back to article Beijing residents blast COVID surveillance device

Some Beijing residents have lashed out at local COVID measures after they were required to wear electronic monitoring wristbands. The wristband, worn 24 hours a day for seven days straight, was issued to returning domestic travelers in the northern Beijing residential district of Tiantongyuan. The wristband is connected to a …

  1. tmTM

    Just China doing China things..............

    1. Twanky
      Flame

      Yes.

      So why did we copy them in March 2020?

      1. An ominous cow herd

        Did we? I don't remember wearing any kind of tracking device, but maybe that's all due to the mind-control device they gave me at the time. Or was it the chip in the vaccine? So many questions now.

        1. Twanky
          Facepalm

          Yes, we did copy China. Not their future policies from 2022 but their recent past policy from 2020.

          I am, as you well know, referring to their lockdown policy in Wuhan and beyond.

          Since you mention the vaccine: I personally think it's been a remarkable success.

          There is, however, no convincing evidence that the lockdowns have been a success - but there is evidence that it has not been (at least, in England and Wales)..

          1. DS999 Silver badge

            The lockdowns were to keep the hospitals from being overrun and completely failing before there was a vaccine and less was known about how to limit the spread.

            The only way you can show "evidence it was has not been" successful is if you can prove that the hospitals wouldn't have been totally overrun if people had been free to go on with their daily lives unchanged instead of locking down. Let us know what you find when you get back from the alternate universe where that happened.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              1. Potemkine! Silver badge

                Compared to its neighbouring countries results at the same time, Sweden death toll was appealing.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  @Potemkine! - Appealing ?

                  like in attractive or interesting ? I personally don't find a death toll appealing at all.

                2. Twanky

                  Appealing...

                  I'll assume you meant appalling.

                  You need to check your sources. Using a medium term trend of mid-year mortality from 2010-2018 and comparing the 4year period 2019-2022 Sweden is 1.05% down on trend while Norway is 0.53% up, Denmark is 4.31% up and seems to be having a really bad 2022 (for Denmark 2022 is currently more than 11% up on trend).

                  Why not include 2019 in the trend? There's a significant dip in mortality for UK and Sweden (and some other countries) in 2019. Many of those people who we might have expected to die in 2019 died in 2020 or later.

                  Sorry it's a late reply - I had to go retrieve the data and do the arithmetic.

            2. Twanky

              I'm glad to see that you're backing the 'slow it down until there's a vaccine' line. It was the only credible argument at the time.

              Evidence: I'll show you mine if you show me yours...

              I'll go first.

              Summary:

              • The course of the first wave of Covid (1 Mar 2020 - 31 Aug 2020, 6 months, 184 days) in England and Wales using the measure of date of death occurrence as provided by ONS, fits a Gompertz (epidemic) curve very closely.

                • The Gompertz curve describes the average effect of the conditions over the whole six-month period.
                • If our interventions were beneficial we should see a decrease in mortality during their effective period and (relatively) an increase outside of that time - averaging to the 6-month Gompertz curve.
              • The peak death rate was on 8 Apr. This is the steepest part of the Gompertz curve.

                • The peak of deaths must have been preceded by a peak of infections.
                • We should expect there to be a delay before any change in infection rate showed in the death rate.
              • There were slight deviations from the calculated Gompertz curve. Sometimes the real death rate increased faster or decreased more slowly than the calculated curve; ie it was worse. Sometimes the death rate increased slower or decreased faster than calculated curve; ie it was better.
              • There are 4 dates of interest at which the death rate changed from worse to better than the calculated rate (or vice-versa). We might assume that something had previously affected the infection rate to cause those changes in death rates.

                • From 9 Mar reality was better than the calculated death rate.
                • From 31 Mar a change for the worse.
                • From 19 Apr a change for the better.
                • From 26 May a change for the worse.
              • We should expect the death rate to be worse than the overall calcuated curve before the effect of any beneficial interventions and better afterwards.
              • If the lockdown on 23 Mar had any beneficial effect on infection rates it must have shown in the death rate change from 19 Apr. There is no other date after the lockdown when the death rate began to improve relative to the calculated best fit curve. It's a small effect though.

