Verily's COVID Testing Program Halted in San Francisco and Oakland (californiahealthline.org) 43
Amid fanfare in March, California officials celebrated the launch of a multimillion-dollar contract with Verily -- Google's health-focused sister company -- that they said would vastly expand COVID testing among the state's impoverished and underserved communities. But seven months later, San Francisco and Alameda counties -- two of the state's most populous -- have severed ties with the company's testing sites amid concerns about patients' data privacy and complaints that funding intended to boost testing in low-income Black and Latino neighborhoods instead was benefiting higher-income residents in other communities. From a report: San Francisco and Alameda are among at least 28 counties, including Los Angeles, where California has paid Verily to boost testing capacity through contracts collectively worth $55 million, according to a spokesperson for the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services. About half of them have received COVID tests through six mobile units that travel among rural areas. Gov. Gavin Newsom has heralded the investment as a game changer in addressing persistent inequities in access to COVID testing across the state that tend to fall along lines of ethnicity and income. The goal, he said in April, touting six new Verily testing sites, was to "make sure we're truly testing California broadly defined, not just parts of California and those that somehow have the privilege of getting ahead of the line." Yet the roadblocks for getting underrepresented populations to use the program soon became apparent to Alameda County officials. In a June letter to California Secretary of Health Mark Ghaly, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf and other members of the county's COVID-19 Racial Disparities Task Force raised numerous concerns about the Verily protocols.
Re: (Score:1)
and you to
Re: (Score:2)
That might be a concern if they were doing it, but they weren't
Instead, they had multiple other issues, including a data privacy policy of "we'll give your data away to third parties, won't tell you who, or what they're doing to do with it."
So what? (Score:3)
So what's "the problem with the protocols"?
Re: (Score:3)
https://khn.org/wp-content/upl... [khn.org]
A few things (Score:2)
The things that the the Covid-19 Racial Disparities Task Force complained about include:
Appointments are made on a web site, not by phone call
Many of the people tested didn't mark their race
Some people chose testing sites that aren't in their home neighborhood (maybe near work?). Reading between the lines, they seem to be worried that middle-income people might get tested in a low-income neighborhood.
The privacy policy is long, and not as clear as desired
People who test positive get a call, those who test
Watch it. You're reading in your personal biases. (Score:2)
Some people chose testing sites that aren't in their home neighborhood (maybe near work?). Reading between the lines, they seem to be worried that middle-income people might get tested in a low-income neighborhood.
In fact, there was no such worry.
But boy was that one of the major issues with all them Karens apping in from the internet... verily.
In May, Aboelata worked with Verily to establish a walk-up site at her clinic, rather than the drive-thru model the company typically uses.
There would be two lines: one for people who scheduled their appointments through Verily's online portal; and a second for people who had not preregistered with Verily.
Roots would staff both lines, and Verily would supply test kits and personal protective equipment including masks, which were "like gold" at the time, Aboelata said.
Problems emerged almost immediately, she said.
People were suspicious of the requirement that they sign up with a Gmail account, and the request for personal information, such as health status and risk factors. "You don't necessarily want to share that with Google," Aboelata said.
Then there was the language in the privacy policy that allows for sharing data with third parties. "That always is going to raise suspicion and concern in our community," she said.
The people who ended up in the Verily-registered line, she said, tended to be white and to come from wealthier ZIP codes outside East Oakland.
And because Verily never changed the website language describing Roots as a drive-thru site, many were angry at having to walk up.
"We had people coming from all over the Bay Area who were frustrated that they had to park in Oakland, where they had probably never been and didn't seem to want to be," she said.
"They were creating quite a scene, and some were saying, 'I want to talk to the manager.'"
She had to ask a few people to leave.
"One of them was saying, 'This is so Oakland, and I hope you all get the virus.'
It was pretty awful."
As for COVID-19 Racial Disparities Task Force's complaints, their letter to California Health and Human Services Agency can be found here. [khn.org]
It's not nine, it's 9? (Score:2)
You quoted where I said:
>> middle-income people might get tested in a low-income neighborhood.
And replied:
> In fact, there was no such worry.
You then quoted and bolded one of the workers as saying:
> The people who ended up in the Verily-registered line, she said, tended to be white and to come from wealthier ZIP codes outside East Oakland.
Gotta be honest, that reminds me of the people who think they don't have to pay income tax because the law says the income tax applies to people in "the UNITED
PS what the complaint actually said (Score:2)
BTW, here is what the Task Force actually said in their list of problems:
"Many of those registered on Verily are coming from communities outside of the adjacent zip codes."
