Low power Bluetooth signals would be perfect to detect close contacts.
-
-
That would still put everyone in a bubble with ~20m diameter. Also consider false positives for e.g. people in cars standing at the light or sitting nearby but separated by a pane of glass.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Cheaper to deal with even 50 false positives than with one additional person in the hospital.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
But tying up a lot of diagnostic resources that are currently scarce. We should be aiming for a solution that can be implemented in days, maybe the US has a bit longer. (Starting to feel like an advocatus diaboli. Btw. I liked your post on flattening the curve.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Implementing such a database would take months
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Another aspect: This solution has abominable privacy implications that might seem justifiable now but this surveillance system would need to be quickly and fully dismantled after it served its purpose. Some would see it as too useful to be taken down.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Of course.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You could do it with little privacy invasion. No problem. Phones can offline log all their close contacts and compare them every hour with a list of published known infected phone IDs. Only if you were in contact you would connect with the health department.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Sadly you need to store the entire trace of each individual over more than the last two weeks in a central data base to make it work, because you will find out about infections only after the fact.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Every phone could just as well do this offline on device.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
That would work in a world where everyone was trustworthy and conscientious.
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.