Would you visit a place that wants to track your movements?

[Winnigirl]

They'd probably fall asleep from boredom.  I don't have a problem with it.  Especially if it could get things back to normal sooner.

[Nic6318]

5 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

Suppose some 'contact tracer person' decides you need to quarantine for a few weeks based upon these tracking algorithms?  

 

Hi Rocketman, 

 

25 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

Now how will this contact tracer:

Know how close you came to the infected person?

Know how long you were in contact (remember fifteen minutes minimum)?

 

 

 

 

In regards to these questions, as far as I understand, that would be part of what an app would be looking at. As far as your other question, I don't believe they matter.

 

Wouldn't you want to know if you were in close proximity to someone who tested positive? The concept isn't for you to immediately quarantine yourself, the idea is to inform you that you have been in close contact with someone who tested +. 

 

With that information, you can go somewhere and get tested yourself, instead of not knowing and potentially spreading the virus. It really isn't complicated. Would you really rather not know?

[calliopecruiser]

57 minutes ago, RocketMan275 said:

Now how will this contact tracer:

Whether the infected one was asymptomatic at the time of the contact? 

Know how close you came to the infected person?

Know if the infected one was wearing one of those mask that protect others?  If he was, then how were you infected?

Know how long you were in contact (remember fifteen minutes minimum)?

Know whether the location was inclosed?

Know the particulars of the ventilation of the location?

None of that matters -- all are a reason to be tested.  That's the bottom line: to find out who might have been exposed and therefore who should get tested for the disease.   Whether transmission is likely or rare -- doesn't matter.  To really, properly, get a handle on this disease and the spread, there should be full contact tracing and testing.

 

None of those "rules" about transmission are 100% anyway (and I no longer trust the CDC to tell me when the sun is rising, let alone how to protect myself from disease) -- "those masks" block a significant amount of virus-laden droplets, but not all.  That "15 minutes" depends not just on who's there and what the ventilation is, but who's talking and how many droplets are they expelling.  Those "rules" are things that minimize the risk, they don't get rid of the risk. 

 

It is a shame that one of the world's most trusted sources for health information and help has become corrupted to the point where they've lost most of their credibility.

 

[RocketMan275]

1 hour ago, Nic6318 said:

 

Hi Rocketman, 

 

 

In regards to these questions, as far as I understand, that would be part of what an app would be looking at. As far as your other question, I don't believe they matter.

 

Wouldn't you want to know if you were in close proximity to someone who tested positive? The concept isn't for you to immediately quarantine yourself, the idea is to inform you that you have been in close contact with someone who tested +. 

 

With that information, you can go somewhere and get tested yourself, instead of not knowing and potentially spreading the virus. It really isn't complicated. Would you really rather not know?

 

57 minutes ago, calliopecruiser said:

None of that matters -- all are a reason to be tested.  That's the bottom line: to find out who might have been exposed and therefore who should get tested for the disease.   Whether transmission is likely or rare -- doesn't matter.  To really, properly, get a handle on this disease and the spread, there should be full contact tracing and testing.

 

None of those "rules" about transmission are 100% anyway (and I no longer trust the CDC to tell me when the sun is rising, let alone how to protect myself from disease) -- "those masks" block a significant amount of virus-laden droplets, but not all.  That "15 minutes" depends not just on who's there and what the ventilation is, but who's talking and how many droplets are they expelling.  Those "rules" are things that minimize the risk, they don't get rid of the risk. 

 

It is a shame that one of the world's most trusted sources for health information and help has become corrupted to the point where they've lost most of their credibility.

 

Your comments accurately describe some of the issues of how unreliable these contact tracing apps are.  Excellent article in today's Wall Street Journal on their shortcomings.

 

Are we so afraid of this virus that we will give the government the ability to track our locations all day, every day?

 

If you do not trust the CDC to issue accurate information, why would you trust your local beaurocrat to determine, based upon these unreliable apps, whether you should be quarantined or not?

