NHS App

[swill453]

So presumably, if you are told to isolate, and then the app notices you are in a crowded room, it can at least "nag" the user that they should be self isolating. I wonder if it does? Perhaps a police siren would be an appropriate notification.

It wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that and a large household who were all running the app.

Scott.

[gryffron]

It wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that and a large household who were all running the app.

It would have seen all those phones before - frequently. It must remember past contacts for notification. So pretty easy to work out who are your household, who your workmates, who your drinking buddies. Presumably it also knows the difference between an isolating and non-isolating contact? In theory an isolating person should never come into contact with a non-isolating one. Depends how smart they've actually made it.

Gryff

[swill453]

It wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that and a large household who were all running the app.

It would have seen all those phones before - frequently. It must remember past contacts for notification. So pretty easy to work out who are your household, who your workmates, who your drinking buddies.

No. New random codes are generated frequently, so it can't identify frequent contacts.

Presumably it also knows the difference between an isolating and non-isolating contact?

No, that information isn't available to it.

Scott.

[vrdiver]

Presumably it also knows the difference between an isolating and non-isolating contact?

No, that information isn't currently available to it.

My ammendment to your statement hopefully illustrates the trust issue.

What's to stop a future update being able to alert authorities if a phone is not self-isolating when advised to, with consequent fine and limited, if any, appeal process?

VRD

[swill453]

What's to stop a future update being able to alert authorities if a phone is not self-isolating when advised to, with consequent fine and limited, if any, appeal process?

Because it won't be able to tell, for the reason I explained, and this is baked into the framework that the developers don't have access to change.

Scott.

[vrdiver]

What's to stop a future update being able to alert authorities if a phone is not self-isolating when advised to, with consequent fine and limited, if any, appeal process?

Because it won't be able to tell, for the reason I explained, and this is baked into the framework that the developers don't have access to change.

You are most probably correct, but who controls the framework? Why would I trust the government not to introduce scope creep? Especially if the situation gets worse w.r.t. CV19.

VRD

(Yes, paranoid that an incompetent government (basing my judgement on having seen quite a few government IT programmes) could turn a track-and-trace app into a big-brother nightmare quite by accident.)

[sg31]

I've not installed the app. This whole area is a 'not spot'. If out and about signal is weak to none existent unless I visit a local town. They are 4 and 11 miles away and I just don't go there. The only time the app might be applicable is if I go on a long car journey. I don't plan on doing so.

Signal is so bad I just don't carry my mobile most of the time.

People coming to this area who have the app may find themselves at risk but the app not reporting it. We get a lot of people coming into the area from the regional city 25 miles away. They have caravans around here, they could quite easily meet others from the city who are infected and be none the wiser.

I know if I met an infected person in this area my phone might speak to theirs but I don't see how it would report it until that person left the area and seeing as I won't go within range of the signal my phone wouldn't tell me I'm at risk.

If anyone can tell me how the app might protect me I will of course download it.

[Stompa]

I spend most of my outside time walking in open space so 98% of the app's battery drain would be pointless.

Well FWIW I fully charged my phone this morning, and have spent 6 hours wandering around with it in my pocket. It's not been used at all in that time, but presumably the app has been doing bluetoothy stuff. In that 6 hours my battery has dropped from 100% to 99%.

As I understand it, the app uses Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), rather than Classic Bluetooth, which is much more efficient as it remains in sleep mode most of the time.

[Mike4]

So this morning according the the BBC, a new law takes effect where if one is instructed to self isolate by the "Test and Trace" service, or by the NHS app, one is obliged to do so or be fined £1,000.

Have you got a link to that? Since nobody but yourself knows if the app tells you to self isolate, applying a fine to those who don't is completely unenforceable.

EDIT: this story talks about the fine, but doesn't mention the app https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54320482

Scott.

It was a report on the "Today" programme on R4 this morning. I turned it on about 6.30am but I think they said it about 7.30am. My ears pricked up specifically when I heard the claim about the app as to me it didn't ring true.

I'll skim through the broadcast again later on the "play again" function and see if I can grab a time, then post a link.

Just to update the board. I think I've led you up the garden path. I've listened again now to the whole programme and this time I didn't notice any such claim about the app.

So either my brain made it up in the earliness of listening, or the BBC edited it out. I know which is the more likely

[swill453]

I've not installed the app. This whole area is a 'not spot'. If out and about signal is weak to none existent unless I visit a local town. They are 4 and 11 miles away and I just don't go there. The only time the app might be applicable is if I go on a long car journey. I don't plan on doing so.

Signal is so bad I just don't carry my mobile most of the time.

People coming to this area who have the app may find themselves at risk but the app not reporting it. We get a lot of people coming into the area from the regional city 25 miles away. They have caravans around here, they could quite easily meet others from the city who are infected and be none the wiser.