That's what they said. They listed their concerns, and that's what they put on the list. So to say they didn't have any concern about that is just silly.
The Task Force did NOT say a single word about upset Karens. :)
Keep on digging yourself in... (Score:2)
You keep attaching implied negative connotations and inferring racial and class biases that are in YOUR mind - to statements of facts by other people.
First of all I quoted you saying "Reading between the lines, they seem to be worried that middle-income people might get tested in a low-income neighborhood."
Not the truncated bit you requoted - "middle-income people might get tested in a low-income neighborhood."
I.e. You are LI-TE-RA-LLY saying that you are reading things in.
And the things you're reading
Re: (Score:2)
> you are inserting the notion of "worry" about what "might" happen. i.e. Implying negative biases to other people by presenting FACTS (what actually happened) to be the same as hypothetical situations inside their heads (that which "might" happen)
Okay, they were worried that people from middle-income neighborhoods DID get tested. Happy now?
I'm just curious, do you live the United States, the UNITED STATES, or the US?
PS - racism is passed these days. Move on, grow up (Score:2)
BTW, your assumption that my family can't be middle class because we aren't white is not just offensive, it's really, really stupid. Like really dumb.
Middle class doesn't mean white, you asshole bigot.
It's just Google being Google (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm old enough to remember the time when Google and their "don't be evil" ethos was worshiped like the second coming of Christ on this site, and people like me, who were trying to bring some nuance and forewarning about what happens when idealistic companies start to grow too big too fast, were continuously villified and modded down to hell.
Where are these Google worshipers today ?
Re: (Score:1)
Where are these Google worshipers today ?
Virtue signaling morons [slashdot.org] are extremely quick to flip flop
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm old enough to remember the time when Google and their "don't be evil" ethos was worshiped like the second coming of Christ on this site,,,
Now, be fair. Google specifically told us that they changed their motto and dumped "don't be evil."
You can't say you weren't warned.
https://gizmodo.com/google-rem... [gizmodo.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I'm old enough to remember the time when Google and their "don't be evil" ethos was worshiped like the second coming of Christ on this site, and people like me, who were trying to bring some nuance and forewarning about what happens when idealistic companies start to grow too big too fast, were continuously villified and modded down to hell.
The problem was never how fast they grew, it was always when they went public. Publicly traded corporations always optimize for money over all else. It may take time but it's how they end up, without exception.
Google was a great company... and then they went public.
Issues (Score:1)
Re:Issues (Score:4, Interesting)
The test centers were put in underserved communities and even homeless could come in and would get help signing up for an account so why the issue?
Why does a homeless person need a Google account? More importantly, why does Google need a homeless person to have an account?
Re: (Score:3)
Given Verily indicates that results take 2-5 days to receive, I would guess the Google account is so they can provide the results. The homeless tend to move around quite a bit. I imagine it is not the easiest to just walk out and find any given homeless person 2-5 days after last seeing them - especially if they came to you and you didn't run into them at a spot where they commonly dwell. On the other hand, a homeless person logging into a Google account at the library or someplace else that offers free
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are unable to fill out a form at an office then how do you ever receive medical treatment?
I really doubt many homeless are walking into their primary physician's office on a regular basis for wellness visits. If they're seeing a doctor they most likely came in through the ER and are being treated for an emergency and won't be filling out much paperwork before treatment.
Re: (Score:2)
The issues included requiring signing up for a Gmail and a questionnaire on health. The test centers were put in underserved communities and even homeless could come in and would get help signing up for an account so why the issue?
I take it you didn't read the article?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Verily's testing is a lot more similar to other countries, in that it uses pooling to reduce the cost of individual testing.
Other countries can pool and do 10 tests at once because covid isn't as widespread. The positivity rates aren't too high.
With positivity rates in many places in America at 20-30+% it would be pointless to do pool testing. You'd almost guarantee every pooled test was positive, and then have to do the individual tests anyway. Waste of time and resources.
If you want increased testing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
it's going to have to be done at the Federal level. This is too big for the States to handle and it shows. This sort of emergency is exactly why we created a Federal Government in the first place.
We can have state level covid controls if that's what people really want. Of course, then we will have to completely shut down everything but absolutely necessary travel between states, turning the US into one of those "papers please" states. Because viruses don't stop at state lines.
Re:If you want increased testing (Score:4, Insightful)
To administer medical testing? Why are the states incapable of testing their citizens? The Federal government can supply testing supplies, funding, but are you really calling for the states to step aside and let the federal government do this, because the states just can't? Don't states have their own mini-FEMA organizations, run preparedness drills, have thousands of trained professionals that can be called on in time of crisis?
