5 ms·
https://twitter.com/eredmil1/status/1255934130753204224 https://twitter.com/eredmil1/status/1255934130753204224 this had preliminary results on questionnaires w
by tastroder 6y ago
https://twitter.com/eredmil1/status/1255934130753204224 https://twitter.com/eredmil1/status/1255934130753204224 this had preliminary results on questionnaires w.r.t. user acceptance . This https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/04/09/science.abb6936 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/04/09/scie... paper looks at how effective it is given N% of the population using it and I've not seen any info that it hurt the situation in Singapore.
- Gravityloss 6y agohttps://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-how-to-do-testing-and-contact-tracing-bde85b64072e https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-how-to-do-testing... This article argue why it's not very likely to be good, compared to manual contact tracing. I don't agree with all the points, but it is a valuable read. There is a lot of other good things there as well.
- tastroder 6y agoWhen discussing the paper I linked this article says "That sounds hard. The good news is that, done well, this measure alone could stop the epidemic. But even if you don’t do it well, it contributes." and correctly calls for combination with other measures. That's my main point, even if it's not as good as manual contact tracing the allegation that this is "tracing app" vs. anything else is just a pointless debate that Schneiers post seems to further. Like the article you posted seems to say, we should improve manual tracing and testing as well but I haven't seen anything in there that would support the Schneier viewpoint on first glance. Looks like an interesting read for later though, thanks for sharing!