Who Do You Trust? The Consequences of Partisanship and Trust in Government for Public Responsiveness to COVID-19

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Daniel Goldstein and Johannes Wiedemann: “To combat the novel coronavirus, there must be relatively uniform implementation of preventative measures, e.g., social distancing and stay-at-home orders, in order to minimize continued spread. We analyze cellphone mobility data to measure county-level compliance with these critical public health policies. Leveraging staggered roll-out, we estimate the causal effect of stay-at-home orders on mobility using a difference-in-differences strategy, which we find to have significantly curtailed movement.

However, examination of descriptive heterogeneous effects suggests the critical role that several sociopolitical attributes hold for producing asymmetrical compliance across society. We examine measures of partisanship, partisan identity being shared with government leaders, and trust in government (measured by the proxies of voter turnout and social capital). We find that Republican counties comply less, but comply relatively more when directives are given by co-partisan leaders, suggesting citizens are more trusting in the authority of co-partisans. Furthermore, our proxy measures suggest that trust in government increases overall compliance. However, when trust (as measured by social capital) is interacted with county-level partisanship, which we interpret as community-level trust, we find that trust amplifies compliance or noncompliance, depending upon the prevailing community sentiment.

We argue that these results align with a theory of public policy compliance in which individual behavior is informed by one’s level of trust in the experts who craft policy and one’s trust in those who implement it, i.e., politicians and bureaucrats. Moreover, this evaluation is amplified by local community sentiments. Our results are supportive of this theory and provide a measure of the real-world importance of trust in government to citizen welfare. Moreover, our results illustrate the role that political polarization plays in creating asymmetrical compliance with mitigation policies, an outcome that may prove severely detrimental to successful containment of the COVID-19 pandemic….(More)”.

German humanities scholars enlisted to end coronavirus lockdown

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

David Matthews at THE: “In contrast to other countries, philosophers, historians, theologians and jurists have played a major role advising the state as it seeks to loosen restrictions…

In the struggle against the new coronavirus, humanities academics have entered the fray – in Germany at least.

Arguably to a greater extent than has happened in the UK, France or the US, the country has enlisted the advice of philosophers, historians of science, theologians and jurists as it navigates the delicate ethical balancing act of reopening society while safeguarding the health of the public.

When the German federal government announced a slight loosening of restrictions on 15 April – allowing small shops to open and some children to return to school in May – it had been eagerly awaiting a report written by a 26-strong expert group containing only a minority of natural scientists and barely a handful of virologists and medical specialists.

Instead, this working group from the Leopoldina – Germany’s independent National Academy of Sciences dating back to 1652 – included historians of industrialisation and early Christianity, a specialist on the philosophy of law and several pedagogical experts.

This paucity of virologists earned the group a swipe from Markus Söder, minister-president of badly hit Bavaria, who has led calls in Germany for a tough lockdown (although earlier in the pandemic the Leopoldina did release a report written by more medically focused specialists).

But “the crisis is a complex one, it’s a systemic crisis” and so it needs to be dissected from every angle, argued Jürgen Renn, director of the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, and one of those who wrote the crucial recommendations.

And Professor Renn – who earlier this year published a book on rethinking science in the Anthropocene – made the argument for green post-virus reconstruction. Urbanisation and deforestation have squashed mankind and wildlife together, making other animal-to-human disease transmissions ever more likely, he argued. “It’s not the only virus waiting out there,” he said.

Germany’s Ethics Council – which traces its roots back to the stem cell debates of the early 2000s and is composed of theologians, jurists, philosophers and other ethical thinkers – also contributed to a report at the end of March, warning that it was up to elected politicians, not scientists, to make the “painful decisions” weighing up the lockdown’s effect on health and its other side-effects….(More)“.

COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Review: Exit through the App Store?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

“A rapid evidence review of the technical considerations and societal implications of using technology to transition from the COVID-19 crisis” by the Ada Lovelace Institute:  “The review focuses on three technologies in particular: digital contact tracing, symptom tracking apps and immunity certification. It makes pragmatic recommendations to support well-informed policymaking in response to the crisis. It is informed by the input of more than twenty experts drawn from across a wide range of domains, including technology, policy, human rights and data protection, public health and clinical medicine, behavioural science and information systems, philosophy, sociology and anthropology.

The purpose of this review is to open up, rather than close down, an informed and public dialogue on the technical considerations and societal implications of the use of technology to transition from the crisis.

