The COVID Symptom Study app and NHS COVID-19 app are different. Here’s why you need both!

Thrugelmir

Yahoo_Mail said:

Atlas234 said:

Yahoo_Mail said:

Takmon said:

bradders1983 said:

Takmon said:

bradders1983 said:

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear. Thats a very low blow. Post reported 

If you want to be it ignorant and selfish at a detriment to your own life then carry on I have no problem with that.

But there is no detriment to you by downloading these apps but they will help other people and you blankly refuse to do it for no reason. I'm sure your the kind of person to also ignore social distancing guidelines when you feel like.

All I'm going to say is stop being so ignorant and selfish and think about other people for a change. I've had enough of selfish people requiring lockdown restrictions to get tighter and tighter and ruin everyone's life. 

It's funny how you report my post because a few factual words has upset you but you have no problem in spreading a virus with real consequences that causes some people to die!.

Just have a good think about that.

No, you disagree with my stance so go trawling through my posts to try and muck rake.  Beyond pathetic. Just have a good think about that.

but considering the serious consequences of this virus too normal life

There are no "serious consequences" to normal life as a result of the virus, there are serious consequences to normal life as a result of politicians, who are far more interested in getting re-elected, pandering to people who have forgotten that people die and we're not the masters of nature that we've lead ourselves to believe, putting in absurd restrictions so just so they look like they're doing something.  Even though it won't make a jot of difference in the long run.

If the virus was doing it why are people in Sweden basically living a normal life, and certainly doing no worse than us?  The effects on normal life are entirely man-made.

Sweden is nearly double the size of the UK with a small fraction of the uk's population. So I would say population density would be main difference in a viral pandemic

My post was not referring to infection numbers or anything like that. I was (fairly cleary I though) referring to this nonsense idea that we are being forced, by the virus no less, to go into lockdown, or shut businesses or whatever.  That is patently false.  The virus isn't doing it, people (in this case politicians) are and as Sweden has shown, we can *gasp* just not do it.

Did you know that 40% of Swede's live in single person households.  Flat pack solutions aren't available in store.

Takmon

MattMattMattUK said:

I do not use the Symptom app because it is idiotic, what is the point of putting in that I do not have symptoms again and again. I only use the exposure tracking app when required to check in to a venue, the rest of the time it is disabled as again it is such a blunt instrument it is largely pointless. Neither apps serve any real purpose, they exist so that the government can be seen to be doing something, even if it is ineffective.

I run my own company, but the offices are on a specialist site, because of that we have the opportunity to be tested every day and I am tested every day I go to the office, which is 3-5 times a week. That has far more point to it than either if the useless apps as it would show infection before symptoms occur and would also show if something was COVID or not, rather than just a cold (although I have not had a cold this year either). I would also get the flu jab to reduce transmission of that if it was actually possible to get one at the moment, but it is not. I am not someone who thinks that COVID is made up, I do think the response is disproportionate and badly handled and I think both apps are useless, that does not mean that I do not take adequate measures to reduce possible transmission, nor does it make me selfish, it makes me rational and pragmatic. 

So the symptom tracking app which has already allowed them to determine that a loss of taste/smell is another main symptom of Covid19 is useless is idiotic is it?. Just because you don't understand how data collection and analysis works you must be able to see how valuable it is they have determined another main symptom so people can better understand if they have it or not.

Checking into a venue is the least useful function of the app because you don't check out so they don't know how long you were there so someone could arrive after you and then you could get a notification you were near them. 
The most useful part of the app is the Bluetooth monitoring because it actually knows how close you were to someone and if you were close to them for 15 minutes and they test positive it tells you which is far more useful.
No it's definitely not perfect and the fewer people that use it the less perfect it is, but nothing starts off perfect and needs to be developed so disabling it when you have it installed because you expect perfection doesn't seem rational to me. 

MattMattMattUK

Takmon said:

So the symptom tracking app which has already allowed them to determine that a loss of taste/smell is another main symptom of Covid19 is useless is idiotic is it?.

That was not established through the symptom checking app, it was established by proper medical questioning of patients, verified testing and pooling of international data. It was for example proven through research in Germany many weeks before the UK government stated it was a symptom.

Takmon said:
Just because you don't understand how data collection and analysis works you must be able to see how valuable it is they have determined another main symptom so people can better understand if they have it or not. 

I understand how data collection and analysis works, which is exactly why I understand it is useless. You have a pool of people, who may have Covid or other diseases, as well as the possibility of having multiple simultaneous infections, inputting non-verified data, in a non-representative sample. On that basis the data itself is unsound, so any conclusions drawn from it are equally unsound.

