Contact tracing app relaunch

Prime Minister Boris Johnson confirms that it isn't compulsory to follow recommendations made by the NHS contact tracing app - Sky News.
 
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?
I don't disagree that a test regime at 51% accuracy is not much better than a coin toss. The point I am making is it is 1% bertter than a coin toss so has some, albeit tiny, use. The more accurate the better, also true. I would take an issue with requiring an 80%- 90% accuracy for a test regime to be of any benefit.
 
Commence the insults, but.

Facts known by the medical profession and, hopefully by the politicians.

Pillar 2 testing has an inbuilt false positive rate of 0.8 %.
Not a lot, pretty good for any testing regime.
200.000 people tested 2000 come back as positive of these 1600 are known false positives.
IF and it is a very big IF, all 2000 are contacted and told to self isolate it appears only 18% will comply.
1,640 per 200.000 tested per day out and about in society.
11,480 per week, most of these "asymtomatic" or false positives.
However, as for as I can tell the app will flag up contact with these people, pub,shop, restaurant, etc.
Thus multiplying the figure by a factor not yet known (take up of the app and accuracy of same).

As the 0.8 is not in debate I would ask the question, what is the agenda?
 
I think there is a danger that control is part of the agenda - if your are in power there seems to be a desire to be able to control - the easier the better - it sound like paranoia but the word control is often replaced now by the word nudge. Technology is making it easier to control. We are expected to confirm, because decisions are being made in our best interests. I have my doubts as centralised power tends to result in more mistakes.
 
Randy, ST exactly what information do you think the app is grabbing, and how do you think it will be used? I fail to see any benefit in anonymized data.

The fact that booked tests are not linkable via the app is a limitation on the api provided form the OS development, not the app itself.

With the expected low uptake, which I understand, the app will have limited benefit in tracking the spread of the virus, but even a small take up helps in understanding how the virus is spreading through the population.

I made my thoughts perfectly clear on the original intended app, so I am no denier of what Johnson and his cronies are capable of, I just fail to see how this particular app can be used to harvest personal data, it doesn't collect any.
 

So the app only works if you book a test through the app.

Seems Smalltown's suspicions were correct, nothing more than a data grabber.

I've deleted the app and I'll just reinstall it when it comes to the daughter's swimming lessons.
Think of it like a supermarket points card, you only earn points from the moment you sign up to it, not for all the shopping you've bought over the years before you signed up for the card.
If you use the app to book a test then you are going to have to hand over some information in order to get the result back so the code will be linked to your app which will then allow it to alert those who you've come into contact with and allow them to isolate or book a test.
What we need to know is how booking a test via the app differs from doing so via the website. If they are two different systems then you'll have incompatibility which is not idea and it needs to be homogenised.
Like laughing, I was not a fan of the original app implementation, but seriously, this new version is about as private as can be for an app that is part of a track and trace program. For it to aid the fight against the pandemic it has to be able to track the infection and trace those you've come into contact with. Unless you personally take the names and addresses of everyone you spend more than a minute next to then you won't be able to do what the app does anonymously.
 
Regardless of the apps usefulness, the "NHS" contact tracing app currently cannot use NHS provided covid test results, only those provided by private firms.

So why doesn't this government call a spade a spade and call it the Serco contact trace app as that is only what it is?

The way this government is abusing the NHS brand to front incompetent private firms is an affront to those NHS workers who have paid the ultimate price helping people throughout this pandemic.
 
Right, having done a bit of reading there does seem to be a real problem with the usefulness of this app until it can access all test results.
I'm deleting it until it can access all testing methods.
 
Would a coded test be required to verify the test so positive tests can't be inputted incorrectly, or with malicious intent.

I do agree all tests should be linked but there are a lot of random private companies testing, research studies with their own labs, NHS trusts with their own labs, ONS population studies. I imagine it is difficult to cover all of these under one app and be able to verify their legitimacy.
 
Back
Top