 

The point is these apps are likely to be so inaccurate that they will not provide a correct assessment of whether you should be tested or not.  For example, apps relying upon GPS for location cannot determine which floor of a building you're on.  You might be 20 floors away from the infected one.  The bluetooth apps could indicate a need to test because you were in a car next to an infected one in another car, a situation very unlikely to lead to an infection.

Edited June 22, 2020 by RocketMan275

[calliopecruiser]

1 hour ago, RocketMan275 said:

If you do not trust the CDC to issue accurate information, why would you trust your local beaurocrat to determine, based upon these unreliable apps, whether you should be quarantined or not?

I don't, but I do trust my local health unit to determine, based on the app, whether I need to be tested or not.  I am happy to be tested if they think I've been in contact with someone who's had the virus........why isn't everyone?

 

FWIW, everyone (including Americans) have other sources of health information other than the CDC and its corrupting influence - the Internet gives us access to experts around the world.  And, as an added bonus, I'm not American.

 

(edited for grammar)

 

Edited June 22, 2020 by calliopecruiser

[RocketMan275]

16 minutes ago, calliopecruiser said:

I don't, but I do trust my local health unit to determine, based on the app, whether I need to be tested or not.  I am happy to be tested if they think I've been in contact with someone who's had the virus........why isn't everyone?

 

FWIW, everyone (including Americans) have other sources of health information other than the CDC and its corrupting influence - the Internet gives us access to experts around the world.  And, as an added bonus, I'm not American.

 

(edited for grammar)

 

I would be fine with a recommendation to get a test.  Many have expressed concerns about being quarantined on a ship for a couple of weeks because a fellow passenger tests positive.  It's easy to see how some jurisdictions could use these apps to determine if someone should be quarantined.  That's scary considering how inaccurate and imprecise these apps appear to be.  

[ldubs]

6 hours ago, calliopecruiser said:

 

I'm not sure it should be, since this is a public health emergency.  I'm not sure someone should be allowed to opt out of a public health emergency and therefore continue to put others, as well as the economy and the healthcare system, at risk. 

 

Most people alive today have never lived through a national or global emergency, and they think staying home for a few months is an unbearable hardship when they have haircuts to get and baseball games to play.  And in a country that was founded on and values individualism over community, they don't see a need to, either. 

 

 

Probably just a forum glitch of some type, but the comment you are responding to was not a quote by me, even though it is shown below my name.  The comment was made by Rocketman, not me.   

 

 

[ldubs]

4 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

First of all, privacy laws prevent the sharing of personal health information so you cannot be informed of 'who, when, where, etc.'  If you do not know those things how are you going to appeal?

 

Consider these facts:

WHO has said that asymptomatic contagion is "extremely rare".

We were told to avoid coming closer than six feet.

We were told to wear a mask to protect others.

Bluetooth cellphone has a range of 33 feet (more or less).

CDC says it takes an exposure of 15 to 30 minutes in an inclosed and poorly ventilated space to infect someone.

 

 

Now how will this contact tracer:

Whether the infected one was asymptomatic at the time of the contact? 

Know how close you came to the infected person?

Know if the infected one was wearing one of those mask that protect others?  If he was, then how were you infected?

Know how long you were in contact (remember fifteen minutes minimum)?

Know whether the location was inclosed?

Know the particulars of the ventilation of the location?

 

IOW, these contact tracer apps will less useful than those Weather Warning Apps.

 

 

 

Sorry, I don't know what the privacy laws are in the countries proposing this type of tracking.  I thought you were asking me.  

 

If this type of tracking technology is used, then there are obvious follow up issues before someone is asked to quarantine.   Seems like a reasonable course of action.  We have humans out doing contact tracing now.  This would seem to just make their job easier to me.   

 

Anyway, I find many of your comments to be thought provoking discussions.  I just don't happen to agree with you on this issue.  