Takmon said:

Checking into a venue is the least useful function of the app because you don't check out so they don't know how long you were there so someone could arrive after you and then you could get a notification you were near them. 
The most useful part of the app is the Bluetooth monitoring because it actually knows how close you were to someone and if you were close to them for 15 minutes and they test positive it tells you which is far more useful.
No it's definitely not perfect and the fewer people that use it the less perfect it is, but nothing starts off perfect and needs to be developed so disabling it when you have it installed because you expect perfection doesn't seem rational to me. 

It is a fundamentally blunt instrument, so blunt that it is like trying to cut a loaf of bread with a hammer. It is not a case of it starting off imperfect but being improved, the limitations of the technology used (Bluetooth) means that it is not even a case of never being perfect, it will never even be a reasonably effective solution. It is not a case that iterative improvements will get it to a stage where it could be regarded as reliable, it is pretty much as good as it is going to get, with a false positive rate on exposure that if it were anything else would never have been allowed release or use for anything medical related.

The government has handled the whole situation incredibly badly, it is obvious that they have been looking for gimmicks all along, the app, including the failed first versions, ineffective current apps, the "moonshot" testing, commitments on testing (all missed, unless you very carefully manipulate the data), gimmicky slogans, locking down parts of the economy which are responsible for less than 1% of transmission, but ignoring 80% or more of transmission by failing to take into account human nature and behaviour in it all. 

Stenwold

MattMattMattUK said:

Takmon said:

So the symptom tracking app which has already allowed them to determine that a loss of taste/smell is another main symptom of Covid19 is useless is idiotic is it?.

That was not established through the symptom checking app, it was established by proper medical questioning of patients, verified testing and pooling of international data. It was for example proven through research in Germany many weeks before the UK government stated it was a symptom.

Takmon said:
Just because you don't understand how data collection and analysis works you must be able to see how valuable it is they have determined another main symptom so people can better understand if they have it or not. 

I understand how data collection and analysis works, which is exactly why I understand it is useless. You have a pool of people, who may have Covid or other diseases, as well as the possibility of having multiple simultaneous infections, inputting non-verified data, in a non-representative sample. On that basis the data itself is unsound, so any conclusions drawn from it are equally unsound.

Takmon said:

Checking into a venue is the least useful function of the app because you don't check out so they don't know how long you were there so someone could arrive after you and then you could get a notification you were near them. 
The most useful part of the app is the Bluetooth monitoring because it actually knows how close you were to someone and if you were close to them for 15 minutes and they test positive it tells you which is far more useful.
No it's definitely not perfect and the fewer people that use it the less perfect it is, but nothing starts off perfect and needs to be developed so disabling it when you have it installed because you expect perfection doesn't seem rational to me. 

It is a fundamentally blunt instrument, so blunt that it is like trying to cut a loaf of bread with a hammer. It is not a case of it starting off imperfect but being improved, the limitations of the technology used (Bluetooth) means that it is not even a case of never being perfect, it will never even be a reasonably effective solution. It is not a case that iterative improvements will get it to a stage where it could be regarded as reliable, it is pretty much as good as it is going to get, with a false positive rate on exposure that if it were anything else would never have been allowed release or use for anything medical related.

The government has handled the whole situation incredibly badly, it is obvious that they have been looking for gimmicks all along, the app, including the failed first versions, ineffective current apps, the "moonshot" testing, commitments on testing (all missed, unless you very carefully manipulate the data), gimmicky slogans, locking down parts of the economy which are responsible for less than 1% of transmission, but ignoring 80% or more of transmission by failing to take into account human nature and behaviour in it all. 

You make some really good points here, your comments on this thread have been an interesting read. I don't think we'll ever agree on the use of the track and trace app (it may not be 100% effective, but that's what we have and it's better than nothing so I think we should use it).

You're in an enviable position where you are tested regularly - this has to be the long term goal for us all. If a simple, quick and cheap home testing kit can be rolled out then there wouldn't necessarily be a need for any lockdown.

Takmon

MattMattMattUK said:

Takmon said:

So the symptom tracking app which has already allowed them to determine that a loss of taste/smell is another main symptom of Covid19 is useless is idiotic is it?.

That was not established through the symptom checking app, it was established by proper medical questioning of patients, verified testing and pooling of international data. It was for example proven through research in Germany many weeks before the UK government stated it was a symptom.

Takmon said:
Just because you don't understand how data collection and analysis works you must be able to see how valuable it is they have determined another main symptom so people can better understand if they have it or not. 

I understand how data collection and analysis works, which is exactly why I understand it is useless. You have a pool of people, who may have Covid or other diseases, as well as the possibility of having multiple simultaneous infections, inputting non-verified data, in a non-representative sample. On that basis the data itself is unsound, so any conclusions drawn from it are equally unsound.

