Tag: news

Seeking auguries of the future, people in the past probed the livers of sheep, observed the flights of birds, gazed into crystal balls, read tea leaves, cast I Ching coins, and traced patterns on burnt bones. Modern prognosticators resort to statistical models.

For example, the initial public health and policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic were driven by models that predicted imminent catastrophic rates of infection and death at the beginning stages of the novel coronavirus outbreak. Notoriously, the Imperial College (I.C.) infectious disease model projected that as many 2.2 million Americans could eventually die of COVID-19 if no action to stymie it was taken. Later, the I.C. model projections for infections and deaths were drastically reduced once it became evident that the public was adopting measures—lockdowns, social distancing, frequent hand washing—that would greatly slow the spread of the disease.

The I.C. model and its principal investigator, epidemiologist Neil Ferguson, received well-deserved scathing criticism when he initially refused to publish the source code for the model for other researchers to evaluate. However, outside researchers recently reported that they have been able to independently rerun the I.C. simulation and have reproduced its results. That just means that if other researchers use the same assumptions that the I.C. team did, they will get the same results.

Last week, a global team of researchers issued a compelling manifesto in Nature outlining five ways to ensure that models serve society. Modelers, they argue, must take care to frankly assess the uncertainties and sensitivity of their models; avoid obfuscatory complexity; make clear the normative values chosen by the models’ developers; avoid spurious precision, and acknowledge their ignorance. “Mathematical models are a great way to explore questions. They are also a dangerous way to assert answers,” write the authors. “Asking models for certainty or consensus is more a sign of the difficulties in making controversial decisions than it is a solution, and can invite ritualistic use of quantification.”

Since the beginning of the pandemic six months ago, researchers have been trying to figure out how deadly the coronavirus is; that is, what percentage of infected people die of the disease? This infection fatality rate (IFR) is calculated by dividing the number of deaths into the total number of people who come down with the disease. However, it has become increasingly clear that most people who become infected are never officially diagnosed because their illnesses are so mild that they never seek medical care and also because many infected people exhibit no symptoms.

Last week, a team of modelers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management released a preprint of their study that calculates that total global cases and deaths through June 18, 2020, are estimated to be 11.8 and 1.48 times greater than diagnosed cases and officially counted deaths, that is, respectively, at 88.5 million cases and 600,000 deaths as of that date. On the basis of those estimates, they reckon that the global average IFR is just under 0.7 percent.

The MIT researchers further calculate that the infected percentage of each individual country and their IFRs and note that these estimates “vary substantially, e.g., Ecuador (18%; 0.61%), Chile (15.5%; 0.57%), Mexico (8.8%; 0.69%), Iran (7.9%; 0.44%), USA (5.3%; 0.99%), UK (5.2%; 1.59%), Iceland (1.65%, 0.56%), New Zealand (0.1%, 0.64%), but all nations remain well below the level needed for herd immunity.”

Interestingly, based on their global estimates of unreported cases and unrecorded deaths, very rough calculations yield IFRs in most countries that appear to be somewhat lower than the ones they report in their study. One possibility for this discrepancy may be how the researchers incorporate excess mortality data in their model so that it increases their calculated IFRs.

In contrast to the MIT estimates, random blood testing surveys to detect the percentage of the population that has produced antibodies in response to COVID-19 infections have been conducted by several countries. (It is worth noting that new research suggests that testing for T-cell immune response will provide a better idea of the proportion of the population that has been infected by the COVID-19 virus.) The results of serology surveys recently conducted by several countries are now available.

One such survey, for example, found that about 5 percent of Spain’s population was infected by the beginning of May. This implies that the infection rate is about 10 times higher than diagnosed cases and the infection fatality rate (IFR) is around 1 percent. Another study based partially on serology testing reported that about 4.4 percent of French people were infected by early May, yielding an IFR around 1 percent as well. In the U.S. the CDC suggested in June that the rate of COVID-19 infection may be 10 times higher than the diagnosed cases. If so, that implies a U.S. IFR of just over 0.5 percent.

Based on their model, the MIT researchers project that absent breakthroughs in treatment or vaccination by Spring 2021, the pandemic will grind on and COVID-19 cases will globally rise to around 249 million and total deaths will number about 1.75 million in the 84 countries they analyze.

In stark contrast to the MIT researchers’ grave projections, Stanford University biologist and Nobelist in chemistry Michael Levitt and his team argue in their preprint study that the pandemic is essentially self-flattening and is already subsiding in much of the world. The Stanford team tracks data on cases and deaths from COVID-19 outbreaks at 3,546 locations around the world. They find that after an initial steep rise in each outbreak that the rates of diagnosed infections and deaths generally begin to decline at a steady, almost linear, pace.