[ldubs]

1 hour ago, calliopecruiser said:

I don't, but I do trust my local health unit to determine, based on the app, whether I need to be tested or not.  I am happy to be tested if they think I've been in contact with someone who's had the virus........why isn't everyone?

 

 

I'm going to admit I'm talking from memory and may be wrong, but wouldn't a quarantine for at least 5 days be needed before a test would be valid.  In other words, I'm exposed today.  I have the virus. There is a waiting period before the test is accurate.  

 

I would love it if an immediate test could clear someone but that just doesn't seem possible if I remember correctly.  

[RocketMan275]

29 minutes ago, ldubs said:

Anyway, I find many of your comments to be thought provoking discussions.  I just don't happen to agree with you on this issue.  

I must admit there are no good answers in the face of this virus.  I do think it's important to have these discussions rather than just accept what the 'scientists' have to say.  

[calliopecruiser]

1 hour ago, ldubs said:

but wouldn't a quarantine for at least 5 days be needed before a test would be valid.  In other words, I'm exposed today.  I have the virus. There is a waiting period before the test is accurate.  

Not that I'm aware of, and scientifically it doesn't make sense -- the tests are looking for nucleic acid of the virus itself (i.e. antigen), which will be in your body immediately after infection.  They are not doing serology tests, looking for the body's immune response to the virus (antibodies) - those antibodies will take a while to develop, but the time depends on which type of antibodies the test can measure. 

 

Serology testing (to see if one has been exposed, whether or not there's an active infection) are being developed, but I don't  believe any are available yet with sufficiently accurate results.   That type of testing is a goal, but it's not available yet. 

[2wheelin]

2 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

I would be fine with a recommendation to get a test.  Many have expressed concerns about being quarantined on a ship for a couple of weeks because a fellow passenger tests positive.  It's easy to see how some jurisdictions could use these apps to determine if someone should be quarantined.  That's scary considering how inaccurate and imprecise these apps appear to be.  

This is a primary concern, that one would be detained, possibly in a foreign country to complete the waiting period—14 days—for symptoms or adequate testing to prove negative.

People who recently participated in protests with 10000 of their closest friends went the following day and were happy to test negative. Total waste of a test and false security.

To the person who included DNA testing as a non worry, how will you feel when your insurance company refuses coverage for your half million dollar or more cancer treatment because it was in your DNA?

[cbr663]

Interesting the comments on this topic when as cruisers, we are tracked all the time on cruise ships.

 

Our on-board cards allow a great deal of tracking throughout the ship.  Cameras capture most of the rest.  Princess cruises medallions allow a great deal of tracking.  Even crusiecritic has trackers.

 

As for COVID-19 tracing apps, they do not use the GPS on your phone at all.  Personal information is stored on your own device.  The app works through the bluetooth on your phone and assigns a random identifying number when you come into contact with another phone's bluetooth. 

 

If you test positive, you have the option to allow the test result to be shared with all the random numbers stored in your phone.  Anyone who came into contact with you who also has the app will receive a notice that they have been in contact with someone who has tested positive and to get tested themselves.  They won't receive any information as to where the contact occurred as that information isn't collected.  They won't receive who was the contact as that information isn't collected.

[ldubs]

2 hours ago, calliopecruiser said:

Not that I'm aware of, and scientifically it doesn't make sense -- the tests are looking for nucleic acid of the virus itself (i.e. antigen), which will be in your body immediately after infection.  They are not doing serology tests, looking for the body's immune response to the virus (antibodies) - those antibodies will take a while to develop, but the time depends on which type of antibodies the test can measure. 

 

Serology testing (to see if one has been exposed, whether or not there's an active infection) are being developed, but I don't  believe any are available yet with sufficiently accurate results.   That type of testing is a goal, but it's not available yet. 

 

It sounds like you have credentials.   I think perhaps what I was saying hinges on the definition of active infection vs when someone was actually exposed.  All I know (or thought I knew) is I've read the current test is not likely to show a positive until the virus has had a chance to grab hold (an active infection) and that can take 3 to 5 days after exposure. .  So someone exposed today would likely test negative but then test positive 3 to 5 days later when the symptoms happen.   That was the reason I suggested a test right after exposure might not be a good protocol.      