                • 19 Apr is 27 days after lockdown. 27 days must be the time it took for the effect of lockdown on infections to show as a slowing of the rate in subsequent deaths.
                • 27 days before the peak death rate on 8th Apr was 12 Mar. This must have been the peak of infections.
                • 12 Mar is 11 days before the lockdown. Infections were already past their peak and declining by the time of the lockdown.

                  • Therefore the lockdown in England and Wales was unnecessary and had minimal effect on infection and subsequent death rates.

              Other observations:

              • If lockdown did not cause the improvement from 19 April then it had no observable beneficial effect at all and so was unnecessary and ineffective.
              • 27 days before the first few deaths is early February - this is when the infection began spreading in England and Wales.

                • When the infection count is very low, statistical methods (such as the 27-day average lag between infection and death) are more prone to variation.
              • The change for the worse on 31 Mar is slightly puzzling.

                • 27 days before 31 Mar is 4 Mar. Did someting happen at the beginning of March that might increase the infection rate?

                  • We might have expected the news of the first few deaths to influence people's behaviour to decrease infections.
                • I've shown that the peak of infections was on 12 Mar; did something happen about a week earlier to make things slightly worse?
                • 31 Mar is also 8 days after the lockdown. Was there something about lockdown that could have such a quick (bad) effect on death rates?

                  • The Coronavirus Act 2020 (which became law 2 days after lockdown) introduced changes to the death certification process which made it easier for doctors to certify Covid as a cause of death. My guess (it's no better than a guess) is that this slightly boosted the Covid diagnosis rate.
              • The change for the worse on 26 May is also puzzling. 27 days before 26 May is 30 Apr. What happened at the end of April that might increase the infection rate?

                • Could the explanation be as simple as lockdown fatigue? People feeling that lockdown had gone on for too long (5-6 weeks by that time)?
                • The effect on death rate is of the same (small) magnitude as the presumed effect of lockdown - but in the opposite direction, of course.
              • Lockdown restrictions were gradually removed during June.

                • We might have expected a corresponding increase in death rate from early July but this was not apparent in the data.
                • Was this because many people had already abandoned lockdown restrictions from late April?
              • As a confirmation of the method of using a Gompertz curve for our analysis: Using a measure of excess weekly deaths as compared with the 2010-2018 trend also shows close matches (making allowances for weekends and public holidays) to Gompertz curves for each sex and age group 65+.

              Supporting information:

              • Daily Covid death counts are included in the ONS 'Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional' dataset (download from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales). The data can specifically be found in https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales/2020/publishedweek532020.xlsx.
              • The calculated best fit Gompertz curve has the formula: Cumulative_deaths = 51990*EXP(-12.36*EXP(-0.05665*dayno)) where dayno=1 is 1 Mar 2020.

                • The largest deviations of reality from the calculated Gompertz curve amount to +2.3% to -2.7% of the calculated total death count.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Classic

                New Zealand ran closer to that playbook, and got different results because of both population density, and you know being and island.

                I won't contest your right to disagree with the lock down policy you are actually targeting. But you could make a better argument for in less space if you stick to the core issues, and drop some of the numbers, which frankly make it look like you are trying to cover up the holes with numbers, not just support your points.

                Two pages of numerical screed won't cover the cracks in the argument. Not that all of your math is wrong, it's just ignoring all the counter data, all of the problems caused by the fact that most of those numbers were only available in hindsight, and jumping past the most glaring part where that bears little resemblance to China's lockdown policy, where the the actual line of discussion started.

                Clearly you didn't just whip that up, but if you had tailored your points to the actual topic at hand, instead of pasting your ready made point on how you don't feel a totally different lockdown strategy was implemented, it would have landed better.

                1. Twanky

                  Re: Classic

                  Yes, most of those numbers were only available in hindsight. Our government can maybe be forgiven for being panicked into imposing the lockdown on 23 March. But not for 5 Nov 2020 and 6 Jan 2021.

                  For such a major decision and huge expense they should have checked the evidence they were being given far more carefully. I still have not seen convincing evidence that lockdown worked.

                  For example: Imperial College's 'Report-9' was demonstrably wrong before it was published. It was only given credence due to the eminence of the authors - not the evidence in the report.

                  Their later 'Report-13' published on 30 Mar 2020 contained this:

                  In China, strict movement restrictions and other measures including case isolation and quarantine began to be introduced from 23rd January, which achieved a downward trend in the number of confirmed new cases during February, resulting in zero new confirmed indigenous cases in Wuhan by March 19th.