As Medical News explains, the Stanford team created graphs for each outbreak using data that takes into account four trends. The first three are the total case number, the total death number, and their ratio, that is, the death rate. The fourth measure is the ratio of the total cases (or deaths) for today divided by the same ratio of yesterday. This is known as the “fractional change function.” This analysis revealed that, instead of growing exponentially, the epidemics in many regions are actually slowing down exponentially with time. (Interestingly, the daily rate of U.S. COVID-19 deaths has been slowing down, but the daily number of diagnosed cases has started growing once again.) So how does Levitt account for the epidemic’s self-flattening behavior?

Levitt and his colleagues argue, “The existence of invisible cases of individuals who are mildly symptomatic and, therefore, not counted as confirmed cases may explain the non-exponential behavior of COVID- 19: the known cases cannot easily find people to infect as the hidden invisible cases have already infected them.” They also acknowledge that changes in behavior such as the wide adoption of social distancing and mask-wearing would also contribute to flattening the epidemic.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2VHyZVL
via IFTTT

Ten months after Houston cops killed a middle-aged couple during a no-knock drug raid based on a fraudulent search warrant affidavit, Police Chief Art Acevedo was still assuring the public that the incident did not reflect a broader problem in his department or its Narcotics Division. “We will continue to be vigilant in our processes and our systems and our audits,” Acevedo told reporters on November 20, dismissing “the chances of this being systemic.” That was the day the Justice Department announced federal civil rights charges against Gerald Goines, the former narcotics officer who cited a heroin purchase that never happened to justify the raid that killed Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas in their home on January 28, 2019.

New criminal charges against Goines and five of his former colleagues, along with internal audit results that were revealed yesterday, show that “the chances of this being systemic” are actually 100 percent. The revelations suggest that Acevedo, who has been presenting himself as the embodiment of police reform since George Floyd’s death, either had no idea what was going on in his department or did not want the public to know.

“Houston Police narcotics officers falsified documentation about drug payments to confidential informants with the support of supervisors,” Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg said yesterday. “Goines and others could never have preyed on our community the way they did without the participation of their supervisors; every check and balance in place to stop this type of behavior was circumvented. This was graft and greed at every step in the process, and prosecutors are making their way through the evidence one incident at a time.”

Goines, who was employed by the Houston Police Department for 34 years, already faced state charges (felony murder and tampering with a government document) in connection with the raid. He has now been charged with falsifying three other search warrants and stealing public money. His former partner Steven Bryant, who already faced state and federal charges for backing up the fictitious story that Goines concocted as evidence that Tuttle and Nicholas were selling heroin, is now charged with theft and three more counts of document tampering, related to false statements about confidential informants.

Officer Hodgie Armstrong, who also worked with Goines in Squad 15 of the Narcotics Division, faces one charge of tampering with a government document, in his case an offense report. Three narcotics supervisors also have been charged: Sgt. Clemente Reyna faces one count of theft and three counts of falsifying confidential informant forms, Sgt. Thomas Wood faces one count of each, and Lt. Robert Gonzales faces one charge of tampering with an offense report.

Notwithstanding Acevedo’s assurances, it has been clear all along that Goines’ shady practices—which prosecutors say go back more than a decade, tainting at least 164 convictions—went undiscovered because of lax supervision. Ogg says “supervisors signed records stating they witnessed street-level officers pay money to confidential informants for buying drugs, when the evidence reveals the supervisors were not actually there, and therefore could not have witnessed what they claimed to have witnessed.”

Additional charges are expected. “The new charges show a pattern and practice of lying and deceit,” Ogg said. “There are mountains [of] more evidence to review, and more charges are likely as we push into the next phase of our investigation.”

After Ogg announced the new charges, Acevedo finally released the results of an internal audit that revealed widespread sloppiness, if not outright malfeasance, in the Narcotics Division. Despite his lip service to transparency, Acevedo had for months resisted making those findings public, saying he did not want to compromise Ogg’s investigation.

The audit, which covered the period from January 1, 2016, to January 28, 2019, examined all the cases handled by Goines and Bryant, plus “a representative sample” of cases from Squad 15 and three other squads. It discovered numerous “administrative errors committed by Narcotics case agents and supervisors” and “policy violations” related to “warrant services, operations planning, and handling of confidential informants.”

The auditors also found “numerous errors” involving confidential informant payments but said “a conclusion of illegal activity is not possible without the ability to interview the confidential informant or witnesses.” Ogg’s office investigated that issue, resulting in some of the charges announced yesterday, which she says probably will be followed by more.