Re: (Score:1)
To administer medical testing? Why are the states incapable of testing their citizens?
They are capable of testing their citizens, until the federal government prevents them from doing so.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01543-x [nature.com]
When the federal government uses its power to prevent states from performing necessary activities, it then falls on the federal government to perform said activities.
Garbage in - Garbage out (Score:1)
You should be familiar with this. If there is no control or reliability in the samples, then the test results and statistics from that are also garbage. That was the reason for the action: "analysing (sic) nose swabs sent from people’s homes"
It seems simple that a person at home could take a nose swab, but people are far from consistent and not simple either.
Some people made the statement that any data is better than none, but issuing lock down and closure notices based on unreliable data is the sa
Re: (Score:1)
You said "issuing lock down and closure notices based on unreliable data is the same as a random guess." Maybe. Or maybe you could consider such a program as a sort of canary to call out locations/populations where more specific testing would be useful to determine if there's a necessity for lock downs and closures. To suggest it's simply garbage is extremely simplistic and probably a bit ignorant. As I assume someone smart might have once said, "one man's garbage is another man's map to stealing the first
It's not profitable to do all the testing needed (Score:2)
This means one of two outcomes:
1. The state governments do it, but lack the funding to do it on an effective, nationwide scale and thus there are massive gaps
2. Private companies do it, and it's a shit show because they're not going to put the money into it as soon as they figure out there's not enough profit to be had.
It's the same as the moon landing. No one
Re: (Score:2)
it's going to have to be done at the Federal level. This is too big for the States to handle and it shows. This sort of emergency is exactly why we created a Federal Government in the first place.
Utterly disagree with this. Every state has unique circumstances due to their geography and demographics that change drastically how each community needs to respond. COVID may seem wide-spread, but it's actually a regional issue because it spreads geographically.
The Federal Government should be the neutral arbitrator between states so that under-utilized resources can be re-directed to areas that need it badly and inject resources into the system where it's needed most, but testing is a boots-on-the-g
You've got a right to be wrong (Score:2)
I pointed this out elsewhere, but states don't have the money to do this. Saying "Every state is unique" is a red herring trotted out so you don't have to do what you've already figured out you need to do (e.g. let the feds come in and do their job).
Under utilized resources don't get allocated like good little children. The States fight among themselves while private companies try to score short term profits. You can't tac
Re: (Score:2)
Given this thing is costing the US trillions of dollars I'm still in awe that one of the most sophisticated economies on earth can't put it's resources and might behind a massive testing and vaccination plan. The testing is still just scattershot, unreliable. I don't understand how there is not a $10 rapid response test that is widely available. Even if you put $20 billion in R&D to make that happen it would pay off nearly 100x that in economic savings alone.
Same with vaccines. I know they are comin
It's politics (Score:2)
If they allow the Government to step in and contain and end a global pandemic that literally destroys their brand. It's over for them if they do it.
So to save their party and their jobs they're blocking all efforts to contain the virus and insisting on "herd immunity", which is basically the free market approach.
If this sounds insane that's becau
Re: (Score:2)
Given this thing is costing the US trillions of dollars I'm still in awe that one of the most sophisticated economies on earth can't put it's resources and might behind a massive testing and vaccination plan. The testing is still just scattershot, unreliable.
Among western nations, the US is behind only the UK and France in terms of the number of daily tests per 1000 population.
I don't understand how there is not a $10 rapid response test that is widely available.
Getting a COVID test in the US has been free (including for the uninsured) since April 1. The program is due to expire at the end of the year, but will likely be extended. Of course, you do have to find a suitable local provider. If you just go to a regular doctor or hospital, yeah, you'll get a bill. Maybe even a big one. But after my brother tested positive, I got tested for free a
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to test as much if you don't have it running rampant in your country. So number of tests is a completely meaningless comparison.
The guy asked about tests & their costs, so I gave him info on tests & costs. I didn't make any judgements on whether it was good or bad. What information would you have given instead?
Are you totally clueless?
I don't think I'm totally clueless, but I could always use an additional clue or two. Would you like to give me one? You haven't so far.
America is also obviously not testing enough (no matter what the number is) if it still has over a dozen states with positivity rates 10-30+ %
The guy I responded to was referring to the US as a whole, and right now the positivity rate (7 day moving average) for the country is 6.36%. [jhu.edu] That's certainly higher than the 5% b
Is This Medecine Safe? (Score:1)