Takmon said:

Checking into a venue is the least useful function of the app because you don't check out so they don't know how long you were there so someone could arrive after you and then you could get a notification you were near them. 
The most useful part of the app is the Bluetooth monitoring because it actually knows how close you were to someone and if you were close to them for 15 minutes and they test positive it tells you which is far more useful.
No it's definitely not perfect and the fewer people that use it the less perfect it is, but nothing starts off perfect and needs to be developed so disabling it when you have it installed because you expect perfection doesn't seem rational to me. 

It is a fundamentally blunt instrument, so blunt that it is like trying to cut a loaf of bread with a hammer. It is not a case of it starting off imperfect but being improved, the limitations of the technology used (Bluetooth) means that it is not even a case of never being perfect, it will never even be a reasonably effective solution. It is not a case that iterative improvements will get it to a stage where it could be regarded as reliable, it is pretty much as good as it is going to get, with a false positive rate on exposure that if it were anything else would never have been allowed release or use for anything medical related.

The government has handled the whole situation incredibly badly, it is obvious that they have been looking for gimmicks all along, the app, including the failed first versions, ineffective current apps, the "moonshot" testing, commitments on testing (all missed, unless you very carefully manipulate the data), gimmicky slogans, locking down parts of the economy which are responsible for less than 1% of transmission, but ignoring 80% or more of transmission by failing to take into account human nature and behaviour in it all. 

Bluetooth signal strength is a good indicator of how close you have been to someone else because the signal strength is stronger when your next to someone compared too if someone is farther away or on the other side of a wall. I really don't see why you don't think that would work because if everyone had it could very accurately track who they have been in contact with. This of course can be improved over time by refining the algorithm to more accurately determine exposure based on signal strength. 
All you seem interested in is saying nothing that has been implemented is good enough so your not going to even try and use it. Yes the government haven't handled it very well but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make the best of what there is available to use such as the tracking app. The fact is there is no detriment to you whatsoever by turning on the Bluetooth tracking but you refuse because you don't think it's good enough. Well it certainly won't help if you keep it off!.

Takmon

Stenwold said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Takmon said:

So the symptom tracking app which has already allowed them to determine that a loss of taste/smell is another main symptom of Covid19 is useless is idiotic is it?.

That was not established through the symptom checking app, it was established by proper medical questioning of patients, verified testing and pooling of international data. It was for example proven through research in Germany many weeks before the UK government stated it was a symptom.

Takmon said:
Just because you don't understand how data collection and analysis works you must be able to see how valuable it is they have determined another main symptom so people can better understand if they have it or not. 

I understand how data collection and analysis works, which is exactly why I understand it is useless. You have a pool of people, who may have Covid or other diseases, as well as the possibility of having multiple simultaneous infections, inputting non-verified data, in a non-representative sample. On that basis the data itself is unsound, so any conclusions drawn from it are equally unsound.

Takmon said:

Checking into a venue is the least useful function of the app because you don't check out so they don't know how long you were there so someone could arrive after you and then you could get a notification you were near them. 
The most useful part of the app is the Bluetooth monitoring because it actually knows how close you were to someone and if you were close to them for 15 minutes and they test positive it tells you which is far more useful.
No it's definitely not perfect and the fewer people that use it the less perfect it is, but nothing starts off perfect and needs to be developed so disabling it when you have it installed because you expect perfection doesn't seem rational to me. 

It is a fundamentally blunt instrument, so blunt that it is like trying to cut a loaf of bread with a hammer. It is not a case of it starting off imperfect but being improved, the limitations of the technology used (Bluetooth) means that it is not even a case of never being perfect, it will never even be a reasonably effective solution. It is not a case that iterative improvements will get it to a stage where it could be regarded as reliable, it is pretty much as good as it is going to get, with a false positive rate on exposure that if it were anything else would never have been allowed release or use for anything medical related.

The government has handled the whole situation incredibly badly, it is obvious that they have been looking for gimmicks all along, the app, including the failed first versions, ineffective current apps, the "moonshot" testing, commitments on testing (all missed, unless you very carefully manipulate the data), gimmicky slogans, locking down parts of the economy which are responsible for less than 1% of transmission, but ignoring 80% or more of transmission by failing to take into account human nature and behaviour in it all. 

You make some really good points here, your comments on this thread have been an interesting read. I don't think we'll ever agree on the use of the track and trace app (it may not be 100% effective, but that's what we have and it's better than nothing so I think we should use it).

You're in an enviable position where you are tested regularly - this has to be the long term goal for us all. If a simple, quick and cheap home testing kit can be rolled out then there wouldn't necessarily be a need for any lockdown.

This is exactly the attitude any sensible person would have, the reason the virus is spreading so much is because people think they know best and just ignore the guidance.

MattMattMattUK

Takmon said:

Bluetooth signal strength is a good indicator of how close you have been to someone else because the signal strength is stronger when your next to someone compared too if someone is farther away or on the other side of a wall. I really don't see why you don't think that would work because if everyone had it could very accurately track who they have been in contact with. 

