3 ms·
I wish they would've tested more distances. If the threshold is 1.5 meters or even 1.0 meters that's still better than nothing at all. No one is touting these a
by raziel2p 6y ago
I wish they would've tested more distances. If the threshold is 1.5 meters or even 1.0 meters that's still better than nothing at all. No one is touting these apps (or masks, or social distancing) as the ultimate solution to the spread of SARS-CoV-2, it's all just things we can do to reduce the risk.
- aaron695 6y ago> I wish they would've tested more distances. Bluetooth is 31 years old. What is there to test? > No one is touting these apps <snip> it's all just things we can do to reduce the risk. The app does not reduce risk, even if it worked. It's for contact tracing. This is importantly different. You seem confused, which I might guess is because the app was touted incorrectly in many countries. Masks and social distancing do reduce risk. Although most Western countries told you otherwise to begin with on masks. And told you incorrectly how to wash hands, and also incorrectly said it reduces risk (considered unlikely). I'll add being outdoors also probably reduces risk, not sure this is commonly touted yet.
- raziel2p 6y agoI mean risk at the societal level, not individual. Maybe there's a better word. Anyway what I mean is that the risk of the virus/disease spreading faster than our healthcare systems can handle is lowered by effective contact tracing. Not that I personally am less at risk of being infected if I install the app.
- aaron695 6y agoOk, some politicians etc were calling the apps a condom or sunscreen. All evidence since March has been boots on the ground for contact tracing is what's important. Not tech. But the Bluetooth apps, which we know can't work well also don't try for behaviour change, they might even increase risk. This app at this college is trying for positive behaviour change.