In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 14 Sep 2020 04:38:40 -0000 (UTC), Arlen
Holder wrote:

On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 09:42:59 +1000, wrote:

Nope. If you get tested because the app has told
you that you were close enough for long enough
to a person who has tested positive to be at risk
of being infected, you have minimised the risk
of not being aware of being infected.

Hi Rod Speed,

What does your vaunted app tell you about asymptomatic carriers?

Or, about aerosols from people who left the room an hour prior?

Or contact with infected surfaces half a day later?

You don't understand the point of the app. It has nothign to do with
your physical environment, only what people you come close to, so you
can be contacted if they get covid.

If they have covid and they never know it but they give it to you, the
app won't help, until you give it to someone else and you get contacted
in reverse (though you may never know it was in reverse.)

Aerosols and surfaces are irrelevant to the app.

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 12:25:43 -0400, micky wrote:

If they have covid and they never know it but they give it to you, the
app won't help...

Aerosols and surfaces are irrelevant to the app.

Exactly my point.

FACT:
a. The facts are that the uptake isn't anywhere near what's needed
b. And even so, the apps miss asymptomatics, aerosol & surface exposure

ASSESSMENT:
c. Based on those facts, the apps can't possibly work in the western world.
d. And, based on other facts, they end up doing more harm than good.

You're welcome to disagree with my assessment of the facts
(people are funny that way); but logical adults can't disagree
with the facts (facts are funny that way).
--
Adults don't disagree on assessments until they agree on the facts.

On 15/09/2020 19.22, Arlen Holder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 12:25:43 -0400, micky wrote:

If they have covid and they never know it but they give it to you, the
app won't help...

Aerosols and surfaces are irrelevant to the app.

Exactly my point.

FACT:
a. The facts are that the uptake isn't anywhere near what's needed
b. And even so, the apps miss asymptomatics, aerosol & surface exposure

ASSESSMENT:
c. Based on those facts, the apps can't possibly work in the western world.
d. And, based on other facts, they end up doing more harm than good.

You're welcome to disagree with my assessment of the facts
(people are funny that way); but logical adults can't disagree
with the facts (facts are funny that way).


They are not facts, just your opinions.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 22:35:02 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

They are not facts, just your opinions.

Carlos,

I admit I have trouble responding to people who have your brain structure.
o I can't even imagine that people like you actually do exist.

Here, in Silicon Valley, people with your brain wouldn't last a week.

FACT #1:
o Uptake needs to be 80% of smartphone users & 56% of the population
according to epidemiologists.

That's not "my" opinion.
o That's quoted out of the BBC article previously cite for God's sake.

o Coronavirus: NHS contact tracing app to target 80% of smartphone users
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52294896

And it's in _plenty_ of other cites which I've provided in the past, as
it's the generally accepted factual assessment by epidemiologists.

Yet, you, Carlos, flatly reject the epidemiologists' assessment.
o With exactly _zero_ facts of your own to back up your flat rejection.

You may as well be claiming the earth is flat, Carlos.
o Your claims are based on exactly _zero_ facts.

FACT #2:
o The apps miss aerosol & surface & asymptomatic exposure.

How on earth can you say that's not a fact when
a. It's known aerosols persist longer than the app contact thresholds
b. It's known contact viability persists longer than app contact thresholds
c. It's known that asymptomatic people often don't even know they have it

For you to claim those are not facts indicates to me you don't have the
necessary skills to maintain even a semblance of an adult discourse.

It's sad, but people like you, Carlos, actually exist.
--
Here in the Silicon Valley, people like you couldn't possibly survive.

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 15 Sep 2020 17:22:16 -0000 (UTC), Arlen
Holder wrote:

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 12:25:43 -0400, micky wrote:

If they have covid and they never know it but they give it to you, the
app won't help...

Aerosols and surfaces are irrelevant to the app.

Exactly my point.

FACT:
a. The facts are that the uptake isn't anywhere near what's needed
b. And even so, the apps miss asymptomatics, aerosol & surface exposure

So do you have an app that will alert one for those things?

