The Coronavirus Thread

[Svartalf]

well, even if I had a cell, which I don't, I'd not load that piece of big brother...

[pErvinalia]

428 cases in pestilence central today. It's blowing up.

[JimC]

There ain't no ceiling on our second spike...

[Scot Dutchy]

What's your point Scot?

I think it quite obvious as Jim has said. This was going to give protection but it is totally untested and nobody knows if it is effective. The expert who is the project manager for the government says at the most it will be 75% trustworthy. All it does is it tells you if you been near someone who has voluntary stated they were sick.



It says; Tell other people that you are infected. This information will only be sent to those people who been have longer than 10 minutes in your vicinity.Send a message to the local health authorities using this temporary password.

There is no guarantee of privacy.

[Scot Dutchy]

Another problem is you have to use Bluetooth which is used by other apps when say you go shopping. Your presence is recorded when you pass a shop without your knowledge. It opens up anther can of worms.

[pErvinalia]

Paranoia. The apps are part of a strategy to deal with a huge public crisis. Of course, some nutjobs think it's a conspiracy by government to control us. Unfortunately there will always be irrational people amongst us.

[Scot Dutchy]

Paranoia. The apps are part of a strategy to deal with a huge public crisis. Of course, some nutjobs think it's a conspiracy by government to control us. Unfortunately there will always be irrational people amongst us.

WTF are you rumbling about. Part of what strategy? Trailerboy you know FA. You believe anything in your miniscule world. The app is untested and only 75% trustworthy so how is it worth using? It will develop a false sense of security so it will end up making more people sick. The crisis is how you make it.

[pErvinalia]

Ok Galaxian.

[NineBerry]

No, the app is not "75% trustworthy". The 75% reliability mentioned refer to whether the app can correctly identify each person that you were in close proximity to. So, it won't be able to warn every person you would want to warn. But the reliabilty of the alternative approach (not using an app) is 0% because there is no way you could warn people you don't know that have been sitting close to you on the bus or had to wait for a long time standing besides you at a red traffic light.

What do you mean by "untested"? What aspect would you want to see tested? Proximity detection was tested. The software aspects are tested. What is not tested is how much having the app will actually be able to stop infection chains. Sure. But that is something you cannot test in a lab setting. It needs to be evaluated in the real world. That's what we are doing now. There's no harm done by doing that. Only a bit of money spent (Peanuts compared to the amounts spent against the pandemic altogether). If we are lucky, it will work really well.

Might it create a false sense of security? Possible but I don't think so. The Asian countries that used earlier implementations of that concept haven't seen that happening. And the communication surrounding the app mentions a lot that it cannot prevent you from getting sick but just warn you earlier so that you can then protect others from getting sick.

Having Bluetooth enabled is not a privacy concern. The only information you could get from that is that there is a person with an iPhone or a person with an Android. The IDs sent out both by the device and also by the Corona Tracker apps are changed every few minutes so that tracking within an area would only be possible by setting up a huge infrastructure of very close hardware stations (every 15 meters or so) that could track id changes of an individual device. You wouldn't do that because you can simply track the GMS signals of the phone. That works for all phones that are turned on and it is a lot cheaper because you need fewer hardware stations to do the tracking.

[pErvinalia]

But Dutch tracking is the best tracking!

[Scot Dutchy]

No, the app is not "75% trustworthy". The 75% reliability mentioned refer to whether the app can correctly identify each person that you were in close proximity to. So, it won't be able to warn every person you would want to warn. But the reliabilty of the alternative approach (not using an app) is 0% because there is no way you could warn people you don't know that have been sitting close to you on the bus or had to wait for a long time standing besides you at a red traffic light.

What do you mean by "untested"? What aspect would you want to see tested? Proximity detection was tested. The software aspects are tested. What is not tested is how much having the app will actually be able to stop infection chains. Sure. But that is something you cannot test in a lab setting. It needs to be evaluated in the real world. That's what we are doing now. There's no harm done by doing that. Only a bit of money spent (Peanuts compared to the amounts spent against the pandemic altogether). If we are lucky, it will work really well.

Might it create a false sense of security? Possible but I don't think so. The Asian countries that used earlier implementations of that concept haven't seen that happening. And the communication surrounding the app mentions a lot that it cannot prevent you from getting sick but just warn you earlier so that you can then protect others from getting sick.

