INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
Here come the blood tests, and it about time
Serosurveys, to determine what percentage of populations have already contracted COVID-19
And, individually, tests to indicate whether you, too, already caught it, but suffered only mild symptoms, or none at all.
In America alone,
millions will soon be recovered from COVID-19 infection
Half the people I know, including myself, seem to have had Schrödinger Respiratory Infection in the last couple of months, and are beyond
eager to know if they test positive for COVID-19 antibodies.
Even if they do, though — to be clear, most won&t — what then? Suppose
antibodies indicate immunity, for a while at least
That seems somewhat likely, he said cautiously
Suppose the tests are accurate enough to rely on
What do we as a society then do with that information?
The immune — the positives — could return to relative normality with no immediate
fear of further infection, while everyone else — the negatives — could not
Do we want to create a two-tier society like that? Do we want to make a point of replacing negatives with positives in high-risk contexts
like nursing homes? Do we want people test status to be publicly known, or available upon demand by the government? How about their
employer? How about their healthcare provider?
Most of these are hard questions with no easy answers, and while I, like you, have opinions,
some strong, about which are the least bad options, I also think this is mostly a subject about which reasonable people can disagree
Still, no matter what our collective answers are, we can all agree we want them to be implemented in the most privacy-preserving way
That where technology comes in.
Lots of techies and trust-safety-privacy professionals are looking for some way to contribute to COVID
response other than some silly hackathons
I have an idea: let's start thinking about a robust, counterfeit-resistant, privacy-preserving mechanism to prove immunity to nCoV.
—
Alex Stamos (@alexstamos) March 30, 2020
It worth noting that proving immunity is far from a new problem
I&ve traveled to many countries which require proof of yellow-fever vaccination before they allow visitors to enter
The solution is venerable, simple, and decentralized; a slip of paper stamped, dated, and signed by a doctor.
This solution is relatively
privacy-preserving — authorities can&t demand to see anyone yellow-fever papers at any given moment, because they&re only needed at border
It is very hard to verify, and relatively easy to forge … but it good enough to have worked
Its purpose is not to eliminate the risk of transmission with absolute 100% efficacy, but to reduce it to a manageable amount.
The same
As Harvard epidemiologists Bill Hanage and Marc Lipsitch wrote back in February, it important to &distinguish between whether something ever
happens and whether it is happening at a frequency that matters.& We don&t have to worry about freakish edge cases
A 99% effective solution should be just fine.
So what would that solution be? Something simple, decentralized, reasonably effective, and
Suppose that you go to your doctor office to get a test, and while you&re there, your picture is taken, and you choose a passcode
Then, along with your test result, you may receive some kind of wristband with a QR code
When your status needs to be verified, the QR code is scanned, you enter your passcode (or choose not to, or conveniently forget it), and
then your headshot pops up, confirming your identity and status.
I&m not pretending this is any kind of perfect solution; real
cryptographers will likely come up with something different and better
(In particular, to pseudonymize your individual test sample to the extent possible, and ensure that whoever hosts the central database, if
any, cannot decipher the data therein.) This is to illustrate the key points that 1) only those you approve of can see your status, and 2)
that status can be verified to ensure it actually yours, via some personal identifier like a headshot.
What do we then do with such a
system? Well, after the curve flattens and recedes, perhaps we will consider reopening restaurants so long as every other table remains
empty, and stores as long as only 1 (masked) customer is within for every 100 square feet of floor space
Alternatively, perhaps, restaurants and stores will also have the option of opening only to the positives — meaning with no internal
restrictions, but COVID-19 positive status must be verified before allowing entry, in the same way that bars check your age before letting
you enter.
Would those requirements be desirable? Again, that is eminently debatable
Would some people hack such a system in the same way that kids use fake IDs? Sure
Will this happen &at a frequency that matters?& That seems quite unlikely
In cases where it seems more likely, presumably more stringent rules can be applied.
The important thing to which technology can contribute
is to make this all simple, straightforward, effective, and privacy-preserving, while consonant with our collective goals as a society
Regardless on what we agree on as those goals, if it turns out previous infection confers immunity, the positives will have a key part to
play as we try to resume our lives — to the extent possible — in the ever-present shadow of the pandemic.
