Thread: COVID19 Tracking App - would you use one?

Originally Posted by Glider

Fair enough, Doug. It certainly will be hit and miss, but it's better than we've got now where our tax is paying people to ask every person who gets crook to try and remember everyone with whom they came into contact in the last two weeks and then ring all those people to warn them.

I will explain why I will not download the app.

The government says that the app "will work" if 40% of the population uses it. Think about what the government means by "will work".

Do you think for a minute that they mean it will save you and me from Covid-19? I don't think so. That is what my definition of "will work" would be.

Their definition of "will work" is that it will provide them with statistics, random sample effectively, of how the infection is spreading and how effective various measures are controlling it. They are asserting that this will give them enough data at 40% usage to make those assessments and then relax social distancing or other countermeasures so that the economy will pick up. That's what the Government means by "will work".

With the app missing more cases than it gets I feel that doing this would put individuals in harms way. So I won't download the app so I will not be counted as part of the 40% who, in effect, vote for this to happen by downloading the app. I am effectively voting against throwing people under the bus in favor of profit.I believe this could just as easily trigger a second wave of Covid-19 as benefit us. Singapore used an app when they were doing well and now look at them.

Governments of all colors are very good at dressing things up as something they aren't and all the sheeple just follow on blindly without giving it proper thought. They don't call him Scotty From Marketing for nothing.

Fake COVIDsafe SMS messages appearing.

Originally Posted by doug3030

Do you think for a minute that they mean it will save you and me from Covid-19? I don't think so. That is what my definition of "will work" would be.

Could not agree more with this statement. Firmly believe that this app will be for statistical data with no real world affect on the spread of the virus.

Originally Posted by doug3030

I will explain why I will not download the app.

The government says that the app "will work" if 40% of the population uses it. Think about what the government means by "will work".

The CMO yesterday defined pretty clearly what "works" means yesterday.

One aspect he described is it "automates largely what is done already, so it should save as much work as what the uptake and active use achieves".

There are somewhere around 7000 tracing staff working on locating contacts of infectees.
If 10% of the people use COVID safe it will save ~700 staff, so 700 x $1500 a week = or $105,000 a week, if 50% use it will save 50% of staff or $525,000 a week. Over 6 months that $136 million of taxpayers money. I doubt it will be that much but even if it saves a few $$ its better than nothing. These are his arguments not mine.

In terms of practical individual effectiveness this will vary enormously from individual to individual.

For an old farts like me (dare I say US?) who have very little >15 min contacts with unknown persons it won't matter much or at all so it won't matter much if we download the app. Like I said in my post above I ended up with about 1 >15 minute contact per week and I make it my business to know who I make contact with

For a 20 something (I'm picking on this age group because they have the highest infection rates) flighty, social butterfly type who daily commutes of public transport, works in place with large numbers of people and regularly "drops in" to see mates etc these people may end up with dozens of >15 minute contacts per week. The added benefit for these people is they will often make >15min "unknown" contacts which is where the apps should come be useful in tracing them or the unknowns.

I'm more interested in my personal close, <15 min close contacts, like the blood test I am going for this morning. If the phlebotomist is infected, even if she is running the app that won't help me because the blood draw takes less than 15 minutes. However ,the medical records of the blood collection centre will have my details and conversely if I am infected I can at least tell the medical detectives that I had a close contact with a phlebotomist and they can take it from there.

Originally Posted by doug3030

Do you think for a minute that they mean it will save you and me from Covid-19? I don't think so. That is what my definition of "will work" would be.

...

With the app missing more cases than it gets I feel that doing this would put individuals in harms way. So I won't download the app so I will not be counted as part of the 40% who, in effect, vote for this to happen by downloading the app. I am effectively voting against throwing people under the bus in favor of profit.I believe this could just as easily trigger a second wave of Covid-19 as benefit us. Singapore used an app when they were doing well and now look at them.

So to paraphrase; the app will work better if more people make use of it; but I'm not going to use it. Something of a paradox; but that's just my opinion, and of course you are free to have a differing opinion.

As for Singapore; they took their foot off the brakes too soon. The green light they saw was not the one immediately in front of them! They made a bad call. As far as I know, the app had next to nothing to do with their decision, but correct me if I have missed something.

My goal was never to persuade anyone they should or must do this. Just to present the facts about the app as a counterpoint to the [let's call it what it is] BS that the usual colourful "political" figures [I'm sure I don't need to name them...] have been ranting because they were beginning to feel as irrelevant as they actually are.

Originally Posted by pintek

Could not agree more with this statement. Firmly believe that this app will be for statistical data with no real world affect on the spread of the virus.