Key findings

There is an absence of evidence to support the immediate national deployment of symptom tracking applications, digital contact tracing applications and digital immunity certificates. While the Government is right to explore non-clinical measures for transition, for national policy to rely on these apps, they would need to be able to:

  1. Represent accurate information about infection or immunity
  2. Demonstrate technical capabilities to support required functions
  3. Address various practical issues for use, including meeting legal tests
  4. Mitigate social risks and protect against exacerbating inequalities and vulnerabilities

At present the evidence does not demonstrate that tools are able to address these four components adequately. We offer detailed evidence, and recommendations for each application in the report summary.

In particular, we recommend that:

  • Effective deployment of technology to support the transition from the crisis will be contingent on public trust and confidence, which can be strengthened through the establishment of two accountability mechanisms:
    • the Group of Advisors on Technology in Emergencies (GATE) to review evidence, advise on design and oversee implementation, similar to the expert group recently established by Canada’s Chief Science Adviser; and
    • an independent oversight mechanism to conduct real-time scrutiny of policy formulation.
  • Clear and comprehensive primary legislation should be advanced to regulate data processing in symptom tracking and digital contact tracing applications. Legislation should impose strict purpose, access and time limitations…(More)”.

EDPB Adopts Guidelines on the Processing of Health Data During COVID-19

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Hunton Privacy Blog: “On April 21, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) adopted Guidelines on the processing of health data for scientific purposes in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of the Guidelines is to provide clarity on the most urgent matters relating to health data, such as legal basis for processing, the implementation of adequate safeguards and the exercise of data subject rights.

The Guidelines note that the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) provides a specific derogation to the prohibition on processing of sensitive data under Article 9, for scientific purposes. With respect to the legal basis for processing, the Guidelines state that consent may be relied on under both Article 6 and the derogation to the prohibition on processing under Article 9 in the context of COVID-19, as long as the requirements for explicit consent are met, and as long as there is no power imbalance that could pressure or disadvantage a reluctant data subject. Researchers should keep in mind that study participants must be able to withdraw their consent at any time. National legislation may also provide an appropriate legal basis for the processing of health data and a derogation to the Article 9 prohibition. Furthermore, national laws may restrict data subject rights, though these restrictions should apply only as is strictly necessary.

In the context of transfers to countries outside the European Economic Area that have not been deemed adequate by the European Commission, the Guidelines note that the “public interest” derogation to the general prohibition on such transfers may be relied on, as well as explicit consent. The Guidelines add, however, that these derogations should only be relied on as a temporary measure and not for repetitive transfers.

The Guidelines highlight the importance of complying with the GDPR’s data protection principles, particularly with respect to transparency. Ideally, notice of processing as part of a research project should be provided to the relevant data subject before the project commences, if data has not been collected directly from the individual, in order to allow the individual to exercise their rights under the GDPR. There may be instances where, considering the number of data subjects, the age of the data and the safeguards in place, it would be impossible or require disproportionate effort to provide notice, in which case researchers may be able to rely on the exemptions set out under Article 14 of the GDPR.

The Guidelines also highlight that processing for scientific purposes is generally not considered incompatible with the purposes for which data is originally collected, assuming that the principles of data minimization, integrity, confidentiality and data protection by design and by default are complied with (See Guidelines)”.

Mind the app – considerations on the ethical risks of COVID-19 apps

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Luciano Floridi: “There is a lot of talk about apps to deal with the pandemic. Some of the best solutions use the Bluetooth connection of mobile phones to determine the contact between people and therefore the probability of contagion.

In theory, it’s simple. In practice, it is a minefield of ethical problems, not only technical ones. To understand them, it is useful to distinguish between the validation and the verification of a system. 
The validation of a system answers the question: “are we building the right system?”. The answer is no if the app

  • is illegal;
  • is unnecessary, for example, there are better solutions; 
  • is a disproportionate solution to the problem, for example, there are only a few cases in the country; 
  • goes beyond the purpose for which it was designed, for example, it is used to discriminate people; 
  • continues to be used even after the end of the emergency.

Assuming the app passes the validation stage, then it needs to be verified.
The verification of a system answers the question: “are we building the system in the right way?”. Here too the difficulties are considerable. I have become increasingly aware of them as I collaborate with two national projects about a coronavirus app, as an advisor on their ethical implications. 
For once, the difficult problem is not privacy. Of course, it is trivially true that there are and there might always be privacy issues. The point is that, in this case, they can be made much less pressing than other issues. However, once (or if you prefer, even if) privacy is taken care of, other difficulties appear to remain intractable. A Bluetooth-based app can use anonymous data, recorded only in the mobile phone, used exclusively to send alerts in case of the contact with people infected. It is not easy but it is feasible, as demonstrated by the approach adopted by the Pan-European Privacy Preserving Proximity Tracing initiative (PEPP-PT). The apparently intractable problems are the effectiveness and fairness of the app.

