Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Does a single person espousing the privacy sink covid trackers even know what a cytokine storm is?
24 views
Skip to first unread message
Arlen Holder
May 27, 2020, 8:26:05 AM5/27/20
to
Does a single person espousing the privacy sink covid trackers
on this newsgroup even know what a cytokine storm is?
My point is that sheer ignorance & abject fear is what drives these people.
o Not logic, nor reason.
Abject fear.
o They tell us to lose everything... just so that they can _feel_ safe.
--
They espouse losing everything for the gain of almost nothing.
on this newsgroup even know what a cytokine storm is?
My point is that sheer ignorance & abject fear is what drives these people.
o Not logic, nor reason.
Abject fear.
o They tell us to lose everything... just so that they can _feel_ safe.
--
They espouse losing everything for the gain of almost nothing.
Arlen Holder
May 27, 2020, 8:47:03 PM5/27/20
to
On Wed, 27 May 2020 12:26:04 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
> Does a single person espousing the privacy sink covid trackers
> on this newsgroup even know what a cytokine storm is?
Do any of you who believe your savior is your cell phone even know what's
> Does a single person espousing the privacy sink covid trackers
> on this newsgroup even know what a cytokine storm is?
critical about the SARS-CoV-2 trimeric transmembrane glycoprotein spike?
Do you have any idea _why_ its affinity for the ACE2 receptors in your
ciliated respiratory cells is orders of magnitude greater than SARS-CoV-1?
--
There is a good reason I ask these questions of understanding on this ng.
Arlen Holder
Jun 4, 2020, 1:31:37 PM6/4/20
to
The problem is governments want to just look like they're doing something.
o IMHO, this covid-tracking app stuff is dangerous political schemes.
Instead of wasting time on worthless & dangerous political schemes...
o I propose governments spend that energy on solving key scientific issues.
For just one critical example, they should spend that tracking-app energy
on understanding how the TMPRSS2 protein-cleaving enzyme plays a role in
the infectivity of nasal epithelial cells (in addition to furin).
That's critical because it's a surprising fact SARS-CoV-2 attaches to nasal
cells far more aggressively than to the pneumocytes lining the alveoli in
the lung (contrary to what you might think, intuitively).
My point is that, instead of the government wasting time & focus on
worthless/dangerous apps, the government should be spending _that_ energy
on a better understanding of key unknowns, such as how the patches are
formed in the lung due to aspiration of the infected nasal cells, perhaps
during sleep (which is also not intuitive!).
And what the relationship is of the loss of smell to ACE2 and TMPRSS2 given
both are expressed in cells of the nose which help transfer odors from the
air to neurons.
--
The problem is governments want to just look like they're doing something.
o IMHO, this covid-tracking app stuff is dangerous political schemes.
Instead of wasting time on worthless & dangerous political schemes...
o I propose governments spend that energy on solving key scientific issues.
For just one critical example, they should spend that tracking-app energy
on understanding how the TMPRSS2 protein-cleaving enzyme plays a role in
the infectivity of nasal epithelial cells (in addition to furin).
That's critical because it's a surprising fact SARS-CoV-2 attaches to nasal
cells far more aggressively than to the pneumocytes lining the alveoli in
the lung (contrary to what you might think, intuitively).
My point is that, instead of the government wasting time & focus on
worthless/dangerous apps, the government should be spending _that_ energy
on a better understanding of key unknowns, such as how the patches are
formed in the lung due to aspiration of the infected nasal cells, perhaps
during sleep (which is also not intuitive!).
And what the relationship is of the loss of smell to ACE2 and TMPRSS2 given
both are expressed in cells of the nose which help transfer odors from the
air to neurons.
--
The problem is governments want to just look like they're doing something.
Arlen Holder
Jun 8, 2020, 8:52:39 PM6/8/20
to
On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 17:31:36 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
> Instead of wasting time on worthless & dangerous political schemes...
> o I propose governments spend that energy on solving key scientific issues.
What governments should spend their effort on is UNDERSTANDING the disease!
> Instead of wasting time on worthless & dangerous political schemes...
> o I propose governments spend that energy on solving key scientific issues.
For example, the WHO just did a shocking "about face" on asymptomatic carriers!
o *Asymptomatic spread of coronavirus is 'very rare,' WHO says*
PUBLISHED MON, JUN 8 20201:05 PM EDT UPDATED AN HOUR AGO
<https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html>
Given roughly about 1/3 of antibody-positive people were asymptomatic...
o This potentially changes the calculus, if it turns out to be factually supported.
I pretty much hold what the WHO says with a grain of salt, much as the
European Aviation Safety Agency likely holds what the FAA says with a grain
of salt... so let's see what comes of this.
It backs up my point though, that we're making big decisions sans real data
--
What governments should spend their time on is UNDERSTANDING the disease!
nospam
Jun 8, 2020, 8:56:50 PM6/8/20
to
In article <rbmmgn$s49$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder
what they said was that those who had been considered asymptomatic had
very mild cases of covid, thus not actually asymptomatic at all.
what they said was that those who had been considered asymptomatic had
very mild cases of covid, thus not actually asymptomatic at all.
Arlen Holder
Jun 8, 2020, 9:19:10 PM6/8/20
to
On Mon, 08 Jun 2020 20:56:50 -0400, nospam wrote:
>> o *Asymptomatic spread of coronavirus is 'very rare,' WHO says*
>
> what they said was that those who had been considered asymptomatic had
> very mild cases of covid, thus not actually asymptomatic at all.
Hi nospam,
>> o *Asymptomatic spread of coronavirus is 'very rare,' WHO says*
>
> what they said was that those who had been considered asymptomatic had
> very mild cases of covid, thus not actually asymptomatic at all.
Thanks for that subtle clarification - where the difference matters.
o A lot.
This is breaking news so my understanding of it will change as the facts
come in... where the WHO had better have some pretty damn good facts up
their sleeve to have suddenly claimed, shockingly, that it's "very rare"...
I can believe that it goes either way, e.g., there could be "carriers" who
infect people, and it might be that carriers can't infect people... I'll
leave it to the FACTS to determine the answer - where I'm sure those facts
will be forthcoming, since EVERYONE is asking the same questions right now.
Personally, I've always taken what the WHO says with a grain of salt, just
as I take anything Boeing says about MCAS with a grain of salt... but,
still, the WHO is basing their statements, let's hope, on cold hard facts,
and not on slippery slimy politics.
The article I quoted was referencing what WHO said today,
where that article said, and I quote:
"Coronavirus patients *without symptoms* aren't driving the spread
of the virus, World Health Organization officials said Monday..."
That article also said:
"Some people, particularly young and otherwise healthy individuals,
who are infected by the coronavirus *never develop symptoms* or only
develop mild symptoms. Others might not develop symptoms
*until days after* they were actually infected."
We can silly play games with _those_ words, but, as you noted, what the WHO
explicitly said matters more than what the news understood (just as when
Apple told Congress throttling software wasn't "as" necessary, which the
news took to me "wasn't necessary", and yet, _every_ iPhone since has had
the throttling software eventually added.
I'll look up two cold hard facts which are critical for this discussion:
a. What exactly did the WHO say (I will look for a cite once I post this)
b. What exactly is the DATA from which the WHO based what they said upon.
Given this is breaking news, and, yet, profoundly important, I'll look for
more data, as all I've read, so far, are what the news media "said" that
the WHO "said" (where you seem to have read what the WHO actually said,
which, if you're correct, is different from those quotes above in subtle
ways but very important ones).