Your raising the points above is like saying , Because we can't predict
where lightning will hit, we don't need to report when lightning hits a
building or a person.

ASSESSMENT:
c. Based on those facts, the apps can't possibly work in the western world.
d. And, based on other facts, they end up doing more harm than good.

You're welcome to disagree with my assessment of the facts

I certainly do. You just pronounced them but didn't give any reason
they were true. But don't bother. I'm not interested.

(people are funny that way); but logical adults can't disagree
with the facts (facts are funny that way).

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 19:13:04 -0400, micky wrote:

So do you have an app that will alert one for those things?

Micky,

You literally declared below "you're not interested in facts".
o You literally stated your entire opinion, is based on _ignoring_ facts.

You are claiming the talisman works, even as it can't ever possibly work.
o It's the completely wrong approach altogether.

Your raising the points above is like saying , Because we can't predict
where lightning will hit, we don't need to report when lightning hits a
building or a person.

See my thread on this topic that it's the wrong approach from a while ago:
o Does a single person espousing the privacy sink covid trackers even know what a cytokine storm is?
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/sAcXqAUyZ_U

That entire thread is about the right approach.
o Read it.

You're welcome to disagree with my assessment of the facts

I certainly do.

Adults are welcome to disagree with assessments of facts.
o People are funny that way (i.e., they put different weights on the facts)

However, you disagree and yet, your assessment is based on 0 facts.
o Your _entire_ argument, is based purely on "wishful thinking".

You just pronounced them but didn't give any reason
they were true. But don't bother. I'm not interested.

In a sentence, you proved to _not_ be an adult, Micky.
1. You declared that you don't care about what epidemiologists claim.
2. You declared that you disagree with what epidemiologists claim.
3. You then declared that what epidemiologists claim is wrong.
4. And you did that based on exactly 0 facts.
5. Worse, you then declared, unilaterally, you don't care about facts.

You literally declared above "you're not interested in facts".
o You literally stated your entire opinion, is based on _ignoring_ facts.
--
The real problem is these ignorati vastly outnumber the intelligentsia.

On 15/09/2020 23.00, Arlen Holder wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 22:35:02 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

They are not facts, just your opinions.

Carlos,

I admit I have trouble responding to people who have your brain structure.
o I can't even imagine that people like you actually do exist.

Here, in Silicon Valley, people with your brain wouldn't last a week.

Insulting again. I'm, not reading the rest.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 16 Sep 2020 03:50:45 -0000 (UTC), Arlen
Holder wrote:

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 19:13:04 -0400, micky wrote:

So do you have an app that will alert one for those things?

Micky,

You literally declared below "you're not interested in facts".
o You literally stated your entire opinion, is based on _ignoring_ facts.

You are claiming the talisman works, even as it can't ever possibly work.
o It's the completely wrong approach altogether.

Your raising the points above is like saying , Because we can't predict
where lightning will hit, we don't need to report when lightning hits a
building or a person.

See my thread on this topic that it's the wrong approach from a while ago:
o Does a single person espousing the privacy sink covid trackers even know what a cytokine storm is?
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/sAcXqAUyZ_U

That entire thread is about the right approach.
o Read it.

You're welcome to disagree with my assessment of the facts

I certainly do.

Adults are welcome to disagree with assessments of facts.
o People are funny that way (i.e., they put different weights on the facts)

However, you disagree and yet, your assessment is based on 0 facts.
o Your _entire_ argument, is based purely on "wishful thinking".

You just pronounced them but didn't give any reason
they were true. But don't bother. I'm not interested.
===================================

In a sentence, you proved to _not_ be an adult, Micky.
1. You declared that you don't care about what epidemiologists claim.
2. You declared that you disagree with what epidemiologists claim.
3. You then declared that what epidemiologists claim is wrong.
4. And you did that based on exactly 0 facts.
5. Worse, you then declared, unilaterally, you don't care about facts.

You literally declared above "you're not interested in facts".

