June 1, 2020

expert comments on UK track and trace system

Comments in response to journalists question abut the UK track and trace system.

Professor Eivor Oborn, an expert on healthcare technology at Warwick Business School, said:

“Being designated as ‘world class’ is a political statement at this point, as we don’t have a real gold standard to make this assessment yet.

“World class needs to be assessed on carefully studied outcomes. Several countries have very effective tracking systems, e.g China and Taiwan. However, for most democratic political systems, these are too intrusive in the lives and privacy of the citizens.

“Countries aiming for a voluntary track and trace app have not yet created one that works well enough, technically speaking, to make it highly effective in managing transmissions.

“This is compounded by the fact that many of those working on trace and track are newly appointed so I expect they will need time to learn and train.

“So in my view, no country has managed what we imagine an exceptional system to do. It is a very delicate balance of privacy, safety and technical competence.

“Manual tracking can be very efficient if the R number stays low. The real test comes if our R number (of infection transmissions) increases above 1 and then moves towards a second spike.

“There are some many creative ways of using technology to help mobility, and I think it is a pity if we can’t find a technological solution that works along side manual tracing. To do this might require the government to take a more open innovation approach towards working for solutions.”

Prof Maria Savona, Professor of Innovation and Evolutionary Economics in the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex Business School, said:

“The short answer is that the UK is well far behind developing a ‘world class’ test and trace system, let alone having a test system in place to start with.

“There are key ingredients for a world class test and trace systems that the UK currently would appear to lack.

“Technically, the public should be in a position to understand what are the technical features, effectiveness and the (hopefully limited) purpose of any digital tool they (hopefully voluntarily) decide to adopt.

“Legally, as effectively put forward in the Bill of Safeguard, mentioned in the UK government response to the Covid-19 emergency, and partly also in the European institutions, the deployment of digital tools should be safeguarded on the basis of human rights, rather than privacy rights protection only.

“From the ethical and social perspective, it is important to predict first, and regulate accordingly, the potential side effects of exclusion and discrimination of the use of digital tools for tracking, tracing and certificating immunity.”

All our previous output on this subject can be seen at this weblink: www.sciencemediacentre.org/tag/covid-19

Declared interests

Prof Eivor Oborn: “No conflicts of interest”

Prof Maria Savona: “No conflicts”