--
What matters, always, are the FACTS of the matter... not the MARKETING.
Arlen Holder
Jun 8, 2020, 10:00:46 PM6/8/20
to
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 01:19:10 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
> I'll look up two cold hard facts which are critical for this discussion:
> a. What exactly did the WHO say (I will look for a cite once I post this)
> b. What exactly is the DATA from which the WHO based what they said upon
Drat....
> I'll look up two cold hard facts which are critical for this discussion:
> a. What exactly did the WHO say (I will look for a cite once I post this)
> b. What exactly is the DATA from which the WHO based what they said upon
I must say I was busy today, e.g., solving this technical problem:
o Microsoft installer error: 1326 Failed to install update.
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.taxes/43gVJ_MxTn4>
So I haven't researched yet, the details, of the reputed announcement.
Looking for the WHO briefing that sparked the eye-opening news today...
o This is apparently a WHO site for some briefings, one of which was today:
<https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/media-resources/press-briefings>
This is apparently the briefing today:
<https://youtu.be/dZoIOyiZnt8>
Wading through their political bullshit was difficult for me, since I am
allergic to, for example, Dr. Michael Ryan repeatedly marketing his concept
of how so very important South America is to disease prevention efforts.
The 45-minute briefing was uploaded 10 hours ago, so it might not be the
one that the news picked up upon, but from what I saw while I skimmed it
was about 95% bullshit and only about 5% useful information (or less).
It was painful to listen to Dr. Michael Ryan backtrack and stumble over his
words on the brooding hydroxyquinone disaster, but what I was looking for
were factual statements about infections transmitted from asymptomatic
people.
I didn't see the statement in that briefing, so I'll look anew.
o If you know of a transcript of where it was said, that would be great.
--
Platitudes (e.g., wash your hands and don't cough on people) are fine; but
I was hoping for some cold hard facts about what the news reported today.
Arlen Holder
Jun 9, 2020, 11:42:59 AM6/9/20
to
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 02:00:46 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
> I didn't see the statement in that briefing, so I'll look anew.
> o If you know of a transcript of where it was said, that would be great.
This just out...
> I didn't see the statement in that briefing, so I'll look anew.
> o If you know of a transcript of where it was said, that would be great.
Dateline: PUBLISHED TUE, JUN 9 2020, 10:07 AM EDT, UPDATED 24 MIN AGO
"The WHO scrambled to clarify its comments that transmission of
the coronavirus by people who never developed symptoms is very rare."
"'If journalists and the public think we˙re straying away from evidence,
then fine,' [said] Dr. Mike Ryan"
"The comments drew skepticism from physicians and others..."
"Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO's emerging diseases and zoonosis
unit, said it's a 'really complex question' and much is still unknown"
"'Some estimates of around 40% of transmission may be due to
asymptomatic, but those are from models, so I didn't include that
in my answer yesterday, but wanted to make sure that I covered that
here,' Kerkhove said.
o WHO scrambles to clarify comments on asymptomatic coronavirus spread,
says much is still unknown
<https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/09/who-scrambles-to-clarify-comments-on-asymptomatic-coronavirus-spread-much-is-still-unknown.html>
"Kerkhove said Tuesday she was referring to ´a very few studies,
some two or three studies, that have been published that actually
tried to follow asymptomatic cases."
"'We don't actually have that answer yet. There are some estimates that
suggest that anywhere between 6% of the population and 41% of the
population may be infected but not have symptoms'...
[said] Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove "
"'While asymptomatic spread of the coronavirus does occur, the portion
of asymptomatic individuals who transmit the virus remains a
'big open question,' [said] Dr. Mike Ryan"
"It's clear that both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals are
part of the transmission cycle' [said] Dr. Mike Ryan"
"An asymptomatic person is someone with Covid-19 who doesn't have
symptoms and never develops symptoms. Both scientists clarified that
it's not the same as someone who later develops symptoms, who would be
classified as pre-symptomatic."
--
We have to be careful about political & non-scientific statements...
Carlos E.R.
Jun 9, 2020, 3:04:07 PM6/9/20
to
On 04/06/2020 19.31, Arlen Holder wrote:
> The problem is governments want to just look like they're doing something.
> o IMHO, this covid-tracking app stuff is dangerous political schemes.
>
> Instead of wasting time on worthless & dangerous political schemes...
> o I propose governments spend that energy on solving key scientific issues.
>
> For just one critical example, they should spend that tracking-app energy
> on understanding how the TMPRSS2 protein-cleaving enzyme plays a role in
> the infectivity of nasal epithelial cells (in addition to furin).
I don't see why. There are many people in governments and countries. At
> The problem is governments want to just look like they're doing something.
> o IMHO, this covid-tracking app stuff is dangerous political schemes.
>
> Instead of wasting time on worthless & dangerous political schemes...
> o I propose governments spend that energy on solving key scientific issues.
>
> For just one critical example, they should spend that tracking-app energy
> on understanding how the TMPRSS2 protein-cleaving enzyme plays a role in
> the infectivity of nasal epithelial cells (in addition to furin).
the same time that those that understand virii study them, those that
understand phones can do things with them. One thing doesn't block the
other.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Arlen Holder
Jun 9, 2020, 3:39:21 PM6/9/20
to
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 21:03:30 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> I don't see why. There are many people in governments and countries. At
> the same time that those that understand virii study them, those that
> understand phones can do things with them. One thing doesn't block the
> other.
Hi Carlos,
> I don't see why. There are many people in governments and countries. At
> the same time that those that understand virii study them, those that
> understand phones can do things with them. One thing doesn't block the
> other.
Anyone who doesn't realize how profoundly "asymptomatic transmission"
matters, will _never_ be able to make an informed decision such as those
you and I are making with respect to whether governments should spend even
an iota of energy on these covid-tracing apps.
As you're aware, when someone posts as an adult, I treat them as an adult.
o Hence my response contains nuance that I don't bother with on apologists.
We are going to have to disagree where your logic can be quite _different_
from mine, but both of us are depending on the scientific evidence to date.
For me to understand your rationale...
o I assume that you assume that these covid-tracking apps, actually work.
o I also assume you assume the loss of privacy is worth the risk.
For you to understand my rationale...
o You need to realize I assume, based on facts, they can't & won't work.
o Worse, you need to realize I feel they actually do more _harm_ than good.
If, as I assumed above, we're working off of different weights on the
facts, then we're going to come to different conclusions as to why it
matters when the WHO (admittedly a pseudo-political organization),
literally ignores a wealth of previously accepted data, in favor of what
the WHO said earlier today, was a paltry amount of data.
For those who aren't yet well apprised of the situation, it is profoundly
important to both yours and my presumed logic, what the WHO said yesterday,
and then what they, tellingly, danced gingerly about today.
Anyone who doesn't realize how profoundly "asymptomatic transmission"
matters, will _never_ be able to make an informed decision such as those
you and I are making with respect to whether governments should spend even
an iota of energy on these covid-tracing apps.
And that's my main point of this thread.
o The WHO is merely falling into their self-set traps, proving me right.
--
The ignorati are driving this utterly misdirected energy on tracking apps.
Alan Baker
Jun 9, 2020, 6:04:09 PM6/9/20
to
On 2020-06-09 12:39 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 21:03:30 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> I don't see why. There are many people in governments and countries. At
>> the same time that those that understand virii study them, those that
>> understand phones can do things with them. One thing doesn't block the
>> other.
