And to add to that, not only is it not US-only, it isn’t showing up in the US (at least my corner) yet.
You have to install an official from-your-government app thst uses the API before it’ll turn on.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Exposure Notification System Guide
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You have to install an official from-your-government app thst uses the API before it’ll turn on.
I don’t know about the US, but my UI says to install an app. Theirs seems to say there won’t be any apps in that region.
Yes, I'm yet another one that came to the comments to leave a snarky reply about the region message - Apple really should put that information on the explanation underneath - I'm sure they're getting lots of e-mails from people all over the world saying "What?! Only American lives matter?!"
btw - for those saying numbers are being over-reported, here's a fun fact for you. I'm going to presume that the US is using the same test that Canada is for Covid-19. It turns out that the NAAT test is only 70% effective - meaning 30% of those tested will get a false negative. Pretty awful, but it's the best test that's available. (I know as I just got tested yesterday). And, yes, not thrilled that there's almost a 1 in 3 chance that I may actually be positive, even though the result I got was negative.
For those that want more info - point 5 on the Province of BC's CDC article for health professionals details the sensitivity of the test:
http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professi...VID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf
btw - for those saying numbers are being over-reported, here's a fun fact for you. I'm going to presume that the US is using the same test that Canada is for Covid-19. It turns out that the NAAT test is only 70% effective - meaning 30% of those tested will get a false negative. Pretty awful, but it's the best test that's available. (I know as I just got tested yesterday). And, yes, not thrilled that there's almost a 1 in 3 chance that I may actually be positive, even though the result I got was negative.
For those that want more info - point 5 on the Province of BC's CDC article for health professionals details the sensitivity of the test:
http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professi...VID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf
I see you've missed the whole point of this system: Data that doesn't exist cannot be breached.
You’re obviously not the typical iPhone user. Hopefully the majority of people will use it and even if you don’t turn it on you may actually benefit from it if most of your family and friends do.
Now considering what we’re seeing in the US in general I don’t have my hopes very high. We’re way too much a self centered society where everything is all about “me, me, me…”. The good news is other countries are a bit… sorry, a lot smarter and it will be very useful for them.
You are correct in saying that there is little point in testing. Many people who have the virus don't even know they have it. So you could be walking around today, and infecting people and not know you have it.
Or you could get tested today, and come up negative, walk around thinking you are ok. On the way home from your test pick it up from someone, or maybe even catch it from the person who gave you the test. You think you don't have it, you have the neg test to PROVE you don't have it, but you actually do have it.
Unless every person on the planet gets tested every day, this whole testing things usefulness is blow way out of proportion.
And if you did test positive, but felt fine, had no symptoms.... would you lock yourself in you room for 2 weeks? I bet not.
Of course I would. Are you suggesting that you wouldn't?
Testing & quarantining does work in reducing the transmission rate. Many countries that have brought the epidemic under control have and are using it. It is much less of a blunt tool than a general lockdown. But to be effective you have to catch a large enough proportion of the infected persons and identify them quickly (ie, quick testing), and of course put measures in place that verify that those tested positive really self-isolate.
Look how quickly COVID-19 spread in a lot of countries (in particular those that got seeded significantly) in the very beginning. What is different now that this rapid rise doesn't occur anymore in most rich countries? Dropping the handshake, keeping a distance and outlawing mass events alone don't do the trick, cases kept rising for a while after those measures were implemented. Only the lockdowns stopped things. You need additional measures, mask wearing is one of them. Contact tracing, testing and isolating are others.
The whole of Spain was stuck indoors (except for grocery shopping, medical needs and getting to work for those with workplaces that were still open) for about two months. Many countries have made such quarantines mandatory, including for people entering from high-risk areas (incl. the U.S.) with fines if they catch you outside/not-at-home. Actually an uncle of mine was just struck with such an order because he spent 15 minutes with an infected person in a doctor's office waiting room.
If you were tested with a high-ish blood alcohol level in your blood but you 'felt fine', would you refrain from driving?
