Open-source contact tracing, part 1
Open-source contact tracing, part 1
Posted Jun 24, 2020 21:42 UTC (Wed) by logang (subscriber, #127618)In reply to: Open-source contact tracing, part 1 by kleptog
Parent article: Open-source contact tracing, part 1
I think physical distancing and encourage mask use in public is the better solution for random people on the bus, on the street or in a store. If it's not possible to keep distance in these situations then we need better policy to limit occupancy, etc.
Contact tracing allows us to go out and public and actually interact with people as it is the real interactions that need tracing the most. Having a conversation with someone, face to face, with no mask (ie. because you are eating or drinking) caries a far higher risk than being a few feet away from people in public while wearing a mask. And if you can remember every conversation you've had in the past three weeks, then great, you don't need a diary.
It also seems a bit contradictory that you won't hand out your contact information on a bus, but you advocate for letting an App do exactly that, or have an App tell a central authority about every interaction you have.
Posted Jun 24, 2020 23:28 UTC (Wed)
by iabervon (subscriber, #722)
[Link] (2 responses)
In particular, unless I choose to reveal my secret key: (a) nobody can contact me at all without me going looking for messages for me; (b) nobody can tell I'm the same person an hour later. Even if I reveal my secret key, nobody can tell who my contacts are, aside from each of my contacts being able to tell that they're one of them, and even they can't tell it was me unless they remember (and knew) who they were around at that time.
As far as whether it's beneficial: I haven't gotten tested at all, like 90% of the people in my state. I'm 99% sure that I haven't gotten infected more than 2 weeks ago, since I've got a bunch of housemates, and none of us have have symptoms. There's unused capacity to test more people here, but we can't test everybody at once (for social distancing reasons, if nothing else). It would be useful if the system told 5000 people a day to get tested, even if only 5% of those tests came back positive, since we could easily test 5000 more people every day and our current positive rate is only 1.9%. It would be a somewhat more useful application of 5000 tests than each person randomly deciding to get tested one out of every 2000 days, even if our masks were 95% effective at making our contacts safe.
Posted Jun 25, 2020 19:53 UTC (Thu)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
I've been tested twice, been positive twice, and NEVER had any symptoms. So I don't think your logic is good ...
Cheers,
Posted Jun 25, 2020 21:56 UTC (Thu)
by iabervon (subscriber, #722)
[Link]
Posted Jun 25, 2020 4:05 UTC (Thu)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link] (6 responses)
Right, and to lower the reproduction number we need every practical tool we can find for any sort of situation because there's no miracle cure yet. I realize this is an alien concept in today's very binary world.
> In my opinion we are a long way from "good"
"good" is anything that lowers the reproduction number - no matter by how little. This has been explained in pretty much every set of recommendations from any serious agency.
Compared to all the other, massive economic losses caused by the virus, the cost of these apps is negligible. So to describe them as "bad" you must prove that they have not just _zero_ impact on the reproduction number but also that they have serious issues like for instance security issues.
> you won't hand out your contact information on a bus, but you advocate for letting an App do exactly that, or have an App tell a central authority about every interaction you have.
Did you read the article?
Posted Jun 25, 2020 16:19 UTC (Thu)
by logang (subscriber, #127618)
[Link] (5 responses)
If this is how it was talked about by officials and in the media it would make a lot more sense to me, but, it's not. It's usually discussed as an effective solution to the problem, not a tool that might help a little but might also be minimally effective. Other countries apps are lauded as the reason they controlled the virus while ignoring everything else they are doing or the local conditions.
I'd also caution against assuming the net gain is positive. The efficacy is questionable and the hidden costs could be a lot higher than you think. For example, people could assume the app is more effective than it is and forgo physical distancing or mask wearing because of it. This would be highly detrimental. The way the technology is designed and presented goes against fostering civic behavior and instead
We also need to ensure we don't drown out or defund more effective sources of information like manual contact tracing and ensure testing bandwidth targets the reliable information before the more questionable sources. There may be random outbreaks that swamp the ability to test all the contacts and the first tests that get skipped must be the ones generated by the app.
Posted Jun 26, 2020 9:31 UTC (Fri)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link] (4 responses)
Seems like a very broad generalization.
Granted: for a lot of "free" media "you are the product" so they're required to make sensational claims one way or the other to keep your attention (= the product). For more serious media and officials it seemed nowhere that bad to me.
> Other countries apps are lauded as the reason they controlled the virus while ignoring everything else they are doing or the local conditions.
I've read or heard a number of stupid things on this topic but never this one yet. Where was that?
> For example, people could assume the app is more effective than it is and forgo physical distancing or mask wearing because of it. This would be highly detrimental
This is the usual logic to diminish pretty much any safety measure and I bet it's verifiable in some cases. In this case however, contact tracing does absolutely nothing to protect you personally. It merely warns you that you might have been infected so you can voluntarily stop further infecting others.
This is similar to wearing home-made mask BTW. Most people are aware they're meant to protect others, not themselves. Yet most people wear one where I live even in places where they're not mandatory.
> We also need to ensure we don't drown out or defund more effective sources of information like manual contact tracing and ensure testing bandwidth targets the reliable information before the more questionable sources.
I don't have any numbers but I can't imagine the cost of operating this app being more than negligible compared to these other things that require manpower and/or "hardware". Again, none of these are mutually exclusive.
Posted Jun 26, 2020 12:45 UTC (Fri)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (3 responses)
You are fortunate to live amongst folks that take personal safety and social responsibility so seriously.
Here (Florida, USA) folks are protesting their right to "breathe the way God intended" (I wish I was making that up)
Anecdotally, I'd say under 10% of the folks I've encountered over the past week were wearing a mask.
Posted Jun 26, 2020 15:14 UTC (Fri)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link]
If some parts of the USA had not been trying so hard to remove it from their education then it would have been easier to suppress this stupid and very immoral thought: natural selection.
Slightly less immoral and much more logical: how about a tough reality check?
> You are fortunate to live amongst folks that take personal safety and social responsibility so seriously.
One of the few things living here taught me: people outside the USA know it but vastly underestimate how diverse they are. Although the current president made that much more obvious, so maybe that perception has become more accurate.
Posted Jun 26, 2020 17:53 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
Compared to the US, pretty much all the rest of the world are commie socialists :-)
As I've said so often, there are three things humanity wants, personal freedom, the ability to be rich, and a caring society. Because the first one is codified in the US constitution, and these three are a "pick any two" situation, that means looking after others gets de-emphasised.
Because other countries don't have this, we find it much easier to emphasise looking after other people at the expense of some personal freedom.
Cheers,
Posted Jun 26, 2020 19:18 UTC (Fri)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link]
I think you missed my point about how diverse the states and even the places are. BTW I recommend looking at these two maps side by side, the data is visually striking: 1. 2016 election per county, 2. population density per county.
The other fact often underestimated outside the US is how much autonomy the states have. COVID numbers and policies (including contact tracing apps!) are a great reminder of that.
I've met a number of Americans who moved purely because they didn't like the state they lived in.
Open-source contact tracing, part 1
Open-source contact tracing, part 1
Wol
Open-source contact tracing, part 1
Open-source contact tracing, part 1
Open-source contact tracing, part 1
>"good" is anything that lowers the reproduction number - no matter by how little. This has been explained in pretty much every set of recommendations from any serious agency.
undermines it with the promise of an easy, but less than effective, solution.
Open-source contact tracing, part 1
Open-source contact tracing, part 1
Open-source contact tracing, part 1
Open-source contact tracing, part 1
Wol
Open-source contact tracing, part 1