7 ms·

This is insane. Why would they risk people not adopting the app due to privacy concerns while it's only effective if a majority of the population uses it? What

• SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  > due to privacy concerns You immediately answered your own question. This topic seems to be a rorschach test.
• s_dev 7y ago
  > while it's only effective if a majority of the population uses it? 60% is the minimum number the experts are saying must use the app before it's effective.
  • cwhiz 7y ago
    Source? I have heard much higher numbers, as high as 95%.
    • jpollock 7y ago
      If (1-1/R0) of the population is using the app, it should bring the R0 below 1. With covid-19, if the R0 is 3, then being able to track 2/3rds of infections should _hopefully_ bring the R0 below 1. At least that's how I've been reasoning it out.
      • user5994461 7y ago
        The last estimates put R0 around 6.
        • chimprich 7y ago
          But do the best estimates? As far as I can tell estimates vary a lot, but an R0 of 6 would be a significant outlier. But the current R value in the UK under the lockdown is estimated to be somewhere between 0.5 and 1. A contact-tracing app doesn't need to be perfect; any reduction in R would allow for either a swifter reduction in cases or a liberalisation of lockdown measures.
          • user5994461 7y ago
            The virus is still spreading in every location in spite of the lockdowns. Don't believe R is below 1 even with the lockdown. The virus is extremely infectious. Random sampling in NYC was hinting there were 1-2 millions of people infected and that's not the only city like that.
            • chimprich 7y ago
              > The virus is still spreading in every location in spite of the lockdowns. Don't believe R is below 1 even with the lockdown. The virus still spreads as long as R is over 0; you still get new infections if there's any spread. However, an R of 1 is the boundary for exponential spread. If infections are not spreading exponentially it has to be below 1 by definition (as I understand it). In the UK death rates and hospital admissions have been falling for some time, indicating R is currently well below 1. Neil Ferguson, one of the UK's top infectious disease modellers estimated the current R value at between 0.6 and 0.7 a couple of days ago: https://unherd.com/thepost/imperials-prof-neil-ferguson-responds-to-the-swedish-critique/ https://unherd.com/thepost/imperials-prof-neil-ferguson-resp... .
      • AaronFriel 7y ago
        That's assuming perfect compliance rates, right? I cannot estimate what the compliance rate for self-quarantine will be, but if we look at a few rates we get different numbers: 50% compliance? We already lost, too many people will ignore the app and we can't get to 2/3 even if 100% of the population installs. compliance rate | necessary install rate <67% failure (R_t stays >1) 67% 100% 80% 83% 90% 74% 95% 70% 100% 67% If as another person replied the R0 is around 6, then: compliance rate | necessary install rate 67% failure (R_t > 1) 80% failure (R_t > 1) 90% 93% 95% 88% 100% 83% These are... not great numbers for trying to deviate from what Apple and Google will push as a built-in app. Even assuming >= 90% of the country has a smartphone, you need a huge fraction of the population to participate.
        • icelancer 7y ago
          You are assuming only a single input, which is this app. R_t can be - and is - reduced through a multitude of methods, including but not limited to, closing of large public gatherings, high compliance of mask-wearing, increased disinfecting protocols, etc.
          • AaronFriel 7y ago
            That's a really good point! If we can reduce R_t with widespread social distancing, wearing masks, washing hands etc. down to <= 2 we are in much better place and this app could seal the deal and we could just about eradicate the disease. And even if we "only" drive R_t to almost 1 we can at least buy a lot of time for our healthcare workers, which is valuable. Either way, I didn't mean to be that pessimistic. I think an ensemble approach is necessary. For now, general (easy to follow) shelter in place rules, followed by test and trace using these apps, and then targeted relaxation of the rules as we discover what we can reopen without causing a spike in R_t.
• mytailorisrich 7y ago
  Experts say 80% of smartphone users would need to use these apps (that's 60% of population) for them to be effective. Thus, it's like for a lockdown, it cannot be opt-in to be effective unless they bet on the vast majority of the population to weigh the pros and cons.
  • jupp0r 7y ago
    I'm assuming there will be nobody who is rejecting to use it because it respects their privacy too much.
