2 ms·
> Contact tracing has a time and place, and it's early in isolated outbreaks. The cat is out of the bag at this point and thinking we're going to contact trace
by FabHK 7y ago
> Contact tracing has a time and place, and it's early in isolated outbreaks. The cat is out of the bag at this point and thinking we're going to contact trace our way to safety is a false promise.
It’s quite obvious that more intrusive measures (lockdowns) are needed now, but what do you do once they’ve Had their effect? You can’t just abolish all measures, as you’d be back to square one. That’s where this comes in handy.
> You'd have to be naive and short-sighted to accept their pinky-promise of privacy-first in this context.
Or, more constructively, you could examine the spec and see whether it’s privacy preserving as promised, and ensure that the deployed software confirms to the spec. How about that?
- arcticbull 7y ago> It’s quite obvious that more intrusive measures (lockdowns) are needed now... Or less intrusive measures. We should shelter in place the vulnerable and let everyone else out like Sweden, and this will sort itself out amicably in a few weeks. Leaving the entire population with lasting immunity, preventing any chance of resurgence. [1] [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesasquith/2020/04/04/no-lockdowns-in-sweden-as-stockholm-remains-open-parks-and-open-air-museums-operating/#157c4e62707a https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesasquith/2020/04/04/no-lock...
- usaar333 7y ago> Leaving the entire population with lasting immunity Based on what we know, I don't see how you could carve a large enough population group out where you have < 1/300 chance of death and < 1/50 chance of being hospitalized. Your timeline is realistically years to not overrun hospitals, if this is even an acceptable death rate [which it won't be in developed countries]