Apple and Google Update Exposure Notification API, 20 U.S. States Expected to Release Apps Soon

[bsolar]

Honestly, if it’s taking a week just to get results in the U.S., then this sort of app won’t be very useful anyway. By the time somebody gets tested, gets their results, and the positive result gets into the system, anybody who had been in contact with the positive test patient will already have themselves potentially exposed hundreds of people.

It's still very worthwhile to inform these people though. Some might be asymptomatic but contagious, some might be feeling ill but underestimating it might be COVID, etc...

Furthermore, even if the test takes a week, in the chain of contacts some people might have been exposed only very recently: the earlier they quarantine themselves or seek medical help, the better.

 

[PaulpBenitti]

Did you read anything of what I suggested?

"Using it correctly" is not exactly rocket science: install the app, open it, follow the ridiculously easy instructions, keep your smartphone with you and that's it. As long as others around you use the app too it can help identify potential contacts with infected people.

You don't need "100% of people around you": even a small percentage of the population having the app can bring benefits and help identify possible infections.

If you'd have bothered to inform yourself you'd know that: it's pretty clear you did not. E.g. that you can start seeing benefits with even a small percentage of the population using contact tracing you can learn by reading the original Oxford University study on the matter.

I'll wait here while you bother yourself with explaining how giving people false information about their exposure is not dangerous and not worse than if we never gave them anything at all.

It amazes how when people want something to work they will do ANY amount of mental gymnastics to find a way to justify their stance. The fact that there is a strong argument against this idea has to be denied denied denied in order to make room for the idea. Sad really. Sometimes good ideas are fatally flawed. That's just the way it is. It doesn't mean you ignore the flaw and go forward anyway.

 

[PaulpBenitti]

It's still very worthwhile to inform these people though.

He gave you a perfectly logical explanation of one the several reason why the idea is so flawed, and it goes right through you, and all you come back with is, "STILL GOOD THO".

Wow.

 

[bsolar]

I'll wait here while you bother yourself with explaining how giving people false information about their exposure is not dangerous and not worse than if we never gave them anything at all.

I'll wait here while you try to substantiate your assumption that the information given is false.

It amazes how when people want something to work they will do ANY amount of mental gymnastics to find a way to justify their stance. The fact that there is a strong argument against this idea has to be denied denied denied in order to make room for the idea. Sad really. Sometimes good ideas are fatally flawed. That's just the way it is. It doesn't mean you ignore the flaw and go forward anyway.

Which mental gymnastics are you talking about? There is overwhelming material in support of the idea working, be it theoretical in papers or studies, or practical in trial runs done with applications in pilot phases. The only "strong arguments" against the idea stem from ignorance of how it's supposed to work or prejudice.

It's not like all of these countries around the world, including two of the most technologically relevant companies in existence, embraced the idea without doing their homework like some seem to assume.

 

[bsolar]

He gave you a perfectly logical explanation of one the several reason why the idea is so flawed, and it goes right through you, and all you come back with is, "STILL GOOD THO".

It *is* still good though and I explained pretty clearly why. Of course it's not perfect, that's obvious, but it doesn't need to be perfect to be beneficial, as the studies you refuse to read and learn from explain.

If you disagree, feel free to explain why you think informing these people would not be beneficial at all.

 

[bsolar]

It can probably be misleading if it's treated as some sort of single source of absolute information -- more or less like many other things -- but not really if it's treated more realistically as it typically would be.

All the apps I have seen clearly inform the users that the notification is for the *risk* of having being in contact with people who tested positive and thus could have infected them. Being a risk, it involves by definition a measure of uncertainty.

Claiming that it's useless because it's not certain is like claiming that the weather forecast informing that there is risk of rain tomorrow is "useless" because it could still not rain. I agree most people know how to treat such information realistically.

 

[PaulpBenitti]

The only "strong arguments" against the idea stem from ignorance of how it's supposed to work or prejudice.

These are the dangerous attitudes that I really can't stand. You're so completely blinded by your own opinion that this thing MUST work, that every disagreeable fact is dismissed as ignorance or prejudice.

The reasons why this concept is seriously flawed at best and dangerous at worst are clear, simple, and logical, and you simply "don't want it" to be the case, and so it's not.