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> Anyone who doesn't realize how profoundly "asymptomatic transmission"
> matters, will _never_ be able to make an informed decision such as those
> you and I are making with respect to whether governments should spend even
> an iota of energy on these covid-tracing apps.
He was replying specifically to this:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 21:03:30 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> I don't see why. There are many people in governments and countries. At
>> the same time that those that understand virii study them, those that
>> understand phones can do things with them. One thing doesn't block the
>> other.
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> Anyone who doesn't realize how profoundly "asymptomatic transmission"
> matters, will _never_ be able to make an informed decision such as those
> you and I are making with respect to whether governments should spend even
> an iota of energy on these covid-tracing apps.
"For just one critical example, they should spend that tracking-app
energy on understanding how the TMPRSS2 protein-cleaving enzyme plays a
furin)."
And he rightly points out that those who are developing contact tracing
aren't the same people who are working on that problem.
>
> As you're aware, when someone posts as an adult, I treat them as an adult.
> o Hence my response contains nuance that I don't bother with on apologists.
order to make your post to which I'm replying look less ludicrous, right?
>
> We are going to have to disagree where your logic can be quite _different_
> from mine, but both of us are depending on the scientific evidence to date.
>
> For me to understand your rationale...
> o I assume that you assume that these covid-tracking apps, actually work.
> o I also assume you assume the loss of privacy is worth the risk.
>
> For you to understand my rationale...
> o You need to realize I assume, based on facts, they can't & won't work.
> o Worse, you need to realize I feel they actually do more _harm_ than good.
>
> If, as I assumed above, we're working off of different weights on the
> facts, then we're going to come to different conclusions as to why it
> matters when the WHO (admittedly a pseudo-political organization),
> literally ignores a wealth of previously accepted data, in favor of what
> the WHO said earlier today, was a paltry amount of data.
>
> For those who aren't yet well apprised of the situation, it is profoundly
> important to both yours and my presumed logic, what the WHO said yesterday,
> and then what they, tellingly, danced gingerly about today.
>
> Anyone who doesn't realize how profoundly "asymptomatic transmission"
> matters, will _never_ be able to make an informed decision such as those
> you and I are making with respect to whether governments should spend even
> an iota of energy on these covid-tracing apps.
>
> And that's my main point of this thread.
> o The WHO is merely falling into their self-set traps, proving me right.
>
Arlen Holder
Jun 9, 2020, 11:16:17 PM6/9/20
to
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 19:39:21 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
> Anyone who doesn't realize how profoundly "asymptomatic transmission"
> matters, will _never_ be able to make an informed decision such as those
> you and I are making with respect to whether governments should spend even
> an iota of energy on these covid-tracing apps.
This post is going to require an adult's facultative mind to comprehend.
> Anyone who doesn't realize how profoundly "asymptomatic transmission"
> matters, will _never_ be able to make an informed decision such as those
> you and I are making with respect to whether governments should spend even
> an iota of energy on these covid-tracing apps.
Good news.
o What was said was in an embedded 3:06 minute video here today:
o *WHO walks back comments on asymptomatic coronavirus spread*, says much is still unknown
<https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/09/who-scrambles-to-clarify-comments-on-asymptomatic-coronavirus-spread-much-is-still-unknown.html>
For the benefit of all...
o I personally transcribed what Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove said:
My summary of what I thought of what she said, is in the sig.
o Verbatim save for my comments in all caps surrounded by square brackets]
"We hear from a number of countries that x number, x percentage of them
are reported as not having symptoms or that they are in their
presymptomatic stages, which means it is a few days before they have
developed severe symptoms.
In a number of countries, when we go back and we discuss with them, one,
how are these asymptomatic cases being identified?
*Many of them are being identified through _contact tracing_.*
And so which is what we would want to see. In that you have a known case.
You find your contacts who are already in quarantine. Hopefully and some of
them are tested. And then you pick up people who may have asymptomatic or
[have] no, ah, symptoms or even mild systems.
The other thing we're finding is that when we actually go back and say how
many of them were truly asymptomatic, we find out that many have really
mild disease. Very mild disease. They're not quote-unquote covid symptoms,
meaning they may not have developed fever yet. They may not have had a
significant cough or they may not have had shortness of breath. But some
may have mild disease.
Having said that, we do know that there can be people that are truly
asymptomatic and PCR positive.
The second part of your question is what proportion of asymptomatic
individuals actually transmit.
So the way that we look at that is we look at, um, these individuals need
to be followed carefully, um, over the course of when they're detected and
looking at secondary transmission.
We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed
contact tracing. [EDITOR NOTE: *READ HIGHLY UNTRUSTWORTHY REGIMES!*]
They're following asymptomatic cases. They're following contacts. And
they're not finding secondary transmission.
Very rare.
Much of that is not published in the literature. [*AHEM!*]
From the papers that are published there's _one_ that came out from
Singapore. Looking at a long-term care facility.
There are _some_ household transmission studies where you follow
individuals over time and you look at the proportion of those that transmit
onward.
We are constantly looking at this data and we're trying to get more
information from countries to truly answer this question.
It still appears to be rare that an asymptomatic individual actually
transmits onward.
[BEGIN PREPARED SPIEL OF PURE WHO-MARKETED UTTER BULLSHIT, IMHO
WHICH WAS DESIGNED TO DEFLECT FOCUS AWAY FROM THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM!]
*What we really want to be focused on is following the symptomatic cases*.
[NOTE: THERE IS A VERY GOOD REASON THEY DO NOT WANT TO FOCUS ON
ASYMPTOMATIC CASES WHICH THEY DESPERATELY WANT TO MINIMIZE EVEN AT THE HUGE
RISK OF LOSING ALL CREDIBILITY WITH CONSCIENTIOUS SCIENTISTS!]
If we followed all the symptomatic cases, because we know this is a
respiratory pathogen, it passes from an individual through infectious
droplets; if we actually followed all of the symptomatic cases; isolated
those cases; followed the contacts and quarantined those contacts, we would
drastically reduce - I would love to give a proportion of how much
transmission we would actually stop - but it would be a drastic reduction
in transmission.
If we could focus on that, I think we would we would do very very well in
suppressing transmission.
From the data we have it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person
actually transmits onwards to a secondary individual.
--
Clearly, this was a prepared spiel which, on purpose, likely for purely
political purpoes, was designed to deflect focus as strongly as they could,
AWAY from the elephant in the room, which is asymptomatic cases causing
disease.
Alan Baker
Jun 10, 2020, 2:59:00 AM6/10/20
to
On 2020-06-09 8:16 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 19:39:21 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
>
>> Anyone who doesn't realize how profoundly "asymptomatic transmission"
>> matters, will _never_ be able to make an informed decision such as those
>> you and I are making with respect to whether governments should spend even
>> an iota of energy on these covid-tracing apps.
>
> This post is going to require an adult's facultative mind to comprehend.
Too bad that lets you out.
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 19:39:21 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
>
>> Anyone who doesn't realize how profoundly "asymptomatic transmission"
>> matters, will _never_ be able to make an informed decision such as those
>> you and I are making with respect to whether governments should spend even
>> an iota of energy on these covid-tracing apps.
>
> This post is going to require an adult's facultative mind to comprehend.
Carlos E.R.
Jun 10, 2020, 7:16:07 AM6/10/20
to
On 10/06/2020 05.16, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 19:39:21 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
>
>> Anyone who doesn't realize how profoundly "asymptomatic transmission"
>> matters, will _never_ be able to make an informed decision such as those
>> you and I are making with respect to whether governments should spend even
>> an iota of energy on these covid-tracing apps.