To be effective, an app must be adopted by many people. In Britain, I was told that it would be useless if used by less than 20% of the population. According to the PEPP-PT, real effectiveness seems to be reached around the threshold of 60% of the whole population. This means that in Italy, for example, the app should be consistently and correctly used by something between 11m to 33m people, out of a population of 55m. Consider that in 2019 Facebook Messenger was used by 23m Italians. Even the often-mentioned app TraceTogether has been downloaded by an insufficient number of people in Singapore.


Given that it is unlikely that the app will be adopted so extensively just voluntarily, out of social responsibility, and that governments are reluctant to impose it as mandatory (and rightly so, for it would be unfair, see below), it is clear that it will be necessary to encourage its use, but this only shifts the problem….

Therefore, one should avoid the risk of transforming the production of the app into a signalling process. To do so, the verification should not be severed from, but must feedback on, the validation. This means that if the verification fails so should the validation, and the whole project ought to be reconsidered. It follows that a clear deadline by when (and by whom) the whole project may be assessed (validation + verification) and in case be terminated, or improved, or even simply renewed as it is, is essential. At least this level of transparency and accountability should be in place.

An app will not save us. And the wrong app will be worse than useless, as it will cause ethical problems and potentially exacerbate health-related risks, e.g. by generating a false sense of security, or deepening the digital divide. A good app must be part of a wider strategy, and it needs to be designed to support a fair future. If this is not possible, better do something else, avoid its positive, negative and opportunity costs, and not play the political game of merely signalling that something (indeed anything) has been tried…(More)”.

Mapping how data can help address COVID-19

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Andrew J. Zahuranec and Stefaan G. Verhulst: “The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a global health crisis the likes of which the modern world has never seen. Amid calls to action from the United Nations Secretary-General, the World Health Organization, and many national governments, there has been a proliferation of initiatives using data to address some facet of the pandemic. In March, The GovLab at NYU put out its own call to action, which identifies key steps organizations and decision-makers can take to build the data infrastructure needed to tackle pandemics. This call has been signed by over 400 data leaders from around the world in the public and private sector and in civil society.

But questions remain as to how many of these initiatives are useful for decision-makers. While The GovLab’s living repository contains over 160 data collaboratives, data competitions, and other innovative work, many of these examples take a data supply-side approach to the COVID-19 response. Given the urgency of the situation, some organizations create projects that align with the available data instead of trying to understand what insights those responding to the crisis actually want, including issues that may not be directly related to public health.

We need to identify and ask better questions to use data effectively in the current crisis. Part of that work means understanding what topics can be addressed through enhanced data access and analysis.

Using The GovLab’s rapid-research methodology, we’ve compiled a list of 12 topic areas related to COVID-19 where data and analysis is needed. …(More)”.

Mobile applications to support contact tracing in the EU’s fight against COVID-19

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Common EU Toolbox for Member States by eHealth Network: “Mobile apps have potential to bolster contact tracing strategies to contain and reverse the spread of COVID-19. EU Member States are converging towards effective app solutions that minimise the processing of personal data, and recognise that interoperability between these apps can support public health authorities and support the reopening of the EU’s internal borders.

This first iteration of a common EU toolbox, developed urgently and collaboratively by the e-Health Network with the support of the European Commission, provides a practical guide for Member States. The common approach aims to exploit the latest privacy-enhancing technological solutions that enable at-risk individuals to be contacted and, if necessarily, to be tested as quickly as possible, regardless of where she is and the app she is using. It explains the essential requirements for national apps, namely that they be:

  • voluntary;
  • approved by the national health authority;
  • privacy-preserving – personal data is securely encrypted; and
  • dismantled as soon as no longer needed.

The added value of these apps is that they can record contacts that a person may not notice or remember. These requirements on how to record contacts and notify individuals are anchored in accepted epidemiological guidance, and reflect best practice on cybersecurity, and accessibility. They cover how to prevent the appearance of potentially harmful unapproved apps, success criteria and collectively monitoring the effectiveness of the apps, and the outline of a communications strategy to engage with stakeholders and the people affected by these initiatives.

Work will continue urgently to develop further and implement the toolbox, as set out in the Commission Recommendation of 8 April, including addressing other types of apps and the use of mobility data for modelling to understand the spread of the disease and exit from the crisis….(More)”.