It would work accurately if everyone used the same device, in the same case, balanced on top of their head. Outside of decide variables you have environmental impacts, which range from humidity through to complex interactions over distance with bodies, walls, tables, signal attenuation is too complex to account for in a basic app with an omni-directional antenna. It will never be able to complete the task "very accurately".

Takmon said:
This of course can be improved over time by refining the algorithm to more accurately determine exposure based on signal strength. 

The problem is junk data in, junk data out, the exposure can never be accurately calculated because it relies on one very low quality data source.

Takmon said:

All you seem interested in is saying nothing that has been implemented is good enough so your not going to even try and use it. Yes the government haven't handled it very well but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make the best of what there is available to use such as the tracking app.

I am saying that it is flawed to the point of being ineffective, therefore there is no point in using it as it is fundamentally flawed. I would use the best of what is available if it works, in the same way that I am not using magic crystals or praying to Imhotep, they might be the best available woo, but woo is still pointless.

Takmon said:
The fact is there is no detriment to you whatsoever by turning on the Bluetooth tracking but you refuse because you don't think it's good enough. Well it certainly won't help if you keep it off!.

Yes there is, I may well get false positive isolate notifications. It is not just not good enough, it is fundamentally flawed, if it was of low effectiveness then fine, but it is not, it generates false positives and does not work as intended. It will not help if I keep it on either, that is the issue. Meanwhile I will continue being tested 3-5 times a week and I will isolate if I return a positive test. 

Takmon

MattMattMattUK said:

Takmon said:

Bluetooth signal strength is a good indicator of how close you have been to someone else because the signal strength is stronger when your next to someone compared too if someone is farther away or on the other side of a wall. I really don't see why you don't think that would work because if everyone had it could very accurately track who they have been in contact with. 

It would work accurately if everyone used the same device, in the same case, balanced on top of their head. Outside of decide variables you have environmental impacts, which range from humidity through to complex interactions over distance with bodies, walls, tables, signal attenuation is too complex to account for in a basic app with an omni-directional antenna. It will never be able to complete the task "very accurately".

From my experience with Bluetooth devices and Bluetooth tracking devices they are able to quite accurate determine their distance from each other so there is no reason why this couldn't be as accurate in the NHS tracking app. What qualifies you to determine that it's not accurate enough and not possible?

silvercar

Takmon said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Takmon said:

Bluetooth signal strength is a good indicator of how close you have been to someone else because the signal strength is stronger when your next to someone compared too if someone is farther away or on the other side of a wall. I really don't see why you don't think that would work because if everyone had it could very accurately track who they have been in contact with. 

It would work accurately if everyone used the same device, in the same case, balanced on top of their head. Outside of decide variables you have environmental impacts, which range from humidity through to complex interactions over distance with bodies, walls, tables, signal attenuation is too complex to account for in a basic app with an omni-directional antenna. It will never be able to complete the task "very accurately".

From my experience with Bluetooth devices and Bluetooth tracking devices they are able to quite accurate determine their distance from each other so there is no reason why this couldn't be as accurate in the NHS tracking app. What qualifies you to determine that it's not accurate enough and not possible?

Can my phone's Bluetooth detect if I am outdoors or inside? Wearing a mask, visor or even PPE? 
Apart from the obvious, that my Bluetooth can't detect how near I am to my phone or how near the other person is to theirs. 

Takmon

silvercar said:

Takmon said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Takmon said:

Bluetooth signal strength is a good indicator of how close you have been to someone else because the signal strength is stronger when your next to someone compared too if someone is farther away or on the other side of a wall. I really don't see why you don't think that would work because if everyone had it could very accurately track who they have been in contact with. 

It would work accurately if everyone used the same device, in the same case, balanced on top of their head. Outside of decide variables you have environmental impacts, which range from humidity through to complex interactions over distance with bodies, walls, tables, signal attenuation is too complex to account for in a basic app with an omni-directional antenna. It will never be able to complete the task "very accurately".

From my experience with Bluetooth devices and Bluetooth tracking devices they are able to quite accurate determine their distance from each other so there is no reason why this couldn't be as accurate in the NHS tracking app. What qualifies you to determine that it's not accurate enough and not possible?

Can my phone's Bluetooth detect if I am outdoors or inside? Wearing a mask, visor or even PPE? 
Apart from the obvious, that my Bluetooth can't detect how near I am to my phone or how near the other person is to theirs. 

If your indoors wearing a mask, visor or have a screen up that won't stop transmission of the virus completely because you would still be breathing the same air as other people who could be contagious. If your outdoors with someone who is infected then your right the chances are that you won't catch it if you maintain a 2m distance.
Most people keep their phone in their pocket, if your leaving your phone in a locker or similar for example common sense would dictate you turn off the app.

But it obviously isn't perfect and i never claimed it was.