Arlen Holder formulated the question :
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 19:47:31 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:

It's the same as the mask (source control) claim, "What about the
fomite vector?" and "What about aerosols?" -- it simply does not
address those things which are addressed elsewhere with hand washing
frequency and duration, PPE, and social distancing. No one thing will
address all vectors at once with 100 percent effectiveness, but there's
no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater here either.

Hi FromTheRafters,

You're _different_ from people like Rod Speed who ignore all the facts.
o You at least show you comprehend some of the most basic of the facts.

Remember what I'm trying to get you to do here please:
1. Adults always agree on facts, which has to happen first & foremost.
(facts are funny that way);
2. Only _after_ they agree on facts can they disagree on assessments.
(adults are funny that way)

Why would adults disagree on assessments?
o Because they put different weight on each of the facts.

Why would adults disagree on facts?
o Because, as with Rod Speed, facts are inconvenient to their argument.

If you manage a hockey team, you might have good reason to promote use
of such an app in your local community even with all of its faults.

All I'm trying to get you to do, FromTheRafters, which I think you are
capable of doing, is to get you to carry on an adult conversation.

The "assessment" of the efficacy of these surveillance apps does not depend
only on a single fact.

The "assessment" of the efficacy of these surveillance apps depends on LOTS
of facts.

So far, the _only_ fact you can agree upon is that the apps completely miss
a. infectious aerosols from people having left the room long ago
b. contaminated surfaces from people who left the room long ago
c. droplet contact with asymptomatic carriers of the disease

OK. That's a start at the barest minimum level necessary to carry on an
adult conversation about the efficacy of these surveillance apps.

Unfortunately, there are _more_ facts we need to agree upon, where with Rod
Speed, we'll _never_ get to the 2nd or 3rd or 4th or 5th (etc.) level,
which I have long ago done - but I'm trying to get _you_ to get where I am.

OK?

There are so many facts for us to agree upon in order to properly "assess"
if these surveillance apps can possibly ever work, but let's start with
this one.

What R0 are epidemiologists widely reported to claim we need to get to in
order for us to claim that the use of these apps are "effective"?

Effective at slowing the rate, or effective at reducing R_e below 1. It
is not an all or nothing proposition.

I know the answer to that question.
o Do you?

Yes, but R_0 is not the same as R_e. They want the actual effective
rate to drop below 1 to indicate exponential 'decay' has started as
opposed to exponential 'growth' or 'stasis'.

Once we get there, I have plenty more facts to confirm with you...
o But let's just start with that one because it's simply a number.

HINT: We actually covered this already, in one of the cites I provided.

I already know this stuff, no need to patronize.

I did want to ask you if you had heard anything about the crowdsourcing
app used to detect the outbreak initially? One of the seminars or
conference videos mentioned early on that chinese doctors had sent data
to the database (to the app team in Chicago?) and the app alerted to an
outbreak before they even knew there was one. The doctors confirmed it
before the government's heavy handedness shut them up.

Many others have mentioned a 'thermometer' maybe a BlueTooth IoT device
of some sort. I'm asking because I want to read more about it if
possible.