You may find the origin story of modern epidemiology fascinating. I will add a link below but the essence of it is John Snow worked out how and where an epidemic of Cholera was being propagated in Soho London.

1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak - Wikipedia

He did with this statistics that -- funnily enough -- had a real world effect.

I wasn't going to contribute to this thread other than to vote in the poll. However, having read the comments, I believe that the app is really the government clutching at a straw and laying the ground for a chorous of "look what we did for you."

It seems doomed to failure as there are too many conditions to be met for it to work. At least 40% have to download the app and then that assumes all of that 40% have the app activated and have their phone with them. This probably means that to achieve that 40% a much higher figure is required.

The fundamental problem I see is that the app will encourage the populace to engage in practices that will lead to infection. It is a retrospective measure and not a preventative measure. One that will lead people into a false sense of confidence. It also supposes that you need fifteen minutes of close contact to contract the virus. I would suggest that one minute of contact in some circumstances is more than sufficient.

Just for the record I voted "unlikely" based on the comments above and particularly because I don't use a mobile phone. I have just realised as I write that I don't know what SWMBO is going to do: I must ask her. She has just replaced her old phone yesterday and while the new phone (I phone) is likely to have battery charge (unless the app does indeed drain the battery) she still has to remember to take it with her: Something that appears not to be second nature.

Theoretically we are both in the "high risk" category by virtue of age, but i don't see this technology as the answer to contracting the virus. Do the simple, common sense action and stay away from people.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by markharrison

So to paraphrase; the app will work better if more people make use of it; but I'm not going to use it. Something of a paradox; but that's just my opinion, and of course you are free to have a differing opinion.

Not really a paraphrase, is it? I never said it would work if more people used it, did I?

I said

Originally Posted by doug3030

With the app missing more cases than it gets I feel that doing this would put individuals in harms way. So I won't download the app so I will not be counted as part of the 40% who, in effect, vote for this to happen by downloading the app. I am effectively voting against throwing people under the bus in favor of profit.I believe this could just as easily trigger a second wave of Covid-19 as benefit us.

My intention there was to point out that the Government was setting 40% as the benchmark where they felt they had a mandate to make decisions based on the data. I never meant to imply that more than 40% would work any better. As I indicated earlier, I do not wish to be a part of granting that mandate to the government, hence I will not download the app.

Bushmiller, who posted later, may have explained it a little better when he said

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

... I believe that the app is really the government clutching at a straw and laying the ground for a chorous of "look what we did for you."

It seems doomed to failure as there are too many conditions to be met for it to work. At least 40% have to download the app and then that assumes all of that 40% have the app activated and have their phone with them. This probably means that to achieve that 40% a much higher figure is required.

The fundamental problem I see is that the app will encourage the populace to engage in practices that will lead to infection. It is a retrospective measure and not a preventative measure. One that will lead people into a false sense of confidence. It also supposes that you need fifteen minutes of close contact to contract the virus. I would suggest that one minute of contact in some circumstances is more than sufficient.

I had not thought it necessary to expand on my earlier comments to include that much detail but apparently, in the interest of brevity, I did not add sufficient detail and left it open to an interpretation I had not intended.

I agree with Bushmiller about the app leading people to take unnecessary risks as they somehow feel "protected" by the new invisible forcefield on their phone; just as the behavior I see from mask wearers being the ones most likely to breach social distancing in supermarkets as the mask gives them a false sense of protection.

As for your data remaining private and not available to the Government or anyone else - Once you give them permission to download the data, it will then be reformatted into another document, in this case a telephone log of people who need to be contacted. That document, as far as I know, will be subject to a different set of restrictions than the original download and will include more data as the calls are completed. This new data, containing your original data may be more readily available out of necessity to action it but it will contain all of your original data. This is a process "known in the trade" as sanitising. As I explained in an earlier post, that does not bother me personally in the slightest. Others may well have valid grounds for not wanting this to happen.

As for the 15 minute rule, has anyone seen a scientific explanation anywhere that explains why this was set as the trigger for a contact to count? Without a scientific basis it could just be a device to keep the data to a manageable level and nothing more. I would have thought that the person behind me in a checkout queue sneezing two or three times 1.5 metres away for two minutes or even less on the social distance marker was a more significant contact than standing and talking with someone a metre away for 15 minutes. But which one will the app pick up?

Agreed. As far as I'm concerned the most disturbing thing so far has been the carrot dangling.

How is it possible that the restrictions can be relaxed if 40% or more people download an app that clearly cannot stop you getting infected, or anybody else for that matter....seriously?

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

She has just replaced her old phone yesterday and while the new phone (I phone) is likely to have battery charge (unless the app does indeed drain the battery) she still has to remember to take it with her: Something that appears not to be second nature.

