Thread: Covid 19 App poll.

Originally Posted by vnx205

Have they actually said that or have they just said that it will be useful to have a lot of people using it to make it safer to lift restrictions?

Yes they have said it. Basically saying load it or else - restrictions will not be lifted.

Do search as you will find statements like "The Government has flagged the number of app downloads as a critical factor influencing how quickly those restrictions are lifted".

Originally Posted by vnx205

However, I am a bit puzzled about all this resistance to tracking, whether the tracking is real or imagined.

Its not only tracking information - its the possible ability of the app to also obtain other information - the meta data breaches by the AFP (were against the law but still happened with no prosecutions) are an example.

Yes Google, Facebook, Apple and others may mine data from your phone and they are happy to use for their own money making purposes but they have shown a reluctance to allow Government authorities (particularly in the US) access to that data even with court orders.

With privacy breaches from these companies you may just end up with unwanted advertising, but with Government's you could end up caught in unwanted stings - just because you were involved with a baddie 3 times removed and did not know it. There are a few recent instances in Aust - meta data, bugs in meetings in Dili, whistle blowers going to gaol.

It happens.

That is what the headline of that article says. The rest of the article seems less explicit.

In any case, that was about three weeks ago. Has the government recently said that the restrictions won't be lifted unless xx% download it?

They might have said that it needs 40% to be effective. That is not the same as saying they won't lift the restrictions unless 40% download it.

Originally Posted by vnx205

In any case, that was about three weeks ago. Has the government recently said that the restrictions won't be lifted unless xx% download it?

Hmmm no a couple of days ago by the PM - as reported by the ABC - research it - but yes the requirement was first communicated a couple of weeks back but is still a requirement.

Originally Posted by 101RRS

Hmmm no a couple of days ago by the PM - as reported by the ABC - research it - but yes the requirement was first communicated a couple of weeks back but is still a requirement.

I have searched and it seems that headlines suggest that what you say is true. Some articles even imply the same thing.

However, I thought the official government website might report the policy more accurately than the media who seem to delight in sensationalising things. I have seen plenty of reports that could be interpreted as a threat if you were determined to see things that way.

On this site Coronavirus (COVID-19) - Official Australian Government information I found statements about how useful the app will be and how important it is for a lot of people to download it. I didn't see any statement about not lifting restrictions unless people download it.

At this stage my feeling is that it has suited some people and some media outlets to paint the government in the worst possible light by implying that there is a threat hanging over our heads.

Regardless of what might or might not have been said by politicians and reported in the media, I doubt that restrictions will remain in place simply because enough people refused to download the app.

On the other hand, I can envisage a situation where restrictions are lifted, cases of infection spike because of the difficulty of tracing contacts without the app, and restrictions have to be maintained or tightened. That is not the same as saying, "No lifting unless you download."

Originally Posted by vnx205

...I had to read your post a number of times trying to find something you had written that justified your "Definitely not" decision...

I had to do the same thing, and I wrote it!

If the virus was rampant up here I would consider downloading, although I would probably have to buy a new phone for software compatibility, and I would doubt it to be highly useful.

It seems, from previous posts, that contacts of 15 minutes or more would be tested.

It is a pity that the user cannot set the contact limit times - is it open source, hack the software for an alternate version?

By not having a mix of contact times ie 15 minutes, 5 minutes, one minute, 30 seconds etc researchers may be missing the opportunity to find the contact 'sweet spot', if there is one, might be bimondal/trimodal or no particular pattern at all. Again, are we wasting testing resources on long contacts. Trouble is we won't know because there is no flexibility in the system at the moment.

Some viruses require long periods of contact for transmission but are very lethal, and I would think long contact times would be more suitable. The current virus is very easily transmitted/less lethal and a shorter contact time would be better.

I cannot believe that a great many people have not yet signed up for the "App". Now that things are "freeing up", this ap will be more & more important in keeping this virus at bay,...and make no mistake, it is still a VERY dangerous virus. As an example, in Vic, during the last 24 hrs we had 10 new infections, EIGHT community based (we don't know the source),..and how many more have those eight infected been in contact with? That is what this ap is all about. . If everyone had the App, every possible person involved would be known & notified immediately. People who don't sign up could carry the virus unknowingly, they could unknowingly infect their loved ones. People waffle about "security"? ....and this is indeed "waffle" when one considers the amount of media /electronic/ social platforms that we all use. People/Relos/friends etc closest to "non signers", will be the people most likely to benefit from one's signing up, and conversely, very likely to be adversely affected by those that don't.
Pickles