You’re making the mistake of thinking that if it doesn’t work perfectly then it’s useless. In very large systems, that’s not the case. Even if testing only worked in half the cases where it could be used, it will still make an impact on the average number of people infected by each newly infected person. We need to take a lot of different measures all at the same time, in order to beat this: masks, social distancing, contact tracing, testing those who may have been exposed, and isolating those who test positive.
Saying “there’s little point in testing” isn’t just wrong, it’s dangerous, because somebody might believe you.
Have you been tested? If so, when was the last time?
I really doubt many of you would stay isolated if you tested positive yet had no symptoms. Look at Cuomo on CNN, he was caught going out when he was positive. Yet scolded people who didn't isolate.
Herd immunity is the only way this thing is going to end, not with a silly app that only a minority of people will use, and will be about as responsive as my Ring doorbell. Every time someone rings it, buy the time I pick up the phone, and the camera loads, they are gone.
Every year 10,000 people in the USA die from drunk drivers. So I guess a lot of people would.
Almost no country is able to test everyone regularly. This means only people with any indications that they might be infected are being tested. That includes people with symptoms, people who have been in contact with somebody that has tested positive, and high-risk groups like health workers. Fortunately, I have not been part of any of those groups.
Cuomo still interacted with probably 99% less people than he would have normally.
Yes, herd immunity is needed to really end this. But this preferably is achieved via a vaccine and not by maybe 70% of the population getting infected as the latter would result in a much higher death toll than the former.
If you approach a problem with the attitude that if maybe half a million people will die, why should anyone bother with measures that would reduce that by 10’000, then this might be considered in other contexts (eg, if you are the head of a hospital) as negligent homicide.
There might be a reason that the U.S. is high on the international list of drunk-driving related deaths. Too many people just don’t care. Does this mean there shouldn’t be any laws, any testing, any enforcement?
Last edited:
Over 150,000 people will die in the US this year from smoking. Shouldn't cigarettes be banned? How about an app that traces people who buy them so that the government can call on the house hold and make sure the children don't learn smoking from their parents.
So Cuomo only the broke the rules a little bit, so he is a hero, while he condemned those who did the same thing.
So Cuomo only the broke the rules a little bit, so he is a hero, while he condemned those who did the same thing.
Banning cigarettes will likely work as well as banning alcohol did. Regulation & education is usually a better approach to 'light' drugs. And smoking is quite heavily regulated already (few non-private places allow it indoors, advertising is curtailed, anti-smoking campaigns are a regular thing.
And COVID-19 has caused 150'000+ deaths within six months or so while the economic harm from measures to curb it is unprecedented. Compared with full society lockdowns, individual quarantines are minuscule in regard to their negative impact.
You were suggesting not sticking to a quarantine order at all. That is far from the same thing as a handful of breaches of it. And you keep bringing up the term hero in regard to Cuomo, I haven't said anything even close to that. So why do you keep implying that I have called him a hero?
So if in one of the ok handful of breaches, you got infected and died, that would ok?
You primarily affect yourself, when smoking and bans on indoor smoking in public places has reduced The danger of passive smoking greatly. Bad analogy!
not sure about the states but In Europe this virus falls under the infectious disease laws, which means if you knowingly break quarantine laws you can be prosecuted.
It would be a waste of resources for me to get tested since I’ve been largely self-isolated since mid-March. That addresses your second paragraph, as well. Yes, I would. I know a lot of others who would, as well. They take this thing seriously.
Herd immunity will help, one day, likely long after a vaccine has lowered the risk. Going all-out for herd immunity now, is just a way to get a million people killed. And, again, the app doesn’t have to be perfectly effective. It will catch some people who are infected and asymptomatic, and that will help drive down the infection rate. Importantly, its strengths are different from those of manual contact tracing - it can catch people you were near but don’t know, and it can scale in a way that’s much harder for a contact tracing team. You don’t choose one system, masks or social distancing or contact tracing or testing or exposure notification apps. You choose all of them. Defense in depth.
If your doorbell doesn’t work, why did you buy it? Why do you continue to use it? That reflects more poorly on you than on the doorbell.
I’ll take my chances with these handful of breaches vs the thousands of breaches your attitude seem to inspire.