    • mytailorisrich 7y ago
      Again, what is the actual issue? Is the existence of a log that you came close to someone you probably don't know to be potentially used for a critical public health purpose, for a limited time, any issue? If feels like refusing to tell your blood type when you're having a massive hemorrhage in order to "protect your privacy"...
      • jupp0r 7y ago
        Yeah, the government knowing who was close to whom for how long on a whole-population scale is a huge issue. I personally wouldn't mind if there wasn't an alternative that preserves privacy and is just as effective.
        • mytailorisrich 7y ago
          Well it isn't a huge issue (let's be honest, they don't care much, and it's hard to imagine why they would care), and it is actually a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see the actual spread of a virus in real time, which would keep researchers busy for years. This shows the limit of individualism, the belief that I am all (this is what the privacy issue is about). An epidemic is when the group must prevail over the individual and cultures that are more group-orientated react much more effectively (China/Taiwan, Korea).
• crocodiletears 7y ago
  Of all the western world, the population of the UK seems to me the least concerned about privacy. Given the ubiquity of (and willingness to leverage) the UK's camera and social-media surveillance across across all level of law enforcement in the country, I've come under the impression that they've collectively decided that they'll tolerate just about anything in exchange for an orderly and secure society. Mandatory app installation really doesn't seem out of the question.
  • Silhouette 7y ago
    Of all the western world, the population of the UK seems to me the least concerned about privacy. We have a strangely inconsistent pattern on this issue. Up to a point, people here seem willing to trust the government and the police and security services, and therefore to tolerate more intrusion than in many places. On the other hand, if you go too far, you get a situation like No2ID, and any hope the government has of introducing anything even vaguely resembling a sufficiently controversial measure dies for a generation (or probably more, since our younger generations are, as in most places, much more tech savvy and aware of these issues). Given that people here are already somewhat sceptical of the government's handling of the coronavirus situation in general and of the lockdown measures specifically, but for now people are mostly following the guidance anyway, rocking that boat is probably not a wise move politically.
    • enitihas 7y ago
      Not British, but from what I read, don't the British people trust the NHS even more than government and police, and so any pushback against an NHS recommended app or approach might be minor.
      • cameronbrown 7y ago
        I'm inclined to agree.. NHS generally are excellent stewards of data.
      • JoshTriplett 7y ago
        Right up until the NHS-collected data is abused by another government agency for some purpose other than health.
• BlackVanilla 7y ago
  They may have considered this trade-off. Privacy-minded folk who are unaware of the technicalities will be similarly suspicious of an app whether it is made by the government or a private company. Sure, the centralised/decentralised difference is a major technical difference, but if people aren't aware, or don't understand, or don't care, but are concerned about privacy, they may not install the app regardless if it's made by the government or a private company. Then the cost (a few less people who would have got the decentralised Apple/Google app, but not a government-made one) might be smaller than the benefit (richer data).
  • ck425 7y ago
    What's important now is that we raise awareness of this so we can pressure NHSX to change their plan. If enough people refuse to use a centralized system they'll change track.
• zimpenfish 7y ago
  > Why would they risk people not adopting the app due to privacy concerns UKGov has fairly well demonstrated their ambivalence to the well being of the UK population over the past few years. I imagine they're hoping to sneak in new surveillance apparatus with the power of societal pressure - after all, if you don't install the app, You're Riding With Corona. If not enough people install it to make it effective, eh, they'll try a different tack later.
• jariel 7y ago
  "Why would they risk people not adopting the app due to privacy concerns" Because they could require people to use it, the may have to anyhow. Also - most people are not at all concerned that the NHS can track them during a pandemic after all Google and FB track them all day. If it's opt-in, masses of people will be too lazy, won't care, will forget, will have 'good intentions' but won't use it, will let their battery die, forget their phone. At least with a 'face mask' policy, it becomes apparently clear that someone is 'not wearing a mask if they are supposed to'. With contact tracing ... there's no way to flag people. Without extended contact tracing and 'almost everyone on board' it's simply too dangerous for people to be out and about. People are going to have to use it to go outside, it's as simple as that.