This appeared a little while ago.
The COVID-19-crisis and the information polity: An overview of responses and discussions in twenty-one countries from six continents
Published: 14 August 2020
Abstract
Governments around the world are utilizing data and information systems to manage the COVID-19-crisis. To obtain an overview of all these efforts, this global report presents the expert reports of 21 countries regarding the relation between the COVID-19-crisis and the information polity. A comparative analysis of these reports highlights that governments focus on strengthening six functions: management of information for crisis management, publishing public information for citizens, providing digital services to citizens, monitoring citizens in public space, facilitating information exchange between citizens and developing innovative responses to COVID-19. The comparative overview of information responses to the COVID-19-crisis shows that these responses cannot only be studied from a rational perspective on government information strategies but need to be studied as political and symbolic interventions.
Here is the link:
https://content.iospress.com/articles/information-polity/ip200006
They cover 21 countries and here is what they said about Australia.
2.Country reports
2.1Australia
Paul Henman, University of Queensland, p.henman@uq.edu.au
Australia is a federated state of six states and two territories. States have primary responsibility for public health emergency and infection disease management, while the national government has responsibility to infection control across national borders. Australia has managed COVID-19 infections remarkably well, with borders blocked for Chinese arrivals from 12 February 2020, and all arrivals from 20 March, with several internal state borders closed shortly thereafter. As of 1 July, Australia recorded 7834 infections and 104 deaths (that is, 307 and 4 per million people respectively), with over 60 percent of cases imported from overseas.
Information technologies for mapping infections and modelling of infection spread has been central to the public governance of COVID-19 in Australia. However, such technologies have been utilised in a context of criticism over government secrecy and unaccountability. From March 2020, a new National Cabinet, constituted by the leaders of all state, territory and federal governments, relied on micro-simulation modelling to develop lockdown policies and procedures, but the governments were reluctant and slow in releasing their modelling for comparison with those of independent researchers.
The Australian government also developed two smart phones apps for managing the COVID-19 pandemic. Coronavirus Australia was released on 29 March by the federal Department of Health to provide access to official information, health information and updates, but it had little visibility and was simply an app version of the government’s informational website. These national level data were replicated at a state level on state government websites. Providing updated statistics, infographics and trend data, they had some rudimentary dashboard like characteristics, although they were not described as dashboards.
In contrast, the COVIDSafe developed by the Australian government’s Digital Transformation Agency to support contact tracing of infected persons received considerable attention. Using the BlueTrace open-source application developed by the Singaporean government for its TraceTogether app, COVIDSafe was released on 26 April 2020. Data is stored on a single centralised database hosted by Amazon cloud services, and accessed by state public health authorities. While there was initial strong take-up, its publication generated considerable public debate about privacy and the tracking of users. Several ‘mistakes’ by the national government reinforced privacy concerns:, at its launch the source code was promised and then delayed until 8 May; there were no clear legal privacy protections in place; the government initially failed to rule out making the app mandatory; the government failed to acknowledge significant technical limitations of COVIDSafe’s operation on Apple’s IOS systems; and, the levels of testing were not disclosed. The Australian government also oversold COVIDSafe, with the Prime Minister likening it to wearing sunscreen to protect against sun burn and subsequent skin cancer. This resulted in some people viewing the app as a protective panacea to COVID-19, and some organisations declaring that people without the app would be denied entry. The Prime Minister also sought to compel people to use the app by stating that it was necessary before lifting restrictions could be considered.
Several factors diminished the app-related controversies. Specific legislation to clarify and strengthen privacy protections relating to the COVIDSafe app were instituted on 16 May. Downloads of the app stabilised at just over six million by the end of May. Most significantly, due to the significant success in controlling infections (typically less than 10 new infections a day during June, and only one death from 23 May to end June), restrictions began lifting mid-May. Yet, as of late June, COVIDSafe had yet to be used to successfully identify contacts to an infected person, eliciting the question of whether the app created as a ‘shiny’ technical fix to a social problem?
(Note since this was submitted COVIDSafe has helped on at least one occasion)
I will leave the reader to review
the amazing diversity of responses found in the other 20 countries. The article is freely available.
Well worth a browse…
David.
1 comment:
CovidSafe has been about as helpful as My Heath Record. Neither has helped many, if any Australians. Both cost a lot and came out of the Departement of Health.
Post a Comment