is far too great a risk. Added to the fact (and it is a proven fact) that FDM 3D prints are porous, so very hard to disinfect by wiping them down with disinfectant before use, and there is a is a need to make sure that measures are put in place to guarantee the safety of end users.

I've heard that at least one group are collecting 3D printed parts (identical to those shown), inspecting them, assembling them into face shields, then packaging them into sealed bags and disinfecting them, so that the end user can be assured that what they receive will be safe to use. This seems a pretty good way to harness the good intentions of all those, like those from that school, who are taking this Thingiverse design and making parts.

Without wishing to in any way discredit the goodwill all those doing things like this are showing, there is no way that I would put one of those face shields on my face if it was just pulled out of a box, with no assurance that it had been properly disinfected.
VP959 is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2020, 14:15
  #5413 (permalink)  
601
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 1,152
Why do we need to go to all this hightek stuff when a clear soda/pop/soft drink bottle with a few simple additions does the same thing.
601 is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2020, 14:25
  #5414 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,712
First statistics from the NHS reveal that BAME make up 21% of the NHS workforce, but represent 72% of the fatalities amongst the same.

Analysis of COVID-19 hotspots also shows they are in areas with high BAME populations. Though there is, of course, no indication if this is cause or effect.
ORAC is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2020, 14:31
  #5415 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by 601 View Post
Why do we need to go to all this hightek stuff when a clear soda/pop/soft drink bottle with a few simple additions does the same thing.
Face Shield

No problem with someone doing something like that for their own use at all.

The potentially very serious problem is someone making devices like this for others, with no guarantee that they are free from contamination, or able to be adequately disinfected.

It's perfectly possible to make devices like this safe for end users. All it needs is a coordinated and controlled methodology for ensuring they are packaged and adequately disinfected before despatch.

Like many others, I have become used to disinfecting pretty much everything that comes into the house now. Shopping gets wiped down before it gets put away, stuff delivered to the house gets the same treatment, we wash our hands after handling anything from outside the house. Would I put on a face mask that I didn't know was disinfected properly? Not on your life!
VP959 is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2020, 14:50
  #5416 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 448
The British public seem to be the poor relations in all this.
We see TV of other Countries where many of those out and about are wearing face masks, be it home made cloth up to medical grade filtered masks, yet even our front line workers are struggling to get proper kit. With hospitals getting through 72,000 pieces of PPE a DAY, 400,000 aren't going to be sufficient.
Hancock talks of a billion pieces of PPE having been distributed, but there's no glory in that if it's not sufficient.

Surely ANY face covering is some barrier to he direct exhalation from nose and mouth? At least the wearer is containing the spread even if they are asymptomatic.
You can still get contamination from others, but if both wear masks, however rudimentary, it must have a spread limiting factor?

If other Governments can not only get sufficient masks for health workers, but also enough to distribute to EVERY household, as in Spain, why aren't we able to come up with a stop gap until such time as we can buy the machinery to manufacture sufficient here. Masks are going to be required for a year or more I suggest.
Icare9 is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2020, 15:03
  #5417 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by Icare9 View Post
The British public seem to be the poor relations in all this.
We see TV of other Countries where many of those out and about are wearing face masks, be it home made cloth up to medical grade filtered masks, yet even our front line workers are struggling to get proper kit. With hospitals getting through 72,000 pieces of PPE a DAY, 400,000 aren't going to be sufficient.
Hancock talks of a billion pieces of PPE having been distributed, but there's no glory in that if it's not sufficient.

Surely ANY face covering is some barrier to he direct exhalation from nose and mouth? At least the wearer is containing the spread even if they are asymptomatic.
You can still get contamination from others, but if both wear masks, however rudimentary, it must have a spread limiting factor?

If other Governments can not only get sufficient masks for health workers, but also enough to distribute to EVERY household, as in Spain, why aren't we able to come up with a stop gap until such time as we can buy the machinery to manufacture sufficient here. Masks are going to be required for a year or more I suggest.
These'll be the masks that the Spanish are recalling and sending back because they are unreliable...
Please read some earlier posts in this thread that explain the RISKS of using face masks without proper instruction.
TheReverend is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2020, 15:08
  #5418 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: 3NM from LROP, 80ft AGL
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by KelvinD View Post
MikeSnow: Thanks for the explanations of how this proposed App will work. Very informative. But I was wondering, if data exchanges between phones is truly 100% anonymous, what would be the point? Would the net result be something like a message saying "You have been within striking distance of someone who is coronavirus positive. But we can't tell you who that was"? And does the data swapped by Bluetooth contain the phone's IMEI number?
Yes, the point is to let you know you were recently close to an infected person, without identifying that person. After receiving such a notification you could then decide to go and get yourself tested, or at least take more precautions that would prevent spreading it to others assuming you got it. The information will be something like "on day X you've been close to an infected person for 7 minutes".

And no, the swapped data doesn't include the IMEI. The "beacons" exchanged by Bluetooth are just 128 bit numbers (39 digits if converted to base 10), that change every 15 minutes. They look just like a random sequence of digits. However every message over Bluetooth includes a MAC address, a 96 bit number that in theory could identify the sender. But since Bluetooth 4.0 that MAC address will also change, every 10-20 minutes, for privacy reasons, so it's no longer a concern. And, in any case, that MAC address is not needed by the contact tracing API so it's not stored.

Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
The thing is very definitely not 100% anonymous, as the networks, and app provider, will know the identity of every phone or device connected, all the time it's powered up. The anonymous part is just the companies promising not to share this app data with anyone else, and only use it to run the warning system.

Whether anyone with half a brain cell would trust the likes of Google, for example, to honour such a promise (given that they make a large part of their income from data acquisition and correlation) is debatable, although the evidence out there is that people are more than happy to share their most intimate details with complete strangers all around the globe, without any concerns as to what might happen as a consequence.
First of all the apps will use an API provided by Google or Apple, so they can't access more information than the API provides. Second Google and Apple will need to whitelist the apps using the API. Before doing that they can review the apps and check if they do more than they say they do, and can refuse to whitelist them if they do anything they shouldn't do.

The apps won't ever be able get the device tracing key that is used to derive the daily key, and then the 15 minute beacon, because the API doesn't provide the device tracking key to the apps. And the API doesn't give any keys to the app at all, until the person confirms they are infected. After you confirm to the app that you are infected, the app will communicate that to the API, and then the app will be provided by the API with just the daily keys for the last two weeks. Then the API will keep sending the new daily keys to the app for another 2 weeks.

Also these apps don't need the phone networks to work. They only need Bluetooth enabled, and some kind of internet connection from time to time. For example they would still work if you have intermittent Wi-Fi internet access, but you keep the cellular functionality and GPS turned off. You can even remove the SIM. They would still work.

OK, let's not trust Google and Apple. But then, regardless of these APIs and associated apps, you are in the same situation if you use an Apple or Android phone. They could be doing various stuff on your phone that has the privacy implications without you knowing it. The new APIs and the apps don't change anything if you don't trust them to begin with. If you are concerned about the privacy implications of these apps, because you don't trust Google and Apple, then you should not use a mobile phone at all, for the same reason.
MikeSnow is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2020, 15:24
  #5419 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 352
Just look at what you signed up in order to use the Apple or Google operating system. Did you actually read what they will learn about you every day, before you ticked that I Agree box?

From what is known about this app it's pretty harmless, although I'm not sure it's actually going to be of much use.
Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2020, 15:27
  #5420 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by MikeSnow View Post
Yes, the point is to let you know you were recently close to an infected person, without identifying that person. After receiving such a notification you could then decide to go and get yourself tested, or at least take more precautions that would prevent spreading it to others assuming you got it. The information will be something like "on day X you've been close to an infected person for 7 minutes".

And no, the swapped data doesn't include the IMEI. The "beacons" exchanged by Bluetooth are just 128 bit numbers (39 digits if converted to base 10), that change every 15 minutes. They look just like a random sequence of digits. However every message over Bluetooth includes a MAC address, a 96 bit number that in theory could identify the sender. But since Bluetooth 4.0 that MAC address will also change, every 10-20 minutes, for privacy reasons, so it's no longer a concern. And, in any case, that MAC address is not needed by the contact tracing API so it's not stored.



First of all the apps will use an API provided by Google or Apple, so they can't access more information than the API provides. Second Google and Apple will need to whitelist the apps using the API. Before doing that they can review the apps and check if they do more than they say they do, and can refuse to whitelist them if they do anything they shouldn't do.

The apps won't ever be able get the device tracing key that is used to derive the daily key, and then the 15 minute beacon, because the API doesn't provide the device tracking key to the apps. And the API doesn't give any keys to the app at all, until the person confirms they are infected. After you confirm to the app that you are infected, the app will communicate that to the API, and then the app will be provided by the API with just the daily keys for the last two weeks. Then the API will keep sending the new daily keys to the app for another 2 weeks.

Also these apps don't need the phone networks to work. They only need Bluetooth enabled, and some kind of internet connection from time to time. For example they would still work if you have intermittent Wi-Fi internet access, but you keep the cellular functionality and GPS turned off. You can even remove the SIM. They would still work.

OK, let's not trust Google and Apple. But then, regardless of these APIs and associated apps, you are in the same situation if you use an Apple or Android phone. They could be doing various stuff on your phone that has the privacy implications without you knowing it. The new APIs and the apps don't change anything if you don't trust them to begin with. If you are concerned about the privacy implications of these apps, because you don't trust Google and Apple, then you should not use a mobile phone at all, for the same reason.

So, given that Apple/Google don't know where you actually are, how are Google able to provide mapping like this, showing where individuals are going? https://blog.google/technology/healt...ility-reports/

Google claim that they are not releasing personal data, but given that they are acquiring this data without the users having installed and supposedly secure app, then just how sure can we be that Google don't know exactly who these users are?

My point is as mentioned previously. The app maybe in a silo, but it's child's play to correlate data from multiple sources in order to de-anonymise it. It's the same point I made a few years ago when the NHS (wrongly) stated that anonymised health records provided to companies like Google maintained patient confidentiality. They did no such thing, as when I asked for my anonymised record it took me about 10 minutes to correlate dates, locations and injuries in it with publicly available data and add my name and the place I'd been living at that time to the record. A decent bit of data correlation software would do that in ms.

VP959 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.