The audit identified “404 errors” in 231 investigations involving Goines and Bryant. The most common deficiency was the omission of case review sheets, which accounted for 29 percent of the errors. Other common errors included late submission of evidence (17 percent), late case tracking entries (16 percent), case tracking errors (14 percent), expense discrepancies (13 percent), failure to formulate tactical plans (11 percent), and incomplete investigations (9 percent).

That last category presumably would include Goines’ investigation of Tuttle and Nicholas, which was triggered by a false tip from a neighbor. Although Goines supposedly investigated the couple for two weeks, he did not even know their names when he applied for the search warrant that proved to be their death warrant.

In a separate examination of 84 cases handled by Goines alone, the auditors found that he “failed to tag the drugs into the evidence box before the end of his shift” nearly half of the time. The report says “other recurring issues stemmed from ‘Expense Discrepanies’ (27%), ‘Missing Case Review Sheets’ (29%), ‘Case Tracking Errors’ (23%) and ‘Failure to Complete a Tactical Plan’ (25%).”

A review of 147 cases handled by Bryant found that he omitted case review sheets 31 percent of the time and failed to turn in the case file after completing an investigation 18 percent of the time. The auditors say “other recurring issues stemmed from ‘Late Case Tracking Entry’ (16%), ‘Case Tracking Errors’ (10%), and ‘Thoroughness of the Investigation’ (10%).”

Were the “errors” identified by the audit limited to Goines and Bryant? No.

A review of 173 cases handled by other narcotics officers in Squads 14 and 15 found 367 errors. The most common errors in Squad 14 involved missing case review sheets and incomplete investigations. The most common errors in Squad 15 were missing case review sheets and late report entries.

The audit also looked at 252 cases handled by Squads 9 and 10. It identified 409 errors. The most common error in Squad 9 was that perennial favorite, missing case review sheets, followed by late case tracking entries and late report entries. The most common errors in Squad 10 were missing supervisor signatures on case review sheets and late case tracking entries.

While some of this sloppiness may seem unimportant, we are talking about investigations that lead to the use of potentially deadly violence. When narcotics officers fail to properly and promptly document the evidence they have gathered, there is less assurance that it is legally adequate to justify searches and arrests. And when supervisors fail to notice and correct these deficiencies, they send the message that following official procedures is optional and open the door to flagrant fraud of the sort committed by Goines and Bryant.

Given “the number and variety of errors,” University of Nebraska at Omaha criminologist Sam Walker told The Houston Chronicle, the Narcotics Division “looks like an operation completely out of control.” Houston NAACP President James Douglas concurred. “I wouldn’t have confidence in anything that came from this division,” he said. “This calls into questions other divisions. If it’s this lax in narcotics, what happens in other divisions in the police department?”

Based on their findings, the auditors recommended six reforms that Acevedo either had already announced or has since implemented. They include requiring a lieutenant (rather than a sergeant) to be present when search warrants are served, higher-level approval of various operations, supervisor review of “investigative efforts that support the search warrant affidavit to determine the sufficiency and efforts of the case agent,” enhanced oversight of confidential informants, requiring approval by the chief’s office for no-knock warrants, and the use of body cameras during drug raids.

These changes are certainly an improvement, but they reflect the “systemic” problem that Acevedo said his department did not have. Recall that he promised the department “will continue to be vigilant,” implying that it was already vigilant, which is manifestly not the case. His denial of reality is alarming in light of the high-level misconduct that Ogg’s office is still uncovering. So is Acevedo’s blithe attitude toward police abuses, which he says are inevitable and cannot realistically be prevented.

“Police officers have been engaged in misconduct since the advent of time,” Acevedo—who initially tarred Tuttle and Nicholas as dangerous drug dealers while praising the cops who killed them as “heroes”—said in November. “Human beings have been sinning since…the days of Adam and Eve, right? I mean, we’re imperfect beings. I can’t guarantee that nothing will ever happen again.”

In other words, it’s too bad that two innocent people died for no good reason, but shit happens. This is the message that Acevedo, who righteously condemns police misconduct in other cities, is sending to Houstonians who would like some assurance that the armed agents who work for him will respect their constitutional rights.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3gmeO7H
via IFTTT

From an ordinance enacted last week:

The city, recognizing its commitment to nondiscrimination and fair treatment of its citizens and employees, adopts this ordinance acknowledging domestic partnerships. The ordinance allows persons in committed relationships who meet the criteria established by the city as constituting domestic partnerships to register at the office of the city clerk and obtain a certificate attesting to their status….

[Definitions:] (c) Domestic partnership means the entity formed by people who meet the following criteria and jointly file a registration statement proclaiming that:
(1) They are in a relationship of mutual support, caring and commitment and intend to remain in such a relationship; and
(2) They reside together; and
(3) They are not married; and
(4) They are not related by blood closer than would bar marriage in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; and
(5) They are competent to contract; and
(6) They consider themselves to be a family.
(d) Mutual support means that the domestic partners each contribute in some fashion to the maintenance and support of the domestic partnership.
(e) Reside together means living together in a common household. A partner may be temporarily absent from the common household, so long as they have the intent to return. A partner may own or maintain an additional residence.

