On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 16:56:01 -0400, micky wrote:

I said I'm not
interested in reasons -- reasons, not facts -- that you might give in
order to show that your assessments are true.

Micky,

You clearly stated your entire assessment is based on zero facts.
o You clearly stated you prefer to _ignore_ any and all facts.

Like these... (which are not "my" opinions but actual facts)...

"Evidence for the use of automated or partly automated contact-tracing
tools to contain severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
is scarce."
o Automated and partly automated contact tracing: a systematic review to inform the control of COVID-19
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landig/article/PIIS2589-7500(20)30184-9/fulltext

"One of the more insidious features of the new coronavirus
behind COVID-19 is its ability to settle into unsuspecting hosts
*who _never_ show signs of being sick* but are able to spread
the virus to others."
o Nearly Half of Coronavirus Spread May Be Traced to People Without Any Symptoms
https://time.com/5848949/covid-19-asymptomatic-spread/

"It will be an uphill battle even to hit the 10 percent mark in America.
Under a range of assumptions, the percentage of the population needed
to be enrolled in automated contact tracing for outbreak control (Re1)
was estimated (eg, 40%-60% uptake required for Re1, assuming a 30% mean
transmission probability per contact event, if 75%-95% actively confirm
when they get infected"
o What Ever Happened to Digital Contact Tracing?
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ever-happened-digital-contact-tracing

"56% of the general population must use the app to halt the outbreak"
"that equated to 80% of all existing smartphone owners"
"That's a very ambitious target"
"It's not something that would typically happen for a new app"
"even an incredibly popular one"
o Coronavirus: NHS contact tracing app to target 80% of smartphone users
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52294896