Re: Important Issue for Immunity Credentials

I propose we use:

https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-examples
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-examples/blob/master/LICENSE.md

We add an introduction to any call which discussed this work (in DIF / CCG
/ hyperledger / anywhere else...), that clearly explains that "any
substantive contribution to the conversation of the repo or the repo must
... <insert formal language>"

Hopefully that's enough to allow us to have calls wherever, but have the
work protected.

Obviously if you are having a discussion about work that is happening in
any other location... you can ask your hosts about how that work is
protected... but for members of this community I hope that this proposal
would allow for us (DIF / CCG / Hyperleger / others) to start checking in
examples / discussing things more technically.

It's just a proposal, whatever gives us the cover to move forward quickly
and keep having the conversations where they are happening, the better.

OS





On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:37 PM Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
wrote:

> I agree.
>
> Also,
>
> (1) A lot can be done quickly by having a licensed clinician issue the
> credential (maybe by picking from a handful of assertions that have been
> standardized and summarized by a couple of experts. This speeds things by
> taking the lab's API and ID management (maybe paper or proprietary) and
> letting any accountable clinician issue the VC. Different verifiers will
> treat the assertions and the clinician's credentials differently but we
> would at least be on our way.
>
> (2) Prepare to have multiple serology tests over time for the same patient
> as well as the history of symptoms (because serology results are highly
> time-dependent over weeks to months). Along the same lines, there will be
> an evolving series of serology tests with different sensitivity and
> specificity which will mean that they will need to be interpreted
> differently based on local conditions like prevalence.
>
> - Adrian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:21 PM Christopher Allen <
> ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com> wrote:
>
>> As was discussed briefly in the call today, if we are going to talk about
>> #Covid19 technology solutions, we must partner with health &
>> epidemiological experts to do it right.
>>
>> For instance, it has been proposed that we support some kind of digital
>> immunity certificate. Even if we ignore its possible human-rights & privacy
>> risks, it can have still have risky public health care choices:
>>
>> https://unherd.com/2020/04/how-far-away-are-immunity-passports/
>>
>> “If you issue immunity passports on this basis, *barely a third *of the
>> people you give them to will actually be immune. “There’s nothing peculiar
>> about this statistically,” Kevin McConway, an emeritus professor of
>> statistics at the Open University, told me. “It’s just Bayes’ theorem
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem>.” The likelihood of you
>> having had Covid-19, if you’ve had a positive test, depends not just on the
>> accuracy of the test but on the prevalence in the population you’re looking
>> at.
>> …
>> In the end, that’s going to be a horribly cold-blooded calculation. If
>> you let people out when they’re 90% likely to be immune, that means one
>> person in 10 is going to be at risk of getting and spreading the disease.
>> Is that risk a price worth paying for reducing the real costs (economic,
>> social, physical, mental) of isolation? I don’t know and I’m glad I don’t
>> have to work it out. But someone has to. And they’ll have to start by
>> getting a reasonably effective test, and testing hundreds of thousands of
>> people, to see how many of us have had it.”
>>
>> — Christopher Allen
>>
>

-- 
*ORIE STEELE*
Chief Technical Officer
www.transmute.industries

<https://www.transmute.industries>