[Rights of domestic partnership:] (a) When the term “spouse” or “marriage” is used in other city ordinances, it shall be interpreted to include a domestic partner or partnership. When the term “family” is used in other city ordinances, it shall be interpreted to include domestic partnerships.

(b) The City of Somerville shall afford persons in domestic partnerships all the same rights and privileges afforded to those who are married…

According to Boston.com (Ellen Barry),

Under the new ordinance, city employees in polyamorous relationships would be able to extend health benefits to multiple partners. But it is not clear, Davis said, whether private employers will follow the city’s lead.

The article describes the ordinance as recognizing “polyamorous relationships,” so it sounds like that was its primary focus. But in principle this could apply to housemates, so long as the members are willing to describe themselves as “family.” Likewise, it could apply to religious communes or monastery-like organizations or perhaps even fraternities and sororities, if they are willing to so describe themselves as families—not that big a leap from “brother” and “sister,” I think. (I assume that sharing expenses for rent, food, and the like, would qualify as “mutual support,” since it “contribute[s] in some fashion to the maintenance and support of the domestic partnership.”) This suggests that someone who lives in a ten-person fraternity or fraternal order or commune and is a city employee could get health insurance coverage for all the “domestic partners.”

Oddly, though, traditional families related by blood or marriage are categorically excluded: If six mutually supporting housemates are willing to declare themselves a “family,” they can all become domestic partners and benefit from the health insurance offered to one of them. But if six siblings who live together (or three siblings and their spouses or lovers who all live together) want to do the same, they can’t get the same benefit. Thanks to commenter Dr. Ed for the pointer.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3dWssNf
via IFTTT

Bad news for freedom lovers as we approach Independence Day weekend: A bill compromising online speech and privacy just passed unanimously in the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.

The “Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies [EARN IT] Act of 2020” purports to fight the spread of child pornography online. Page after page of the bill references child pornography and online child sexual exploitation as its reason for existence.

But what it actually does is create a powerful federal commission that devises “best practices” policies that tech companies must follow if they wish to claim the protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the law that generally protects platforms from liability for content posted by users.

This commission would effectively be in charge of the rules for online communications. It could order online speech platforms to engage in any number of practices, from implementing age verification systems to compromising encryption on the behalf of federal investigators, as long as it can find an argument that the rule would help fight child pornography. Platforms that won’t “voluntarily” follow the guidelines proposed by this commission (and endorsed by the attorney general) would lose important protections against lawsuits over content posted by third parties.

Section 230 has nothing to do with either hosting or spreading child pornography. It doesn’t protect child porn on any site, and it doesn’t protect sites that host said content. As I noted back when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) first introduced this legislation, online service providers are already obliged under another federal law to pass along any information they have about child sexual exploitation on their platforms.

But the point of the EARN IT Act isn’t to fight child porn; it’s to get the government more deeply involved in setting the terms for online communications. Small wonder that so many tech privacy and civil rights activists oppose this bill.

Here’s the American Civil Liberties Union blasting the legislation: “It provides no assistance for prevention programs and makes no attempt to address the root causes of the problem. Rather than provide measured solutions that would protect children, the EARN IT Act instead needlessly threatens our privacy and online speech rights.”

Tech Freedom and Americans for Prosperity teamed up to send a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee noting the bill’s many flaws. They warn that amendments to the bill have made its impacts even murkier, and they worry that it creates a new “moderator’s dilemma,” where a platform’s operators aggressively overmoderate and censor content because they’re afraid of the legal consequences if they do not.

If “it is too easy to put [interactive computer service] providers on ‘notice’ of potentially unlawful content, the fear of liability will create a ‘heckler’s veto’ that could be used to take down specific content or disable particular accounts,” they warn. “Research consistently shows that platforms exposed to such liability receive numerous false accusations, and often follow the path of least resistance by simply removing lawful speech.”

There is one piece of good news about this bad bill. In response to concerns that the EARN IT Act would force tech platforms to create encryption “back doors” so federal investigators can bypass protections, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D–Vt.) introduced an amendment specifying that the implementation of end-to-end encryption does not count as a violation of these regulations and does not give rise to civil and criminal liability. The amendment was approved and added to the bill.

But even with that improvement, this is a poisonous proposal. Child porn is not protected by Section 230 or any other federal law, and the EARN IT Act would do nothing to fight its spread. Don’t fall for this bill.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38jVw03
via IFTTT