>
> This post is going to require an adult's facultative mind to comprehend.
>
> Good news.
> o What was said was in an embedded 3:06 minute video here today:
> o *WHO walks back comments on asymptomatic coronavirus spread*, says much is still unknown
> <https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/09/who-scrambles-to-clarify-comments-on-asymptomatic-coronavirus-spread-much-is-still-unknown.html> >
> For the benefit of all...
> o I personally transcribed what Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove said:
Arlen, you posted 3157 posts in a period of 713 days, only looking at
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 19:39:21 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
>
>> Anyone who doesn't realize how profoundly "asymptomatic transmission"
>> matters, will _never_ be able to make an informed decision such as those
>> you and I are making with respect to whether governments should spend even
>> an iota of energy on these covid-tracing apps.
>
> This post is going to require an adult's facultative mind to comprehend.
>
> Good news.
> o What was said was in an embedded 3:06 minute video here today:
> o *WHO walks back comments on asymptomatic coronavirus spread*, says much is still unknown
> <https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/09/who-scrambles-to-clarify-comments-on-asymptomatic-coronavirus-spread-much-is-still-unknown.html> >
> For the benefit of all...
> o I personally transcribed what Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove said:
this group. Or 837 posts this year, ie, in 158 days. 5.3 loooong posts
per day.
My attention span is too short to read them all. I am not that
interested in learning about the details of "asymptomatic coronavirus
spread", for instance. And the moment I see you mentioning "adult", I
switch off. Or when you start insulting.
So sorry, like most people in these two groups I am interested in smart
phones (in my case, only on android phones), but not much in biology,
unless it is written by somebody with the writing skills of Asimov. And
I'm sorry, this is not the case.
As Alan pointed out, "those who are developing contact tracing aren't
the same people who are working on that problem". Just a tiny point in
your ink output.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Arlen Holder
Jun 10, 2020, 11:50:56 AM6/10/20
to
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 13:14:10 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> As Alan pointed out, "those who are developing contact tracing aren't
> the same people who are working on that problem". Just a tiny point in
> your ink output.
Hi Carlos,
> As Alan pointed out, "those who are developing contact tracing aren't
> the same people who are working on that problem". Just a tiny point in
> your ink output.
To comprehend my posts requires at least normal adult facultative skills.
o You have to comprehend, Carlos, what the WHO asked us to *focus* on.
HINT: Contact tracing, and specifically by invasive governments.
Whether you realize it or not, the topic of "contact tracing" is relevant
to the mobile phone newsgroups, Carlos.
Instead of your doublespeak, claiming Alan Baker as your compatriot, you
should be comprehending what the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM is, Carlos.
HINT: *Contact tracing apps by invasive governments is WHO's stated focus!*
Whether you realize it or not, that transcript by Dr. Kerkhove was replete
with political innuendo, particularly on complimenting AUTHORITATIVE
REGIMES on their invasive contact tracing efforts.
I realize, you, Carlos, will never get this concept; but I hope there are
adults on this newsgroup with the facultative skills to comprehend what I
claim.
I claim the comments by WHO, which they backtracked on, were essentially
shoving the elephant OUT of the room. This is important.
*The ELEPHANT is what prevents contact tracing apps to be taken seriously.*
Hence, it was CRITICIAL for the WHO, apparently, to shove the elephant out
of the room, so that the WHO could espouse not only contact tracing by
governments, but specifically to ratify contact tracing by the UNKNOWN
governments (which Dr. Kerkhove cleverly kept hidden).
And yet, the elephant returned, by scientists, the very next day.
o Which is why the WHO immediately backtracked on Dr. Kerkhove's comments.
--
To comprehend my posts requires at least normal adult facultative skills.
Alan Baker
Jun 10, 2020, 4:34:29 PM6/10/20
to
Carlos E.R.
Jun 11, 2020, 4:36:08 PM6/11/20
to
On 10/06/2020 17.50, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 13:14:10 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> As Alan pointed out, "those who are developing contact tracing aren't
>> the same people who are working on that problem". Just a tiny point in
>> your ink output.
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> To comprehend my posts requires at least normal adult facultative skills.
> o You have to comprehend, Carlos, what the WHO asked us to *focus* on.
>
> HINT: Contact tracing, and specifically by invasive governments.
>
> Whether you realize it or not, the topic of "contact tracing" is relevant
> to the mobile phone newsgroups, Carlos.
Ok, yes.
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 13:14:10 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> As Alan pointed out, "those who are developing contact tracing aren't
>> the same people who are working on that problem". Just a tiny point in
>> your ink output.
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> To comprehend my posts requires at least normal adult facultative skills.
> o You have to comprehend, Carlos, what the WHO asked us to *focus* on.
>
> HINT: Contact tracing, and specifically by invasive governments.
>
> Whether you realize it or not, the topic of "contact tracing" is relevant
> to the mobile phone newsgroups, Carlos.
>
> Instead of your doublespeak, claiming Alan Baker as your compatriot, you
> should be comprehending what the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM is, Carlos.
>
> HINT: *Contact tracing apps by invasive governments is WHO's stated focus!*
>
> Whether you realize it or not, that transcript by Dr. Kerkhove was replete
> with political innuendo, particularly on complimenting AUTHORITATIVE
> REGIMES on their invasive contact tracing efforts.
>
> I realize, you, Carlos, will never get this concept; but I hope there are
> adults on this newsgroup with the facultative skills to comprehend what I
> claim.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Alan Baker
Jun 11, 2020, 4:50:43 PM6/11/20
to
:-)
Arlen Holder
Jun 11, 2020, 5:42:49 PM6/11/20
to
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 22:24:06 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> Instead of your doublespeak, claiming Alan Baker as your compatriot, you
>> should be comprehending what the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM is, Carlos.
>
> Where did I did that? I have no idea of his nationality.
Hi Carlos,
>> Instead of your doublespeak, claiming Alan Baker as your compatriot, you
>> should be comprehending what the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM is, Carlos.
>
> Where did I did that? I have no idea of his nationality.
It's really sad that I have to explain to you what is obvious.
o That you most closely identify with those of below 50 IQ tells us a lot.
It's sad I need to explain to you that compatriot has multiple meanings...
: COMPANION, COLLEAGUE
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compatriot>
HINT: I was clearly insulting you, Carlos, by pointing to your behavior.
The fact is the only person on this planet you _can_ identify with, is the
moron Alan Baker, whom I estimate to have an IQ of around 40 or 50.
That you clearly _identify_ with that utter moron, is the problem, Carlos.
o You can't identify with an actual adult.
That you most closely identify with those of below 50 IQ tells us a lot.
--
That you look _up_ to Alan Baker, as your compatriot, is what's so sad.
Arlen Holder
Jun 11, 2020, 6:17:47 PM6/11/20
to
On Wed, 27 May 2020 12:26:04 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
> o They tell us to lose everything... just so that they can _feel_ safe.
The WHO's purely political announcement on Monday bolsters my point.
> o They tell us to lose everything... just so that they can _feel_ safe.
o The ignorati are who espouse these privacy sink covid trackers.
Not the intelligentsia, who wrote today:
"These three studies have yielded asymptomatic infection percentages
of 42 percent, 43 percent and 45 percent. Knowing that some people in
these cohorts went on to have symptoms, we concluded that the overall
rate of asymptomatic infection is likely at least 30 percent
and could be as high as 40 percent to 45 percent."
