What we need now to advance the discussion about cell phone surveillance for coronavirus tracking is a technical conversation between epidemiologists and technologists about what is achievable and what is useful. If there's no overlap, then we don't need to fight about the rest.
-
Show this thread
-
Basically everyone in tech got their diploma on infectious disease tracking from the Google Institute of Virology over the last few weeks, and epidemiologists have been too busy to dig into the details of bluetooth beacons vs. GPS vs. cell tower triangulation. We should talk.
4 replies 5 retweets 31 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Pinboard
I read your piece about how cell surveillance used by the govt could save lives instead of sell soap, and I was sold. But then someone pointed me to Iceland & Diamond Princess data that shows that 50% of carriers never show symptoms. 1/2
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JMEightDigits @Pinboard
I don't *think* that was addressed in your piece. Do you think that changes the calculus at all, either in terms of efficacy or ethics? I think the drop in efficacy changes the ethics, but not beyond my personal threshold- I still think it's worth it. 2/2
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
No—you have to keep in mind that this is a plan for when we have widespread testing in place, and serological testing, too. It is for after the initial outbreak is brought under control. The tracking on its own won't work, but combined with testing it might work very well.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.