                  Quoting figures from China destroys what little credibility they had.

                  1. Twanky
                    Flame

                    If you're advocating unprecedented lockdown how wrong is acceptable?

                    For those still wavering over whether Imperial College's 'Report 9' was useful:

                    Warning: This analysis contains more numbers that are not just dates. Big numbers - you will run out of fingers.

                    Report 9 predictions published on 16 Mar 2020:

                    1) Peak of about 22 deaths per 100,000 people per day in GB = 14,340 deaths/day

                    2) Total of 510,000 deaths

                    The report says:

                    Epidemic timings are approximate given the limitations of surveillance data...

                    Observation:

                    3) Epidemic deaths started in early March. The first day with more than 1 death was 5 Mar 2020.

                    Best fit Gompertz curve for the above three constraints:

                    cumulative_deaths = 510000*EXP(-15.13*EXP(-0.07645*dayno))

                    Where dayno=1 is 1 Mar 2020.

                    Results:

                    Note the report covers 'GB'. England, Wales and Scotland. So the Reality numbers do too.

                    a) 9 Mar 2020: Reality: 13 cumulative, 5 daily. Report 9 calc: 254 cumulative: 115 daily.

                    b) 16 Mar 2020: Reality: 153 cumulative; 53 daily. Report 9 calc: 5,941 deaths; 1,770 daily.

                    c) 23 Mar 2020: Reality: 1,006 cumulative; 202 daily. Report 9 calc: 37,603 cumulative; 7,036 daily.

                    d) 28 Mar 2020: Reality: 2,969 cumulative: 507 daily. Report 9 calc: 86,087 cumulative; 11,347 daily.

                    e) 31 Mar 2020: Reality: 5,072 cumulative; 819 daily. Report 9 calc: 123,962 cumulative; 13,176 daily

                    f) 5 Apr 2020: Reality: 10,357 cumulative; 1,203 daily. Report 9 calc: 194,281 cumulative; 14,339 daily (peak).

                    g) 8 Apr 2020: Reality: 14,251 cumulative; 1,450 daily (peak). Report 9 calc: 236,774 cumulative; 14,003 daily.

                    The data available from a week before the publication date of 'Report 9' showed it was catastrophically wrong. Lockdown still went ahead on 23 Mar even though further data also supported the view that it was complete bollocks.

                    What was the evidence that persuaded the government to order the lockdown?

        2. Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells Silver badge

          We didn't. There were lots of calls from the left ( Labour and left of the Tory party ) that we should follow China.

          Fortunately we didn't.

          1. Twanky

            Are you drawing a distinction between the severity of the lockdown in Wuhan and elsewhere in Hubei and China as a whole and that implemented in England and Wales?

            If so, you are right, of course. Until the UK Parliament passed the additional law the government didn't have the power to order the curfew. Thank goodness they didn't go any further.

            1. Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells Silver badge

              Yes I am.

              Fortunately the left's constant calls for constant harsh lockdowns went mostly ignored.

              1. sabroni Silver badge

                re: Fortunately the left's constant calls for constant harsh lockdowns went mostly ignored.

                There's a reason for that. The rest of us can't hear the voices in the Left of your head.

                1. Twanky

                  Re: re: Fortunately the left's constant calls for constant harsh lockdowns went mostly ignored.

                  Oh I say, well played.

                  However, it is vitally* important that we do not allow our politicians, experts and other leaders to start revising what they said and did especially in the early part of the epidemic. This applies everywhere, not just in the UK.

                  Dominic Cummings {spit}, for example told a parliamentary inquiry in May 2021 that he 'hit the panic button' on 11 Mar 2020 and that the Prime Minister ordered the lockdown 'at least three weeks too late'. 'Ordering' the lockdown 21 days earlier would have required all the processes that preceded it to be started at least 21 days earlier - and that would only work if Parliament as a whole felt the same sense of urgency as it eventually did when it passed the Bill 'without division' in just 6 days (including a weekend... gotta have weekends off, you know). So the Coronavirus Bill would have to have been introduced on 27 Feb 2020 (when there had been 3 Covid deaths in UK, but none had been registered) and enacted on 5 Mar 2020 (on that day two Covid deaths in the UK, still none officially registered). The Scottish Parliament would have to have given their Consent on 4 Mar (Scotland's first Covid deaths were on 12 Mar 2020).