It's beginning to look very much like the WHO is just playing politics
o Particularly when they claimed asymptomatic transmission is "very rare"
And yet, look at what the Washington Post reported today:
o The coronavirus's high asymptomatic rate shows we need to rethink how to control the pandemic
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/11/how-find-out-whether-asymptomatic-covid-19-carriers-are-infectious/>
The main point was always that contact tracing is the _wrong_ approach.
o A secondary point is that the WHO tried to make us _focus_ on them!
Why?
o I don't know why.
I suspect the WHO ignored basic science due to political reasons.
o Whenever someone that smart says something that stupid - politics is involved.
--
It appears the WHO wants us to ignore the elephant in the room, and,
instead, focus on the pure politics of allowing governments to track us.
JF Mezei
Jun 12, 2020, 12:24:52 AM6/12/20
to
On 2020-06-11 18:17, Arlen Holder wrote:
> The WHO's purely political announcement on Monday bolsters my point.
I listen to the WHO press conferences. The Tuesday one did not
> The WHO's purely political announcement on Monday bolsters my point.
contradiuct the Monday one. It is the Media who purposefully created a
controversy.
WHO has always distinguished between pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic.
There are very few cases of truly asymptomatic cases. Singapore decided
to try to study them. So every person who tested positive without
symptoms not only had all contacts checked and followed, but the patient
was also followed until he/she tested negative to ensure that his
infection generated no symptoms.
For the new people who truly remained asymptomatic until no longer
testing posis=tive, they then checked all the contacts to see if any got
sick. And it was "very rare" for these contacts to get sick.
WHO stated that no conclusion could be drawn because, despite the study
being conducted "properly", it still has too few cases to be able to
draw conclusions. They also stated there are only 2-3 such studies in
the world, all stll at a small sample stage.
WHO explained that the higher numbvers quoted by the media are either
pre-symptomatic numbers, or ESTIMATES from some scientieis on existence
of asymptomatic people. The problem is that in countries such as USA
where testing is incomplete and there is no contact tracing, there is no
means to find a truly asymptomatic case and thus no way to know ife that
person ended up infecting anyone else.
nospam
Jun 12, 2020, 12:47:30 AM6/12/20
to
In article <nsDEG.1251$d95....@fx06.iad>, JF Mezei
<https://www.healthline.com/health-news/50-percent-of-people-with-covid1
9-not-aware-have-virus>
łOne of the [pieces of] information that we have confirmed now is
that a significant number of individuals that are infected actually
remain asymptomatic. That may be as many as 25 percent,˛
Redfield said.
Then a few days later, researchers in Iceland reported that 50
percent of their novel coronavirus cases who tested positive had
no symptoms. The testing had been conducted by deCODE, a
subsidiary of the U.S. Biotech company Amgen.
...
Finally, two studies published in late May indicated that a high
percentage of people with COVID-19 could be without symptoms.
In one study, researchers reported that 104 of 128 people (81
percent) on a cruise ship who tested positive the novel coronavirus
were asymptomatic.
In another study, researchers reported that 42 percent of people
who tested positive for COVID-19 were without symptoms.
anywhere from 25% to 81% are asymptomatic. that's a bit more than 'very
few'.
<https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/05/12/gigi-gronvall-asymptomatic-spread-covid-
19-immunity-passports/>
Asymptomatic spread has not been good news thus far. A growing
body of results shows that people who are asymptomatic appear
to have the same viral load as symptomatic cases. This means that,
whether people have symptoms or not, they carry the same amount
of virus inside them. This suggests that transmission is possible
equally from both asymptomatic patients and noticeably sick patients.
<https://www.healthline.com/health-news/50-percent-of-people-with-covid1
9-not-aware-have-virus>
łOne of the [pieces of] information that we have confirmed now is
that a significant number of individuals that are infected actually
remain asymptomatic. That may be as many as 25 percent,˛
Redfield said.
Then a few days later, researchers in Iceland reported that 50
percent of their novel coronavirus cases who tested positive had
no symptoms. The testing had been conducted by deCODE, a
subsidiary of the U.S. Biotech company Amgen.
...
Finally, two studies published in late May indicated that a high
percentage of people with COVID-19 could be without symptoms.
In one study, researchers reported that 104 of 128 people (81
percent) on a cruise ship who tested positive the novel coronavirus
were asymptomatic.
In another study, researchers reported that 42 percent of people
who tested positive for COVID-19 were without symptoms.
anywhere from 25% to 81% are asymptomatic. that's a bit more than 'very
few'.
<https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/05/12/gigi-gronvall-asymptomatic-spread-covid-
19-immunity-passports/>
Asymptomatic spread has not been good news thus far. A growing
body of results shows that people who are asymptomatic appear
to have the same viral load as symptomatic cases. This means that,
whether people have symptoms or not, they carry the same amount
of virus inside them. This suggests that transmission is possible
equally from both asymptomatic patients and noticeably sick patients.
JF Mezei
Jun 12, 2020, 1:05:08 AM6/12/20
to
On 2020-06-12 00:48, nospam wrote:
> https://www.healthline.com/health-news/50-percent-of-people-with-covid1
> 9-not-aware-have-virus
"researchers in Iceland reported that 50 percent of their novel
coronavirus cases who tested positive had no symptoms"
AT THE TIME OF TESTING. To be declared asymptomatic, these patients
needs to be followed closely through the end of their infection to
ensure they have remained without ANY symptoms until PCR testes turned
negative. Not "mild", but truly no symptoms.
"That report was backed up by a studyTrusted Source published in
mid-April that concluded that people with no symptoms are the source of
44 percent of diagnosed COVID-19 cases."
NO SYMPTOMS YET.
The first study your article poimts to makes use of "rapid tests". These
require higher viral load and will only test positive lated in the
infection cycle. That you test negative at first (rapid test) and then
positive wioth PCR test is perfectly normal since the first test is not
reliable.
#Notice how your friend Donald Trump has stopped product placements on
his TV show for Abott lab tests?
And again, it all has to do with the difference between asymptomatic and
pre-symptomatic, a terminology WHO has used consistently and transmitted
to all member countries. It is the media that misinterpret things.
And the USA is incapabable of doing asymptomatic tests because it does
not have the capacity to contact trace to find patimnents who test
positive without symoptoms AND then follow these patients to the end to
markl them as asymptomatic to the end (if that is the case) AND contact
trace these patients to see if any of their contacts caught the virsu
from them.
In order words, the study quoted by WHO from Singapore not only
extracted truly asuyymptomatic patients from a group, but were also able
to study whether these asymptomatic patients had transmitted the visur
to their contacts.
> https://www.healthline.com/health-news/50-percent-of-people-with-covid1
> 9-not-aware-have-virus
"researchers in Iceland reported that 50 percent of their novel
coronavirus cases who tested positive had no symptoms"
needs to be followed closely through the end of their infection to
ensure they have remained without ANY symptoms until PCR testes turned
negative. Not "mild", but truly no symptoms.
"That report was backed up by a studyTrusted Source published in
mid-April that concluded that people with no symptoms are the source of
44 percent of diagnosed COVID-19 cases."
NO SYMPTOMS YET.
The first study your article poimts to makes use of "rapid tests". These
require higher viral load and will only test positive lated in the
infection cycle. That you test negative at first (rapid test) and then
positive wioth PCR test is perfectly normal since the first test is not
reliable.
#Notice how your friend Donald Trump has stopped product placements on
his TV show for Abott lab tests?
And again, it all has to do with the difference between asymptomatic and
pre-symptomatic, a terminology WHO has used consistently and transmitted
to all member countries. It is the media that misinterpret things.