I will respond to the rest of this later (cos working right now) but I can confirm that the battery usage I have seen is so low, it barely registers. It must be in the fractions of a percent for it to not show in the iPhone energy usage. The lock screen uses about 4-5% for a meaningful comparison.

That would partly be because (like most of you) I am barely leaving the house. I said barely, but that doesn't mean I am not leaving the house, and I do carry my phone with me. A long held habit because I have had one for so long.

Originally Posted by doug3030

As for the 15 minute rule, has anyone seen a scientific explanation anywhere that explains why this was set as the trigger for a contact to count? Without a scientific basis it could just be a device to keep the data to a manageable level and nothing more. I would have thought that the person behind me in a checkout queue sneezing two or three times 1.5 metres away for two minutes or even less on the social distance marker was a more significant contact than standing and talking with someone a metre away for 15 minutes. But which one will the app pick up?

Time related breathing related infections have been studied in some detail.

Recent research by Raina MacIntyre's group from the Kirby Institute has shown that by far most likely chance of infection is being for some time in the vicinity of an infected person breathing normally. The air volume around the infected starts to build up with <5 micron aerosols containing the virus and over time, if there is no or poor ventilation, a few viruses can spread as far as 8 metres but with the greatest viral loads closer to the infected person. Remember the chance of catching the virus from a few lone viruses is very low - the greater the viral load you take on board the more chance there is of you catching it. Viral load up take depends on amount of virus in the air and the number of breaths you take of that virally loaded air. The longer and closer to the infected person the greater the total viral uptake so the greater the chances of being infected. Unless you rapidly open your mouthing and take a couple deep breaths immediately after the sneeze the viral load from a couple of sneezes into your face is going to be significantly less than 15 minutes of regular breathing near an infected person also normally breathing.

On Coronacast yesterday Norman Swan discusses the 15 minute figure and said there have been studies that show that longer contacts significantly increase the chances of picking up the virus.
This is why its commonly picked up'
- in families
- at events like weddings etc
- in restaurants as opposed to picking up a takeaway. The most likely people to get it in restaurants are persons seated close to a carrier (not an infected waiter).
- in workplaces especially nursing homes and hospitals
- by travellers who spend time together.
- by people who sing in choirs
Etc

The chances of picking up the virus in a supermarket or Centrelink queue are so low the authorities are not concerned with that.

While the >15 minute time covers the most likely pickup time period, there is a certain amount of "keeping data manageable". This is why I'm keeping my own list of contacts.

BUT let's get back to the main aim of the App which is to reduce the huge workload of the virus detectives who trace and contact possible viral contactees. People who don't use the app are really just making their jobs more miserable. The App won't cure the virus but it will make current tracing operations much easier and catch more unknown contacts than is possible at present. If I was a 20 something social butterfly "spreader" then I would use it. If you become infected the app does not replace the interview with the disease detective. They still have to be told about any <15 minute potential contacts of known persons. But then instead of guessing the identity of the >15 minute known contacts they can contact them with the single push of a button.

Even though the Govt touts 40% It doesn't need 40% to work. To work it just has to reduce workload on the disease detectives. If 1% of people use it, it will recede the work load of these detectives by about 1%, if 50% use it it will reduce the load much further.

I realise that this is a developing thread and the information regarding the "äpp" is only coming out in dribs and drabs, so I understand for many it's difficult to make a comprehensive assessment of it.

Anyway, this little nugget just dropped;

Questions have been raised over the fact that the American cloud provider Amazon Web Services, which was given a Federal Government contract to store data collected by the government's COVIDSafe app, is using a data centre in Sydney which is fully owned by a Chinese company.

Needless to say "fully owned by a Chinese company" is a delusional expression.

Please feel free to read the article in question, it'll make your toes curl.

iTWire - COVIDSafe app: AWS using Chinese-owned data centre in Sydney, says Husic

but @feckit, that is like saying that you shouldn't buy from the ABC store (are they still a thing?) because they're in a shopping centre owned by a foreign company.

Global Switch is a landlord. They run the electricity to keep the lights on and have a security guard at the door. What AWS or anyone do with their allocated and locked segment of the shopping centre is somewhat irrelevant to the landlord, and conversely, there's very little that the landlord does that can influence what the tenant does. That also trickles down from AWS (the service provider) to the COVIDSafe app; as long as you choose to use AWS' standard blocks, there's nothing they really know about your app other than you have bytes stored on disks they manage.

Well it would help if the App was compatible with my phone, it's not really old (Android 5.0.2), but I'm hardly going to go out and buy a new phone just to run it.