I know if I met an infected person in this area my phone might speak to theirs but I don't see how it would report it until that person left the area and seeing as I won't go within range of the signal my phone wouldn't tell me I'm at risk.

If anyone can tell me how the app might protect me I will of course download it.

The phone doesn't need a constant connection. If, for example, you connect to wifi at home then that will be sufficient for the purposes of the notifications.

Scott.

[swill453]

So either my brain made it up in the earliness of listening, or the BBC edited it out. I know which is the more likely

Me too. The reason I responded to you was that I listened to the programme live too, and a claim like that would have jumped out at me straight away.

Scott.

[sg31]

The phone doesn't need a constant connection. If, for example, you connect to wifi at home then that will be sufficient for the purposes of the notifications.

Scott.

Thank you I am planning to use wifi over the internet once I get my new phone in commission. I will have to learn to carry it with me all the time.

I'm not upto date on mobile phone technology as is all too obvious.

[Mike4]

The phone doesn't need a constant connection. If, for example, you connect to wifi at home then that will be sufficient for the purposes of the notifications.

Scott.

Thank you I am planning to use wifi over the internet once I get my new phone in commission. I will have to learn to carry it with me all the time.

I'm not upto date on mobile phone technology as is all too obvious.

One obvious point sometimes overlooked in discussions about this app, is it is not your proximity to someone later found to be infected that is noted/recorded/measured.

It is the proximity of YOUR PHONE to THE PHONE of someone later found to be infected. Usually, but not always, the same thing.

[Arborbridge]

What's to stop a future update being able to alert authorities if a phone is not self-isolating when advised to, with consequent fine and limited, if any, appeal process?

Because it won't be able to tell, for the reason I explained, and this is baked into the framework that the developers don't have access to change.

You are most probably correct, but who controls the framework? Why would I trust the government not to introduce scope creep? Especially if the situation gets worse w.r.t. CV19.

VRD

(Yes, paranoid that an incompetent government (basing my judgement on having seen quite a few government IT programmes) could turn a track-and-trace app into a big-brother nightmare quite by accident.)

Think how useful this would have been to Hitler or Stalin. It's only a few smalls steps...

[Arborbridge]

So either my brain made it up in the earliness of listening, or the BBC edited it out. I know which is the more likely

Me too. The reason I responded to you was that I listened to the programme live too, and a claim like that would have jumped out at me straight away.

Scott.

Blimey, you guys are getting really paranoid! Thinking of various experiments which show what loust memories people have when they witness evenst, and a few experiences of my own, I'd say you just misheard or misremembered. That is the most obvious explanation and no other is needed.

Maybe you've all been watching too many physchological thrillers.

Arb.

[redsturgeon]

So I would say unless you have had a test then you have about 90% probability of being wrong.

That is a stab in the dark.

There is no sense particularly at this stage having an antibody test as antibodies fade. A full spectrum immunity test would be a good idea, but those are not as far as I know available and at the time (which was April) both the advice was to stay away from the health service rather than get a PCR test and also we wished to stay away from the health service.

Hence I think I had it, but apart from the symptoms for me and my family I have no formal testing process to underpin this.

I wear a mask where the rules require it even though I think this is futile and if I ended up getting relevant symptoms I would self isolate (as would the rest of the family).

We are picking up positive antibody tests from people who had symptoms back in March.

John

[johnhemming]

We are picking up positive antibody tests from people who had symptoms back in March.

That may be true, but that does mean that everyone who had the disease in March would now get a positive test for antibodies.

[chas49]

What's to stop a future update being able to alert authorities if a phone is not self-isolating when advised to, with consequent fine and limited, if any, appeal process?

Because it won't be able to tell, for the reason I explained, and this is baked into the framework that the developers don't have access to change.

You are most probably correct, but who controls the framework? Why would I trust the government not to introduce scope creep? Especially if the situation gets worse w.r.t. CV19.

VRD

(Yes, paranoid that an incompetent government (basing my judgement on having seen quite a few government IT programmes) could turn a track-and-trace app into a big-brother nightmare quite by accident.)

And they would have to change the law as well. Easily enough done, true, but the change would be public and wouldn't therefore go unnoticed

[dealtn]

We are picking up positive antibody tests from people who had symptoms back in March.

That may be true, but that does mean that everyone who had the disease in March would now get a positive test for antibodies.

Nor, presumably, does it automatically mean the antibodies are as a result of the March symptoms. They could be from a later infection, with no concurrent symptoms, could they not?

[johnhemming]

We are picking up positive antibody tests from people who had symptoms back in March.

That may be true, but that does mean that everyone who had the disease in March would now get a positive test for antibodies.

Nor, presumably, does it automatically mean the antibodies are as a result of the March symptoms. They could be from a later infection, with no concurrent symptoms, could they not?

That is true, but the nub of the issue from the perspective of whether or not to have an antibody test is that there is a material number of false negatives.