No, I did not. Not literally** or any other way. I said I'm not
interested in reasons -- reasons, not facts -- that you might give in
order to show that your assessments are true.

You gave 2 lines of assessments with no reasons that they were true, and
I'm no longer interested in seeing reasons. Reasons are not just facts,
they require logical arguments to tie the facts together, and I'm not
interested any more. I was at first, but you dragged it out and I lost
interest.

**I don't think you know what "literally" means.

o You literally stated your entire opinion, is based on _ignoring_ facts.

No I said nothing of the sort. My words were not that complicated and
you didn't read my words very carefully.

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

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 16 Sep 2020 21:42:32 -0000 (UTC), Arlen
Holder wrote:

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.

Of course my assessment of your post was based on facts. The facts of
what you posted. I went over those in some detail.

I don't usually snip so I've including the rest of what you wrote. It's
not worth reading, because it seems to try to support your sentencer
above, which is unsupportable. If you ever have one clear point to
make, make it one reasonably long sentence and people will consider it.



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

It happens that micky formulated :
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 16 Sep 2020 21:42:32 -0000 (UTC), Arlen
Holder wrote:

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.

Of course my assessment of your post was based on facts. The facts of
what you posted. I went over those in some detail.

I don't usually snip so I've including the rest of what you wrote. It's
not worth reading, because it seems to try to support your sentencer
above, which is unsupportable. If you ever have one clear point to
make, make it one reasonably long sentence and people will consider it.

The app doesn't work.
Why doesn't the app work?
Not enough participation.
Why is there not enough participation?
Because some people convince others that it doesn't work.
How do they convince them?
They scare them with security issues they don't understand and then
show them that there is not enough participation for it to work anyway.
Why is there not enough participation?

A self-fulfilling prophecy.

On 17/09/2020 16.46, FromTheRafters wrote:
It happens that micky formulated :
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 16 Sep 2020 21:42:32 -0000 (UTC), Arlen
Holder wrote:

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.

Of course my assessment of your post was based on facts.* The facts of
what you posted. I went over those in some detail.
I don't usually snip so I've including the rest of what you wrote.* It's
not worth reading, because it seems to try to support your sentencer
above, which is unsupportable.*** If you ever have one clear point to
make, make it one reasonably long sentence and people will consider it.

The app doesn't work.
Why doesn't the app work?
Not enough participation.
Why is there not enough participation?
Because some people convince others that it doesn't work.
How do they convince them?
They scare them with security issues they don't understand and then show
them that there is not enough participation for it to work anyway.
Why is there not enough participation?

A self-fulfilling prophecy.

Absolutely.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 10:46:28 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:

A self-fulfilling prophecy.

Hi FromTheRafters,

Assuming 100% uptake how does your app handle these asymptomatics?

I realize you _think_ you figured it all out, and I commend you for
"thinking" that you figured it all out (albeit, using the logic of someone
who ignored all the facts), which is that, to you, the only problem with
the apps is uptake.

OK. Let's _test_ your theory, shall we?
o Let's get rid of that problem.

Yup.

Let's assume 100% uptake, so your model now stands a chance of working.
o I'm, being very gracious, am I not? I'm giving you 100% uptake.

For free.
o Now what?

Simply take into account this simple but well known reliable fact:
o Nearly Half of Coronavirus Spread May Be Traced to People Without Any Symptoms
https://time.com/5848949/covid-19-asymptomatic-spread/
"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."

Now what?
--
Assuming 100% uptake how does your app handle these asymptomatics?

On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 22:15:19 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

A self-fulfilling prophecy.

Absolutely.

Carlos,

What does your vaunted app tell you in cases (a), (b), & (c) below?

Let's give you the 100% uptake you seek.
o Let's assume a world-wide autocratic decree - under penalty of death.

OK.
o You got exactly what you asked for, which is 100% uptake.

How exactly does your plan work now for all the people who get infected by:
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

In summary, assume a decree, punishable by hanging, that everyone must
carry around these surveillance apps - and then ask yourself how you're
going to handle the infections that occur in the real world.