And the USA is incapabable of doing asymptomatic tests because it does
not have the capacity to contact trace to find patimnents who test
positive without symoptoms AND then follow these patients to the end to
markl them as asymptomatic to the end (if that is the case) AND contact
trace these patients to see if any of their contacts caught the virsu
from them.
In order words, the study quoted by WHO from Singapore not only
extracted truly asuyymptomatic patients from a group, but were also able
to study whether these asymptomatic patients had transmitted the visur
to their contacts.
Leo
Jun 12, 2020, 1:16:09 AM6/12/20
to
On 2020 Jun 11, , JF Mezei wrote
(in article <nsDEG.1251$d95....@fx06.iad>):
> WHO explained that the higher numbvers quoted by the media are either
> pre-symptomatic numbers, or ESTIMATES from some scientieis on existence
> of asymptomatic people. The problem is that in countries such as USA
> where testing is incomplete and there is no contact tracing, there is no
> means to find a truly asymptomatic case and thus no way to know ife that
> person ended up infecting anyone else.
Thank God you mentioned the incomplete testing in the USA in your post. The
entire number of people in your vast country doesn’t equal the population
of California. Do you see any problems with scale here?
I have little confidence in the proclamations of WHO or our own CDC at this
time. I can tell you with great confidence that nobody knows if the virus
is seasonal or with us every day, forever.
This may be how the common cold started.
leo
(in article <nsDEG.1251$d95....@fx06.iad>):
> WHO explained that the higher numbvers quoted by the media are either
> pre-symptomatic numbers, or ESTIMATES from some scientieis on existence
> of asymptomatic people. The problem is that in countries such as USA
> where testing is incomplete and there is no contact tracing, there is no
> means to find a truly asymptomatic case and thus no way to know ife that
> person ended up infecting anyone else.
entire number of people in your vast country doesn’t equal the population
of California. Do you see any problems with scale here?
I have little confidence in the proclamations of WHO or our own CDC at this
time. I can tell you with great confidence that nobody knows if the virus
is seasonal or with us every day, forever.
This may be how the common cold started.
leo
nospam
Jun 12, 2020, 9:36:50 AM6/12/20
to
In article <72EEG.5$9r...@fx07.iad>, JF Mezei
nobody can predict the future.
it's only pre-symptomatic if someone gets symptoms in the future, which
is unknown at the time of testing.
someone might never get symptoms at all, and if they do, it could be
very mild and they don't think it's covid.
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> "researchers in Iceland reported that 50 percent of their novel
> coronavirus cases who tested positive had no symptoms"
>
> AT THE TIME OF TESTING.
exactly.
> "researchers in Iceland reported that 50 percent of their novel
> coronavirus cases who tested positive had no symptoms"
>
> AT THE TIME OF TESTING.
nobody can predict the future.
it's only pre-symptomatic if someone gets symptoms in the future, which
is unknown at the time of testing.
someone might never get symptoms at all, and if they do, it could be
very mild and they don't think it's covid.
Arlen Holder
Jun 12, 2020, 10:20:06 AM6/12/20
to
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:36:49 -0400, nospam wrote:
> it's only pre-symptomatic if someone gets symptoms in the future, which
> is unknown at the time of testing.
I applaud JF Mezei & even nospam for keeping level heads in this issue.
> it's only pre-symptomatic if someone gets symptoms in the future, which
> is unknown at the time of testing.
If I understand JF Mezei correctly, he feels the WHO acted with scientific
rigor, whereas he feels it was the media who misinterpreted what the WHO
claimed.
Yet it wasn't just the media who disagreed - it was all scientists OUTSIDE
the WHO who disagreed, was it not?
For example, Dr. Anthony Fauci very clearly contradicted the WHO's claims,
by saying they were "not correct" (which is words from one respectful
scientist to another saying, very politely, the WHO's claims are wrong).
Can _anyone_ find even _one_ scientist outside WHO backing their
claims?shove the elephant out of the room is and was the point of this
thread.
The reason it matters are these observations in a democratic society:
1. Contact tracing can't work (IMHO) unless everyone participates;
2. In _democratic_ societies, that just t'ain't gonna happen;
3. Hence, in democratic societies, contact tracing can't work (IMHO).
(which is the point of this thread, after all.)
However, in an authoritative regime (e.g., in China):
A. Contact tracing _can_ work (simply because they monitor all movement);
B. This is easily done via cellphone apps that track your movement;
C. Hence, authoritative regimes _want_ us to focus on contact tracing.
(which, it seems, is exactly what the WHO wants us to focus upon)
However, there's this asymptomatic elephant in the room...
In a democratic society... contact tracing can't work (IMHO)...
o If the asymptomatic elephant remains in the room.
That's why it's so important to know why the WHO is so desperate to shove
the asymptomatic elephant _out_ of the room, and then in the same breath,
to tell us to _focus_ on contact tracing.
Am I the only one who sees that the WHO is speaking doublespeak?
--
Personally, I suspect China is involved in what WHO asked us to focus upon.
JF Mezei
Jun 12, 2020, 1:03:24 PM6/12/20
to
On 2020-06-12 01:16, Leo wrote:
> I have little confidence in the proclamations of WHO or our own CDC at this
> time. I can tell you with great confidence that nobody knows if the virus
> is seasonal or with us every day, forever.
WHO has clearly repeated that there is no evidence yet on whether COVID
> I have little confidence in the proclamations of WHO or our own CDC at this
> time. I can tell you with great confidence that nobody knows if the virus
> is seasonal or with us every day, forever.
is seasonal or not. They point to areas of the world in subtropical
weather that has seen the epidemic.
Their latest warning is that "summer" may force more people in air
conditioned indoors which would worsen spread.
One doesn't really know what the CDC says because it all has to be
vetted by the White House.
If you haven't seen them, check out the Founders Sing videos.
This is the Lysol One:
https://youtu.be/gvGkB4bdryQ
Anthony Fauci in "Die Die Die Coronavirus"
https://youtu.be/QmSasG_vRh8
This one is Classy (and got Beach Boy's approval), homage to health care
workers
"God Only Knows Where We'd Be Without You"
https://youtu.be/nBhK8OByZAc
(There are other good ones, including "The Day Democracy Died".
https://youtu.be/-Ue5F57dZMU
JF Mezei
Jun 12, 2020, 8:12:03 PM6/12/20
to
On 2020-06-12 10:20, Arlen Holder wrote:
> For example, Dr. Anthony Fauci very clearly contradicted the WHO's claims,
> by saying they were "not correct" (which is words from one respectful
> scientist to another saying, very politely, the WHO's claims are wrong).
On EXACTLY what did Fauci state they were not correct? and was Fauci in
> For example, Dr. Anthony Fauci very clearly contradicted the WHO's claims,
> by saying they were "not correct" (which is words from one respectful
> scientist to another saying, very politely, the WHO's claims are wrong).
White House or at CDC/NIH at the time he spoke? Not free to speak at
White House.
Aain, remember that to keep it to what WHO says and in what context.
For instance, their Jan 14 tweet was relating what they had been told by
China about human to human transmission. Relating what one of their
member released as info is not the sme as WHO making a statement. Days
later, China released new evidence showing it is happening. WHO had
stated from early january that a generic coronavirus tends to have human
to human and thsi new one should be treated as having that capacity even
if not yet proven.
But WHO had to wait to be provided with evidence that it had had human
to human transmission. While China was likely aware of it probably a
week before, consider the situation:
Early on, those who exhibited the symptoms had all gone to the same
market. So at that point, you have no evidence of human to human
transmission. They isolated the genome in early January and until they
had a test, they could produce no evidence of human to human even if
they suspected it was happening.
