The apps I've seen, like the Apple/Google one, would have enough correlation info to identify super-spreaders retrospectively. Though it would also alert some people unnecessarily.https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1263611492017958912 …
Why not both? The bluetooth data gives much more granular physical proximity data; ~10cm fidelity. Nothing else I know of can duplicate that.
-
-
You don't need this kind of fidelity if you're chasing superspreading events. 100 meters is fine.
-
When there's uncertainty in which models are correct; more data seems better than less, and more granular better than less granular. Can't go from coarse data to fine-grained. But also, I am very very skeptical of your reasoning. There's like 10 houses within 100m of me.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
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.