Contact tracing app relaunch

parnabyscrosses

Well-known member
#81
I'm not going to stop my daughter going to school or having her swimming lessons mate. Plus as I've already mentioned I'll be turning off my bluetooth and location when not visiting those two places, no point me having it turned on at home or at work or at my parent's house. Just a battery drainer.
Fair enough, it was tongue in cheek, no malice meant.
 

dooderooni

Well-known member
#84
Thanks. How does that work though? People are only contacted if someone has a positive test and they are willing to put that info on the app.

The other point made is that it isn't a must isolate instruction (as track and trace contactors are) but advisory.
The algorithm works out the length and proximity of your exposure bear so you can get false alerts depending on how well the technology measures the proximity and length of time.
For myself, the most likely source of false positives will come at work because I don't use public transport, sit in a pub or restaurant etc. I should have very few extended periods of exposure in theory.
 

1finny

Well-known member
#86
Thanks. How does that work though? People are only contacted if someone has a positive test and they are willing to put that info on the app.

The other point made is that it isn't a must isolate instruction (as track and trace contactors are) but advisory.
And if you map that against the data today that is telling us:
only 18% of people with symptoms self isolate
and Only 11% quarantine after being told by NHS track and trace they have been in contact with a covid +ve case

not compelling
 

Redwurzel

Well-known member
#87
A few points

The temptation by anyone collecting data about any Smart phone user is to use the data collected for some commercial use. It is useful to them even if they don't know the owner. Analyse the data collected will give them a big clue to who owns the phone. OK switching the app off and/or phone off will reduce this but people don't often do this. You can also be tracked even when your phone is off.

For the whole system to work the testing of people has to be 100% accurate. The app is of little use if Covid Testing is not 100% accurate. In fact in accurate testing and use of the app could be a dangerous combination, because people could drop their guard, because the App is recording a person is safe when they could be unsafe, due to inaccurate testing.

I can see the App is of use if CV19 testing is very accurate and frequent. And people are going to places where they mix closely with complete strangers (a large sporting event would be an example). For people without a recent Smartphone, the Government needs to offer a small cheap device than can use the app which is very easy to use for everyone. I think this happened in Singapore.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
#89
A few points

The temptation by anyone collecting data about any Smart phone user is to use the data collected for some commercial use. It is useful to them even if they don't know the owner. Analyse the data collected will give them a big clue to who owns the phone. OK switching the app off and/or phone off will reduce this but people don't often do this. You can also be tracked even when your phone is off.
The use of the data is very limited, because not only is it anonymous, but the key changes so you cannot even identify with 1 phone consistently. Secondly, it would be illegal and as such actionable in court.

For the whole system to work the testing of people has to be 100% accurate. The app is of little use if Covid Testing is not 100% accurate. In fact in accurate testing and use of the app could be a dangerous combination, because people could drop their guard, because the App is recording a person is safe when they could be unsafe, due to inaccurate testing.
This is just plain old wrong, any testing that yields results better than 50% is a plus. If your assertion was correct then no testing would ever be worthwhile as very little medical testing is 100% accurate. Obviously the more accurate the better, but 100% accuracy is not the norm.


I can see the App is of use if CV19 testing is very accurate and frequent. And people are going to places where they mix closely with complete strangers (a large sporting event would be an example). For people without a recent Smartphone, the Government needs to offer a small cheap device than can use the app which is very easy to use for everyone. I think this happened in Singapore.
You are right the Singapore government distributed a small GPS device to the vulnerable groups who did not have smart phones. These would cost pennies to mass produce and should be adopted in the UK. In fact if take up is very small, they should distribute a similar device to everyone. This would largely remove the worry of, which I get, of misuse of data.
 

Ziggy

Well-known member
#91
Remember who benefited from the largesse.
(Richard Murphy..Tax Research UK)

£12 billion has been spent on a failed track and trace scheme, simply to profit Serco. But just £5 billion is to be spent to prevent mass unemployment and save hundreds of thousands of employers
 

zorro_mfc

Well-known member
#92
My objection to the original app was that it wasn’t designed through Apple google etc so didn’t follow their guidelines and code of conduct but now that it does comply with all of these then I’m happy to add it to my phone.
 

chickenrunner

Well-known member
#94
The app should be the icing on a cake made of fundamentals. Unfortunately the government have failed miserably where the fundamentals are concerned therefore it is a complete and utter waste of money, time and effort.
I was a big believer in the original lockdown which had the desired effect (whatever Carl 'pick me, pick me' Henegahn might say). But the time bought with the efforts, lost jobs and lives has been well and truly p****d up the wall by the biggest bunch of w@nkers we have ever had the misfortune to have in government.
Having watched the docudrama about Skripal poisoning it is interesting to note that the response led by a public health professional who fecking cared undoubtedly saved lives. Meanwhile heading up our Covid response we've got 'Dildo' Harding who lost my personal details to a spotty teenage hacker from N. Ireland. Talking about failing upwards.:mad:
 
Last edited:

chickenrunner

Well-known member
#98
Findings? I think the word is theories.

  1. Understand that science professionals are not mild mannered, tweed suited, bespectacled nerds all on the same team. They are very competitive and like nothing better than being right. I get an uneasy feeling that Heneghan wants to be right more than he wants to do the right thing.
  2. Early doors he theorised that the lockdown was put in place after the peak had passed and therefore had no significant effect on figures that would have declined anyway.
  3. As the lockdown has been removed cases have risen dramatically. Hmmm ......... awkward. Not for Heneghan, this is no second wave he says, it is a 'seasonal' effect.

He is simply shaping theories to fit the facts after the event. Is he right? I don't know but always remember neither does he.

As for having to search for his quotes, you must be joking the man is a blatant self-publicist (see 1. above).
 

Redwurzel

Well-known member
Laughing - I am sorry but 51% accuracy must be dangerous to use. If we were at that point - It would be better to just assume everyone was a potential virus threat which is how we operated in deep long down (late March/April/May) and as far as the virus was concerned it eventually brought infections dramatically down. (all be damaging economically).

We as a country are now trying to get much cleverer at pinpointing the virus risks, but accurate testing is an absolute foundation stone to me to the whole system. Certainly below 80% is not accurate and possibly below 90%. Surely testing for a virus is now a pretty objective measure?
 
Top
X