Having Bluetooth enabled is not a privacy concern. The only information you could get from that is that there is a person with an iPhone or a person with an Android. The IDs sent out both by the device and also by the Corona Tracker apps are changed every few minutes so that tracking within an area would only be possible by setting up a huge infrastructure of very close hardware stations (every 15 meters or so) that could track id changes of an individual device. You wouldn't do that because you can simply track the GMS signals of the phone. That works for all phones that are turned on and it is a lot cheaper because you need fewer hardware stations to do the tracking.

I am quoting the Dutch expert who said it was 75% trustworthy.(Eerdere tests wezen op een betrouwbaarheid van ongeveer 75 procent.) You call reliability I call trustworthiness which is very poor in anybody's book.

Privacy is under pressure. History has taught us infrastructure is never reduced but always enlarged. (Helaas leert de geschiedenis dat zo’n infrastructuur nooit wordt afgebroken, maar juist uitgebreid.’)
It is giving more opportunity for governments or other third parties to gather more information. Google would not be involved otherwise.

[Scot Dutchy]

Regarding masks. From WHO;

Coronavirus: should everyone be wearing face masks?


Some countries and states have been recommending that everybody wears face masks in indoor settings where social distancing is difficult or impossible. They have been made mandatory on public transport or in shops in many countries.

According to guidance from the World Health Organization, people over 60 or with health issues should wear a medical-grade mask when they are out and cannot socially distance, while all others should wear a three-layer fabric mask.

The WHO guidance, announced on 5 June, is a result of research commissioned by the organisation. It is still unknown whether the wearers of masks are protected, say its experts, but the new design it advocates does give protection to other people if properly used.

The WHO says masks should be made of three layers – with cotton closest to the face, followed by a polypropylene layer and then a synthetic layer that is fluid-resistant. These are no substitute for physical distancing and hand hygiene, it says, but should be worn in situations where distancing is difficult, such as on public transport and at mass demonstrations.

The WHO has been reluctant to commit to recommending face coverings, firstly because the evidence on whether they offer any protection to the public is limited and – more importantly – because it was afraid it would lead to shortages of medical-grade masks for health workers.

Sarah Boseley Health editor

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... ose-wisely

So paper masks are a waste of time.

[NineBerry]

In the full context it is clear that he is referring to the question whether contacts are recognized reliably just as I had explained.

Wat Moons wél weet: honderd procent garantie biedt ook deze app niet. ‘Het gaat erom dat de app redelijkerwijs in staat is burgers te waarschuwen als ze in contact zijn geweest met een besmet persoon.’ Hij zal soms een alarm geven als het niet nodig is en soms stil blijven waar iemand wel een waarschuwing had moeten krijgen. Eerdere tests wezen op een betrouwbaarheid van ongeveer 75 procent.

If you have a problem with mice, having a cat that catches 75% of mice is better than not having a cat. I'd call a cat catching 75% of all mice very useful.

There is no risk for privacy at all. You'd have to demonstrate how the Apple/Google model could pose any risk to privacy in a realistic scenario. There is also no need for any country to limit the time span that the app will be available because that is already built-in. Google and Apple have both said the API will be disabled once the Pandemic is over. The national apps are non-operational then.

[NineBerry]

So paper masks are a waste of time.

No one here is wearing paper masks. People wear reusable washable masks made from fabrics or single-use masks made from paper with a plastic coating. These masks are the same ones that have traditionally been worn in healthcare settings like at dentist's offices or in operating rooms. Because of the plastic coating they don't let moisture through.

[Scot Dutchy]

So paper masks are a waste of time.

No one here is wearing paper masks. People wear reusable washable masks made from fabrics or single-use masks made from paper with a plastic coating. These masks are the same ones that have traditionally been worn in healthcare settings like at dentist's offices or in operating rooms. Because of the plastic coating they don't let moisture through.

They are a waste of time. These are non medical masks. People just keep re-using them. There are no directives on their use or specification. People here dont wear them. Users of public transport should but only a small minority do because there is no logic. My wife went to the physo at our health centre and no one was wearing a mask. It is just another cranking up the paranoia. Hairdressers dont use them. People who do wear them are often Asian. What is required here is 'boeren verstand'.