What does your vaunted app tell you in cases (a), (b), & (c) above?
--
Usenet allows people with huge diversities of intelligence to communicate.

"Arlen Holder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 10:46:28 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:

Assuming 100% uptake how does your app

It isnt his app.

handle these asymptomatics?

You have already been told repeatedly
and that even it it didn’t, its still useful.

I realize you _think_ you figured it all out, and I commend
you for "thinking" that you figured it all out (albeit, using
the logic of someone who ignored all the facts), which is
that, to you, the only problem with the apps is uptake.

That isnt the only problem with apps.

OK. Let's _test_ your theory, shall we?
o Let's get rid of that problem.

Yup.

Let's assume 100% uptake, so your model now stands a chance of working.

Its USEFUL even without 100% uptake.

Simply take into account this simple but well known reliable fact:

That isnt in fact a well know reliable fact, liar.

o Nearly Half of Coronavirus Spread May Be Traced to People Without Any
Symptoms
https://time.com/5848949/covid-19-asymptomatic-spread/
"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."

Now what?

The app works with those who arent asymptomatic
and with the asymptomatic who do get tested for other
reasons and who turn out to be positive when tested.
--
Assuming 100% uptake how does your app handle these asymptomatics?

Of course it does with some of them. No one
with a clue has ever claimed that the app or any
other approach to the virus is perfect, stupid.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 08:54:05 +1000, wrote:

You have already been told repeatedly
and that even it it didn¢t, its still useful.

Assuming the world law, punishable by death, is mandatory "app".
o Now what?

Assume you have 100% app uptake in the entire world, Rod Speed...
o What exactly do those apps tell all the people exposed to...

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

Hint: Nothing.
--
Usenet allows people of varying intelligence to attempt adult discourse.

"Arlen Holder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 08:54:05 +1000, wrote:

You have already been told repeatedly
and that even it it didn¢t, its still useful.

Assuming the world law, punishable by death, is mandatory "app".
o Now what?

Assume you have 100% app uptake in the entire world...
o What exactly do those apps tell all the people exposed to...

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

Hint: Nothing.

Still useful when it tells those that they have been close
enough for long enough to someone who has later tested
positive that it would be a good idea to get tested, ****wit.

No one ever claimed that any approach with this virus
works with all the ways of getting infected, ****wit.

Arlen Holder wrote on 9/17/2020 :
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 10:46:28 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:

A self-fulfilling prophecy.

Hi FromTheRafters,

Assuming 100% uptake how does your app handle these asymptomatics?

I realize you _think_ you figured it all out, and I commend you for
"thinking" that you figured it all out (albeit, using the logic of someone
who ignored all the facts), which is that, to you, the only problem with
the apps is uptake.

OK. Let's _test_ your theory, shall we?
o Let's get rid of that problem.

Yup.

Let's assume 100% uptake, so your model now stands a chance of working.
o I'm, being very gracious, am I not? I'm giving you 100% uptake.

For free.
o Now what?

Simply take into account this simple but well known reliable fact:
o Nearly Half of Coronavirus Spread May Be Traced to People Without Any
Symptoms https://time.com/5848949/covid-19-asymptomatic-spread/
"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."

Now what?

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.

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.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 09:43:22 +1000, wrote:

No one ever claimed that any approach with this virus
works with all the ways of getting infected, ****wit.

Rod Speed,

You can't have a plan that completely ignores all the facts.
o You just can't.

Your plan either deals with the facts, or it's complete bull****.
o Pick one.

In an attempt to get you to consider the facts, I ask 1 question.

Assume you have 100% app uptake in the entire world, Rod Speed...
o What exactly do those apps tell all the people exposed to...
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

FACT:
What, exactly, do the apps tell the users in those circumstances?
o Your answer = ?

Hint: Absolutely nothing.
--
Usenet allows people of varying intelligence to attempt adult discourse.

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"?

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

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.
--
Usenet allows intelligent people to discuss difficult topics of import.

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.