Global AI Ethics Consortium

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

About: “…The newly founded Global AI Ethics Consortium (GAIEC) on Ethics and the Use of Data and Artificial Intelligence in the Fight Against COVID-19 and other Pandemics aims to:

  1. Support immediate needs for expertise related to the COVID-19 crisis and the emerging ethical questions related to the use of AI in managing the pandemic.
  2. Create a repository that includes avenues of communication for sharing and disseminating current research, new research opportunities, and past research findings.
  3. Coordinate internal funding and research initiatives to allow for maximum opportunities to pursue vital research related to health crises and the ethical use of AI.
  4. Discuss research findings and opportunities for new areas of collaboration.

Read the Statement of Purpose and find out more about the Global AI Ethics Consortium and its founding members: Christoph Lütge (TUM Institute for Ethics in Artificial Intelligence, Technical University of Munich), Jean-Gabriel Ganascia (LIP6-CNRS, Sorbonne Université), Mark Findlay (Centre for AI and Data Governance, Law School, Singapore Management University), Ken Ito and Kan Hiroshi Suzuki (The University of Tokyo), Jeannie Marie Paterson (Centre for AI and Digital Ethics, University of Melbourne), Huw Price (Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence, University of Cambridge), Stefaan G. Verhulst (The GovLab, New York University), Yi Zeng (Research Center for AI Ethics and Safety, Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence), and Adrian Weller (The Allan Turing Institute).

If you or your organization is interested in the GAIEC — Global AI Ethics Consortium please contact us at [email protected]…(More)”.

A Data Ecosystem to Defeat COVID-19

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Bapon Fakhruddin: “…A wide range of approaches could be applied to understand transmission, outbreak assessment, risk communication, cascading impacts assessment on essential and other services. The network-based modelling of System of Systems (SOS), mobile technology, frequentist statistics and maximum-likelihood estimation, interactive data visualization, geostatistics, graph theory, Bayesian statistics, mathematical modelling, evidence synthesis approaches and complex thinking frameworks for systems interactions on COVID-19 impacts could be utilized. An example of tools and technologies that could be utilized to act decisively and early to prevent the further spread or quickly suppress the transmission of COVID-19, strengthen the resilience of health systems and save lives and urgent support to developing countries with businesses and corporations are shown in Figure 2. There are also WHO guidance on ‘Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management[8]’, UNDRR supported ‘Public Health Scorecard Addendum[9]’, and other guidelines (e.g. WHO practical considerations and recommendations for religious leaders and faith-based communities in the context of COVID-19[10]) that could enhance pandemic response plan. It needs to be ensured that any such use is proportionate, specific and protected and does not increase civil liberties’ risk. It is essential therefore to examine in detail the challenge of maximising data use in emergency situations, while ensuring it is task-limited, proportionate and respectful of necessary protections and limitations. This is a complex task and the COVID-19 wil provide us with important test cases. It is also important that data is interpreted accurately. Otherwise, misinterpretations could lead each sector down to incorrect paths.

Figure 2: Tools to strengthen resilience for COVID-19

Many countries are still learning how to make use of data for their decision making in this critical time. The COVID-19 pandemic will provide important lessons on the need for cross-domain research and on how, in such emergencies, to balance the use of technological opportunities and data to counter pandemics against fundamental protections….(More)”.

Give more data, awareness and control to individual citizens, and they will help COVID-19 containment

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Mirco Nanni: “The rapid dynamics of COVID-19 calls for quick and effective tracking of virus transmission chains and early detection of outbreaks, especially in the phase 2 of the pandemic, when lockdown and other restriction measures are progressively withdrawn, in order to avoid or minimize contagion resurgence. For this purpose, contact-tracing apps are being proposed for large scale adoption by many countries. A centralized approach, where data sensed by the app are all sent to a nation-wide server, raises concerns about citizens’ privacy and needlessly strong digital surveillance, thus alerting us to the need to minimize personal data collection and avoiding location tracking.

We advocate the conceptual advantage of a decentralized approach, where both contact and location data are collected exclusively in individual citizens’ “personal data stores”, to be shared separately and selectively, voluntarily, only when the citizen has tested positive for COVID-19, and with a privacy preserving level of granularity.

This approach better protects the personal sphere of citizens and affords multiple benefits: it allows for detailed information gathering for infected people in a privacy-preserving fashion; and, in turn this enables both contact tracing, and, the early detection of outbreak hotspots on more finely-granulated geographic scale. Our recommendation is two-fold. First to extend existing decentralized architectures with a light touch, in order to manage the collection of location data locally on the device, and allow the user to share spatio-temporal aggregates – if and when they want, for specific aims – with health authorities, for instance. Second, we favour a longer-term pursuit of realizing a Personal Data Store vision, giving users the opportunity to contribute to collective good in the measure they want, enhancing self-awareness, and cultivating collective efforts for rebuilding society….(More)”