 

Serology testing sure sounds like a winner.   

[ldubs]

2 hours ago, 2wheelin said:

 

To the person who included DNA testing as a non worry, how will you feel when your insurance company refuses coverage for your half million dollar or more cancer treatment because it was in your DNA?

 

I suggested I was not worried about a DNA database because I feel the benefits outweigh the negatives.   Tests currently happen to identify hereditary illnesses. The tests are covered under our health ins policy.  A hereditary illness is not excluded in our policy.     Does your policy exclude cancer that is in your DNA?  

[2wheelin]

3 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

I suggested I was not worried about a DNA database because I feel the benefits outweigh the negatives.   Tests currently happen to identify hereditary illnesses. The tests are covered under our health ins policy.  A hereditary illness is not excluded in our policy.     Does your policy exclude cancer that is in your DNA?  

Not yet but last year would you have predicted travel insurance would not include a viral infection?

[2wheelin]

6 hours ago, calliopecruiser said:

 

Serology testing (to see if one has been exposed, whether or not there's an active infection) are being developed, but I don't  believe any are available yet with sufficiently accurate results.   That type of testing is a goal, but it's not available yet. 

Highly accurate serology tests have been developed at my institution and are being offered to all 30000 employees.

[ilikeanswers]

39 minutes ago, 2wheelin said:

Not yet but last year would you have predicted travel insurance would not include a viral infection?

 

A little off topic but for the sake of accuracy technically it is not excluding viral infections just Pandemic circumstances which is something from what I understand has always been an exclusion. 

[calliopecruiser]

5 hours ago, 2wheelin said:

Not yet but last year would you have predicted travel insurance would not include a viral infection?

I'm sure it does include a viral infection, just not this viral infection.

 

 

Can you provide me a link about that serology test?  I'd love to know more about it.

[calliopecruiser]

8 hours ago, ldubs said:

Serology testing sure sounds like a winner.   

It has pros and cons, just like an antigen test.  They do different things, and neither is right for all circumstances.

 

Fortunately, it seems that mutation is rare (or slow), so it looks like reinfection risk is low.  But it's only been 6 months, and there's still so much we're learning about this new disease. 

[RocketMan275]

11 hours ago, cbr663 said:

Interesting the comments on this topic when as cruisers, we are tracked all the time on cruise ships.

 

Our on-board cards allow a great deal of tracking throughout the ship.  Cameras capture most of the rest.  Princess cruises medallions allow a great deal of tracking.  Even crusiecritic has trackers.

 

As for COVID-19 tracing apps, they do not use the GPS on your phone at all.  Personal information is stored on your own device.  The app works through the bluetooth on your phone and assigns a random identifying number when you come into contact with another phone's bluetooth. 

 

If you test positive, you have the option to allow the test result to be shared with all the random numbers stored in your phone.  Anyone who came into contact with you who also has the app will receive a notice that they have been in contact with someone who has tested positive and to get tested themselves.  They won't receive any information as to where the contact occurred as that information isn't collected.  They won't receive who was the contact as that information isn't collected.

There are multiple tracking apps being developed by multiple organizations.  Some use GPS.  Some use bluetooth.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-is-reopening-coronavirus-tracking-apps-arent-ready-11592845646?mod=hp_lead_pos13

 

The problem with bluetooth on a cell phone is it has a range of 33 feet.  CDC says maintaining a six foot separation to avoid infection.  IOW, the cell phone would detect an infected person at over five times the CDC recommendation overstating the degree of exposure.  Nor does the app determine if the infected person is wearing a mask that is supposed to protect those around him.  CDC also states that infection requires prolonged (over 15 minutes) contact in a poorly ventilated enclosed space.  It's not at all clear how the apps would consider masking or ventilation.