"atypical pneumonia" is not rare. What triggered the Chinese to look
into in in mid december is when they started to see number of cases of
atypinac pneumonia that was higher than normal. Until a test could be
devices, there was no way to know if one specific case was just a
regular aytypical peumonia, or one associated with this new outbreak.
Suspicion != evidence.
It was only after a test was devised AND they went through hell with a
gazillion cases that they finally had time and testing capacity to go
back to december and test sammples of atypical pneumonias that had not
been tested because the tests didn,t exist at the time. And they found
some tested positive dating back to December 1.
(the gazillion cases they had in Wuhan are pale in comparison to what
USA but it all arrived without warning in China).
> Can _anyone_ find even _one_ scientist outside WHO backing their
> claims?shove the elephant out of the room is and was the point of this
> thread.
info from member countries and puts it together to disseminate to other
countries.
In the USA for instance, scientists are not allowed to speak without
white house approval, so you don't hear them supporting WHO. (Though
Faiuci recently risked his job and spoke publicly about the need for WHO).
Rod Speed
Jun 12, 2020, 8:48:02 PM6/12/20
to
"JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote in message
news:mRUEG.7193$mK4....@fx03.iad...
> In the USA for instance, scientists are not allowed
> to speak without white house approval,
> so you don't hear them supporting WHO.
> (Though Faiuci recently risked his job and
< spoke publicly about the need for WHO).
Rod Speed
Jun 12, 2020, 8:58:30 PM6/12/20
to
"Leo" <leobla...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.2493471700...@News.Individual.Net...
europe with them going into winter and the northern hemisphere into summer.
> or with us every day, forever.
completely eliminated the virus from their country.
> This may be how the common cold started.
Arlen Holder
Jun 13, 2020, 1:58:41 AM6/13/20
to
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 20:12:01 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:
> On EXACTLY what did Fauci state they were not correct?
Hi JF Mezei,
> On EXACTLY what did Fauci state they were not correct?
What I say below I wouldn't say to an apologist, since understanding what I
outline below requires basic adult facultative skills apologists don't own.
So I treat you differently than I treat apologists...
o I treat you like an adult.
Toward that end, as you are likely well aware, I stay out of "personnel"
politics on Usenet, where you seem to have associated the person "Fauci"
with our current buffoon President but at the same time, you completely
ignored my key point that there are very few (perhaps zero) reputable
scientists who spoke out that didn't claim the WHO was "not correct".
Can you find a _single_ reliable scientist outside of WHO backing them up?
o I can't.
The point is the WHO clearly told us what they want us to _focus_ upon!
o *The WHO repeatedly said we should focus on "contact tracing" endeavors*.
For this newsgroup, that means "contact tracing apps".
The problem with contact-tracing apps, as I see it, is they can't work.
o Not in a democratic society anyway.
The _reason_ they can't work is multifold - but ONE of the many reasons is
o There is an asymptomatic elephant in the room.
*WHO clearly tried to shove that asymptomatic elephant OUT of the room*.
Why?
o I don't know why.
this planet, outside of WHO (and in a democratic regime), who backs up what
the WHO claimed.
--
Why the WHO said something that stupid (hence, political) is related to
this thread because it's my view contact tracing can't work in a democratic
society if that asymptomatic elephant is allowed to remain in the room.
Arlen Holder
Jun 13, 2020, 2:10:26 AM6/13/20
to
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:03:21 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:
> One doesn't really know what the CDC says because it all has to be
> vetted by the White House.
Hi JF Mezei,
> One doesn't really know what the CDC says because it all has to be
> vetted by the White House.
*Talk science please*.
o Talk facts.
Can you or can you not find a _single_ scientist in the western world...
o That publicly backs up WHO's claims?
If so, please name this scientist (and the cite).
o Name just one
I'm sticking to the scientific facts with or without that buffoon President
being in office at the moment - where the facts are that what the WHO said
was "not correct".
The real question is "why" did the WHO say what they said?
IMHO, when someone that smart says something that stupid...
o Then politics is (almost always) involved.
Let's stick to the facts.
o I've been providing facts all along in this thread.
If you have a scientific fact that backs up your point of view, JF Mezei
o Name just one
--
The most effective test for facts is a simple "name just one" query.
Leo
Jun 14, 2020, 5:17:37 PM6/14/20
to
On 2020 Jun 12, , Rod Speed wrote
(in article <hkimlj...@mid.individual.net>):
January. I’m for you!
leo
(in article <hkimlj...@mid.individual.net>):
> > I can tell you with great confidence that nobody knows if the virus is
> > seasonal
>
> Yes we can now given that Brazil has just as big a problem as the USA and
> europe with them going into winter and the northern hemisphere into summer.
>
> > or with us every day, forever.
>
> We know that too given that New Zealand has
> completely eliminated the virus from their country.
>
> > This may be how the common cold started.
>
> Nope, we know that it is not.
Let’s make it a point, you and I, to revisit these two posts next
> > seasonal
>
> Yes we can now given that Brazil has just as big a problem as the USA and
> europe with them going into winter and the northern hemisphere into summer.
>
> > or with us every day, forever.
>
> We know that too given that New Zealand has
> completely eliminated the virus from their country.
>
> > This may be how the common cold started.
>
> Nope, we know that it is not.
January. I’m for you!
leo
Arlen Holder
Jul 7, 2020, 6:25:28 PM7/7/20
to
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 22:17:46 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
> The main point was always that contact tracing is the _wrong_ approach.
> o A secondary point is that the WHO tried to make us _focus_ on them!
>
> Why?
> o I don't know why.
>
> I suspect the WHO ignored basic science due to political reasons.
> o Whenever someone that smart says something that stupid - politics is involved.
Shocker of all shockers, the WHO is forced to review yet _another_ reason
> The main point was always that contact tracing is the _wrong_ approach.
> o A secondary point is that the WHO tried to make us _focus_ on them!
>
> Why?
> o I don't know why.
>
> I suspect the WHO ignored basic science due to political reasons.
> o Whenever someone that smart says something that stupid - politics is involved.
why rampant surveillance of the populace via covid trackers is untenable.
Shocker of all shockers, the WHO is being forced, by scientists, to review
"some of" their bullshit they tried to spew where they proved my point:
o When someone that smart says something that stupid, politics is involved.
Specifically, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO's technical lead on COVID-19
tried to bullshit us that asymptomatic transmission was "very rare" in the
same sentence as she claimed that some unknown government (Hint: Likely
China, IMHO), gave them "secret" information that backs that up).
Of course, that secret information has never surfaced, to my knowledge,
where what Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove told us, again and again, was to focus on
surveillance which, of course, ties the slimy politics together (IMHO).
While I'm a scientist at heart, let that just be my hypothesis as to _why_
(perhaps) Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove said such stupid things (that even I know
to be patently false, let alone scientists in the field).
Those who espouse the covid trackers apparently have to bullshit us in
order for them to have any rationally reasonably logical argument.
o Without their political bullshit, the covid trackers are untenable.
Now there's more, which is transmission "over the air", where, again, the
WHO's love fest with the surveillance of people will fail, yet anew.
See today's news:
o *Scientists urge WHO to acknowledge virus can spread in air*
<https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/who-acknowledges-emerging-evidence-airborne-spread-covid-19-n1233077>
"The World Health Organization on Tuesday acknowledged
"emerging evidence" of the airborne spread of the coronavirus,
after a group of scientists wrote a letter urging the global body
to update its guidance on how the respiratory disease is spread."