                  From his own testimony Mr Cummings was convinced to 'hit the panic button' by reports which predicted half a million deaths in the UK. I've no idea if that was just a preview of Imperial College's rubbish 'Report 9'** - probably not - but we ought to find out and remember.

                  Various politicians of all stripes, medical, industrial and Union leaders all clamoured for urgent, unnecessary, action. These must not be forgotten.

                  *I hesitated before using the term 'vitally'. Yes, it is a matter of life and death that we don't forget who wanted to make this cock-up even worse.

                  **'Report 9' would have to have been published 21 days earlier too - on 24 Feb 2020.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @An ominous cow herd - Oh yeah ?

          How about your mobile phone with that little app and its QR code ? If I'm not mistaking, this app is now included by default in iOS and Android.

  2. Steve Button Silver badge

    You sure?

    "The wristband is connected to a phone via the internet and monitors body temperature every five minutes."

    Haven't you got that the wrong way round?

    ALSO: If you are required to wear them 24x7 I wonder how well they work in the bath? Particularly if you gently prized open the sides. Presumably you would legally have to keep it on.

    1. Twanky

      Re: You sure?

      What happens if you have a hot bath or shower?

      Elevated temperature recorded = SWATmedical team at the door.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Yeah, the wristband is just adding temp readings ostensibly.

      But the app is still the biggest part of the problem, and while the government there can probably get most of this data of their phone regardless, there is a real concern that this could be used as cover for other surveillance.

      It's not as bad as the microchip myths running around, but if you have an active cell phone in china you have bigger problems than that wristband.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    We are very concerned for your continued health

    (wear this or die)

    1. MiguelC Silver badge

      Re: We are very concerned for your continued health

      "Do you want me to wear this?"

      "No, Mr Bond, I want you to die!"

  4. TimMaher Silver badge
    Big Brother

    That strap.

    The one in the picture.

    It’s the same strap that I wear on my FatBat.

    Am I being surveiled?

    1. Twanky

      Re: That strap.

      Yep.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Texas says hold my beer

    All women of child bearing age are to wear a wristband.

    Pregnancy tester will monitor for unauthorised abortions.

    Version 2.0 will include a pre-marital sex detector.

    - The one star state

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @AC - Re: Texas says hold my beer

      Shut up! Please stop providing ideas to our democratic governments.

  6. Plest Silver badge
    Facepalm

    I can just imagine Orwell...

    ...either laughing his arse off or spinning in his grave.

    We're willingly sleepwalking into "1984". For decades we've been brainwashed to want an easier and more convenient lives, we want tech to help us but not everyone wants it for good, a lot of shady orgs out there want us to keep dragging our knuckles into a surveillence society where you can't fart without 17 government depts finding out, passing it to Twitter to post it and then Apple can charge us for using the Apple Farting Allowance Subscription!

  7. Trigun

    "...but she could tell those above her that I won't wear it. If you insist that I wear it, you'll have to come up with the documents that prove that it's a Beijing government requirement and that this is not some unlicensed company trying to make a profit."

    This probably takes balls to say in China. Kudos.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I don't want to wear it.

    Incredibly brave. Or stupid. People in China have disappeared for less. Some have re-appeared in an entirely different context, while some remain disappeared.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I don't want to wear it.

      > People in China have disappeared for less

      I don't suppose you would mind pointing to specific cases?

      1. Twanky

        Re: I don't want to wear it.

        Peng Shuai?

      2. Winkypop Silver badge

        Re: I don't want to wear it.

        “Specific cases”

        One word: Uyghurs

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I don't want to wear it.

          That is not a specific case. A specific case is Mr/Ms X disappeared on such a date under there circumstances.

          The tennis player is a good example. There are also specific examples amongst the Uyghur community which are well documented, but "Uyghurs" as a whole is if anything an example of a different phenomenon (collective persecution, genocide, whatever) which is not the subject being discussed.

          In a world where information flows very fast, and so does misinformation, I don't think it's too much to ask for people to apply a little bit of rigour rather than resort to unnecessary generalisations so that we can more easily separate facts from propaganda, whether it be ours or theirs.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Septics! Get out of the way!

    > prove that it's a Beijing government requirement and that this is not some unlicensed company trying to make a profit.

    That's the entrepreneurial spirit!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like