Being able to recognize that a good idea that you support doesn't really work is a mark of strength and wisdom. You lack this.

 

[manu chao]

These are the dangerous attitudes that I really can't stand. You're so completely blinded by your own opinion that this thing MUST work, that every disagreeable fact is dismissed as ignorance or prejudice.

And the ‘fact’ would be that renowned expert Paul Benitti has analysed the source code in detail and has declared it deeply flawed?

Well, pardon me if I don’t take your word as fact.

 

[bsolar]

These are the dangerous attitudes that I really can't stand. You're so completely blinded by your own opinion that this thing MUST work, that every disagreeable fact is dismissed as ignorance or prejudice.

The reasons why this concept is seriously flawed at best and dangerous at worst are clear, simple, and logical, and you simply "don't want it" to be the case, and so it's not.

You have been presented with the studies, the documentation, the source code, all the reasoning as of why the concept does work in theory and practice: you cannot claim there is some sort of baseless opinion that it "must" work: such opinion is well grounded in heaps of solid evidence and reasoning laid down by actual experts.

So far I didn't encounter any reason against tracing apps which has not been addressed already with solid counter-arguments. As example, many still think that at least 60% of the population needs to use tracing apps for them to be effective: anyone who read the actual literature knows that it's not the case, meaning that the fundamental problem is ignorance from those presenting the counter-claim, not ineffectiveness of the tracing applications concept.

Being able to recognize that a good idea that you support doesn't really work is a mark of strength and wisdom. You lack this.

You need to realize that if you didn't do your homework and didn't study the stuff mentioned above (and you evidently did not), you are likely to only have a very superficial knowledge and understanding of the matter. With such superficial knowledge and understanding, you are very unlikely to be in the position to properly assess as of whether the idea actually works or not.

The wise man is one who knows what he does not know: before trying to lecture others you should first understand that.

 

[PaulpBenitti]

You have been presented with the studies, the documentation, the source code, all the reasoning as of why the concept does work in theory and practice: you cannot claim there is some sort of baseless opinion that it "must" work: such opinion is well grounded in heaps of solid evidence and reasoning laid down by actual experts.

So far I didn't encounter any reason against tracing apps which has not been addressed already with solid counter-arguments. As example, many still think that at least 60% of the population needs to use tracing apps for them to be effective: anyone who read the actual literature knows that it's not the case, meaning that the fundamental problem is ignorance from those presenting the counter-claim, not ineffectiveness of the tracing applications concept.


You need to realize that if you didn't do your homework and didn't study the stuff mentioned above (and you evidently did not), you are likely to only have a very superficial knowledge and understanding of the matter. With such superficial knowledge and understanding, you are very unlikely to be in the position to properly assess as of whether the idea actually works or not.

The wise man is one who knows what he does not know: before trying to lecture others you should first understand that.

This is more of the same problem. You're trying to support your argument with "studies" and "source code" when your problems are fundamental and don't require any of that. You're trying to overcome logical, common sense problems that can't be overcome with any amount of data.

 

[PaulpBenitti]

And the ‘fact’ would be that renowned expert Paul Benitti has analysed the source code in detail and has declared it deeply flawed?

Well, pardon me if I don’t take your word as fact.

You're just as bad. You think you can hang on the source code as the backing for your argument when the problems are utterly fundamental. There are problems with the entire concept that can't be overcome by any sheer force of will. You just dismissing them as problems because of how inconvenient they are doesn't change anything.

 

[bsolar]

This is more of the same problem. You're trying to support your argument with "studies" and "source code" when your problems are fundamental and don't require any of that. You're trying to overcome logical, common sense problems that can't be overcome with any amount of data.

Nope: the problem is you having the arrogance of believing that although you are thoroughly uneducated in a relatively complex matter like epidemics and exposure tracing you can casually provide an informed opinion on it.

If you are no expert in the matter and didn't even spend some time in trying to educate yourself, the probability of you pointing out a "logical, common sense problem" which the researchers and experts didn't address already is vanishingly small.

 

[manu chao]

If you are no expert in the matter and didn't even spend some time in trying to educate yourself, the probability of you pointing out a "logical, common sense problem" which the researchers and experts didn't address already is vanishingly small.

It always becomes problematic when people characterise their gut feeling as being logically infallible.