I wish I understood better why. Also, there’s a big difference imo between using apps as one source of information for health authorities and trying to use them to let people someone avoid getting sick.
-
-
-
Because their end metric is whether something will have a significant effect on mitigating the spread of disease, not whether it will solve everything or be some kind of techno-vaccine. That's not a thing.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
They don't have to be ubiquitous. They need to be widely used enough to add significant ability to track spread without constant testing of everyone (which we can never do). They'll work better/faster the more ppl opt in. This is about nudging R down below 1. Not making it 0.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is not the main problem. 90 or 95% of infected people don't even know they are. Here in Italy we have officially 150k infected, but in reality we believe that 2M is a conservative estimation.
-
And wouldn’t it be good to have better data through proximity tracking?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The mathematics of that doesn’t make sense. In Singapore only 1/6 installed the app. That means for every encounter the likelihood of it being tracked is (1/6)^2, or 3%. A 3% success rate is NOT going to have a significant impact on outcomes.
-
I'm just going by the math of the epidemiologists at the Oxford Big Data Institute. They say a "majority" of people need to use the app. It's context-dependent! If you have a trusted central health system like in the UK and your doctor says "use this app," you might just do it.
- Show 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.