 

It's one thing if the app only informs the wearer of the potential contact.  At worse, it might cause a number of persons to seek unnecessary testing.   It's another thing if the app reports to local authorities who, BTW, are behind the development of these apps.

[cbr663]

1 hour ago, RocketMan275 said:

There are multiple tracking apps being developed by multiple organizations.  Some use GPS.  Some use bluetooth.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-is-reopening-coronavirus-tracking-apps-arent-ready-11592845646?mod=hp_lead_pos13

 

The problem with bluetooth on a cell phone is it has a range of 33 feet.  CDC says maintaining a six foot separation to avoid infection.  IOW, the cell phone would detect an infected person at over five times the CDC recommendation overstating the degree of exposure.  Nor does the app determine if the infected person is wearing a mask that is supposed to protect those around him.  CDC also states that infection requires prolonged (over 15 minutes) contact in a poorly ventilated enclosed space.  It's not at all clear how the apps would consider masking or ventilation.

 

It's one thing if the app only informs the wearer of the potential contact.  At worse, it might cause a number of persons to seek unnecessary testing.   It's another thing if the app reports to local authorities who, BTW, are behind the development of these apps.

 

The programs are able to detect the difference between 33 feet and 6 feet and only note that you have been in range for the appropriate amount of time. 

 

Masking and ventilation play a role, but not as substantial a role as actually being in contact with the virus.

 

The point though is that anyone with a cell phone or uses the internet is already consenting to a high level of tracing.  When we connect our phones to our vehicles we share a substantial amount of information.  As cruisers, we already consent to a high level of tracing when we voluntarily step foot on a cruise ship.

 

I agree that we should all exercise caution with these apps to make sure we fully understand what information is actually collected and how it is used.  We should already be used to doing that anyway, as we do that we every new service that we subscribe to and every new update to our computers, tablets, phones, IoT,  and other devices.

[RocketMan275]

53 minutes ago, cbr663 said:

 

The programs are able to detect the difference between 33 feet and 6 feet and only note that you have been in range for the appropriate amount of time. 

 

Masking and ventilation play a role, but not as substantial a role as actually being in contact with the virus.

 

The point though is that anyone with a cell phone or uses the internet is already consenting to a high level of tracing.  When we connect our phones to our vehicles we share a substantial amount of information.  As cruisers, we already consent to a high level of tracing when we voluntarily step foot on a cruise ship.

 

I agree that we should all exercise caution with these apps to make sure we fully understand what information is actually collected and how it is used.  We should already be used to doing that anyway, as we do that we every new service that we subscribe to and every new update to our computers, tablets, phones, IoT,  and other devices.

First, one can turn off much of the tracing.  It's not clear that one can turn these apps off if these apps are adopted as a public health tool.

 

Second, I would like an explanation of how one uses bluetooth to measure range.  Signal strength isn't a good measure.

 

Since CDC said that contagion requires prolonged contact (>15 minutes) in a poorly ventilated and enclosed space for contagion, it would appear those factors are substantial roles.

[ilikeanswers]

@RocketMan275 Since you feel so strongly against tracking apps would that effect your decision in visiting a place if they did enforce it as a rule of entry?

[RocketMan275]

1 hour ago, ilikeanswers said:

@RocketMan275 Since you feel so strongly against tracking apps would that effect your decision in visiting a place if they did enforce it as a rule of entry?

If given a choice, I avoid places that track me.

 

One of the first things I do when I get a new phone is turn off all the tracking features I can.

Too many apps employ tracking as a means of collecting sellable.  For example, I bought a thermometer that allowed me to monitor the temperature of meat cooking on my grill from my cell phone.   I no longer use it because it wanted to access my location.  Now why, pray tell, does a thermometer need to know my location?  Answer: the app sells the data.

 

I really see no reason to give the app developer an avenue to send me more ads about the special at the Starbucks I see ahead.

 

I guess I've had too much opsec training to be indifferent about being tracked.