I'm shocked. Shocked I say. Shocked.
a. You mean, the trackers won't really work?
No way. Who could have predicted that?
--
When someone that smart says something that stupid, you know slimy politics
are involved, where, in this case, my vote is on China pulling the strings.
Arlen Holder
Jul 9, 2020, 6:59:53 PM7/9/20
to
I'm not sure people realize how BIG this new data "could" be (if it turns
out, after deeper inspection and more tests, to be true).
HINT: It means covid tracers have literally zero chance of being effective.
o They make ignorati _feel_ safe, but they won't actually do a damn thing.
Time will tell, but this is the news today, from what happened yesterday,
which is that all this social distancing stuff, even, while likely
partially effective, won't help if you get infected by a person who is not
only five times that distance away - but he left the room a while ago.
And you can still get infected (I stress, this is preliminary evidence!).
o *The Coronavirus Can Be Airborne Indoors, W.H.O. Says*
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/health/virus-aerosols-who.html>
"The agency also explained more directly that people without symptoms
may spread the virus. The acknowledgments should have come sooner,
some experts said."
o *Airborne Coronavirus: What You Should Do Now*
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/health/coronavirus-airborne-aerosols.html>
"The coronavirus can stay aloft for hours in tiny droplets in stagnant
air, infecting people as they inhale, mounting scientific evidence
suggests."
--
People who can't comprehend facts are doomed to be ruled by MARKETING.
out, after deeper inspection and more tests, to be true).
HINT: It means covid tracers have literally zero chance of being effective.
o They make ignorati _feel_ safe, but they won't actually do a damn thing.
Time will tell, but this is the news today, from what happened yesterday,
which is that all this social distancing stuff, even, while likely
partially effective, won't help if you get infected by a person who is not
only five times that distance away - but he left the room a while ago.
And you can still get infected (I stress, this is preliminary evidence!).
o *The Coronavirus Can Be Airborne Indoors, W.H.O. Says*
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/health/virus-aerosols-who.html>
"The agency also explained more directly that people without symptoms
may spread the virus. The acknowledgments should have come sooner,
some experts said."
o *Airborne Coronavirus: What You Should Do Now*
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/health/coronavirus-airborne-aerosols.html>
"The coronavirus can stay aloft for hours in tiny droplets in stagnant
air, infecting people as they inhale, mounting scientific evidence
suggests."
--
People who can't comprehend facts are doomed to be ruled by MARKETING.
123456789
Jul 9, 2020, 9:44:48 PM7/9/20
to
Arlen Holder wrote:
> this is the news today, from what happened yesterday, which is that
> all this social distancing stuff, even, while likely partially
> effective, won't help if you get infected by a person who is not
> only five times that distance away - but he left the room a while
> ago.
I think the government's overall plan is to SLOW the infection rate down
> this is the news today, from what happened yesterday, which is that
> all this social distancing stuff, even, while likely partially
> effective, won't help if you get infected by a person who is not
> only five times that distance away - but he left the room a while
> ago.
so that the medical facilities are not overloaded. That way you MAY get
the emergency bed you need if you are unlucky enough to have a life
threatening case. I have two grandkids who are registered nurses at
local hospitals and have heard how they are swamped. Course
it's been bad enough here (Phx AZ) that we've made the national news the
past several days.
IMO it's probably too far gone for tracking to do much good. But masks,
distancing, and isolating can still help in the curve flattening...
Your Name
Jul 9, 2020, 11:12:38 PM7/9/20
to
there some people who won't use the app (for whatever reason, including
their device being too old to run it), but there are people who don't
own or want a mobile phone at all.
Here in New Zealand, as the full lockdown was slowly eased, businesses
were required to collect the details of customers they dealt with. In
the case of the local dog groomer, that was a clipboard at the entrance
where visitors wrote their contact deatils. But this isn't fully
effective either because some people were putting fake details.
Individuals were also meant keep basically a diary of where they
visited, but I doubt many people bothered to do that.
Arlen Holder
Jul 9, 2020, 11:29:58 PM7/9/20
to
On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 18:44:44 -0700, 123456789 wrote:
> I think the government's overall plan is to SLOW the infection rate down
> so that the medical facilities are not overloaded. That way you MAY get
> the emergency bed you need if you are unlucky enough to have a life
> threatening case. I have two grandkids who are registered nurses at
> local hospitals and have heard how they are swamped. Course
> it's been bad enough here (Phx AZ) that we've made the national news the
> past several days.
I think we'd all agree that "flattening the curve" is a key initial goal.
> I think the government's overall plan is to SLOW the infection rate down
> so that the medical facilities are not overloaded. That way you MAY get
> the emergency bed you need if you are unlucky enough to have a life
> threatening case. I have two grandkids who are registered nurses at
> local hospitals and have heard how they are swamped. Course
> it's been bad enough here (Phx AZ) that we've made the national news the
> past several days.
With respect to telecom newsgroups, the topic of import is surveillance.
o My point of view is clear, that these surveillance apps can not work.
The REASONS they can not work are myriad, one of which is privacy.
o Even the UK had to drop its initial surveillance plan for a better one.
> IMO it's probably too far gone for tracking to do much good. But masks,
> distancing, and isolating can still help in the curve flattening...
hand washing, fomite decontamination, online meetings, etc., _help_....
With respect to surveillance apps placed on our phones, the new revelation
that, perhaps, possibly, you can be infected by a person who left a
small'ish room _3 hours prior_, the nails in the coffin for
government-sponsored surveillance apps are being lined up.
First we found out that the surveillance apps, at least in the UK, began on
a highly flawed basis (to say the least)...
And then, we find out that the government sponsored covid surveillance apps
can't possibly work unless the majority of the population trusts them...
(which has never happened, and even in Singapore, it's not even close!).
And then, despite the WHO trying to claim otherwise, scientists forced the
WHO to agree that the anonymous elephant in the room can't so easily be
ignored when they claim (erroneously as it turns out) that asymptomatic
transmission is "very rare" (in the _same sentence!_ mind you, where they
declared a super secret government told them it was so!) and, in the same
block of sentences where the WHO told us to "focus on" just the type of
government surveillance that specific super secret government does, as a
matter of habit (IMHO).
Now... a huge nail in the coffin of surveillance apps was handed to us,
which is that it's sort of like "cigarette smoke", which lingers on in the
room 3 hours _after_ the person left the room.
Even _inside_ the room, you can be 30 feet away, and possibly get infected,
according to the reports I cited that forced the WHO to acknowledge, this
week, the potential.
Doesn't _anyone_ on this newgroup comprehend what this means for governent
sponsored surveillance apps?
--
The ignorati don't comprehend a single fact I've cited in this thread.
Arlen Holder
Jul 10, 2020, 12:02:12 AM7/10/20
to
Dateline today...
"In fact, the vast majority of virus-tracing apps used by governments
lack adequate security and are easy for hackers to attack, according
to a recent software analysis by Guardsquare, a mobile app security
company."
I ran out of NYT teaser views, so I found the article here.
o *Virus-tracing apps are rife with problems. Governments are rushing to fix them.*
<https://www.baltimoresun.com/coronavirus/sns-nyt-virus-tracing-apps-privacy-20200709-gowvxjszr5hifa52vi2zown5vu-story.html>
o In April, the NYT found India's app leaked location information
o In May, Amnesty International identified huge holes in Qatar's app
o By mid-June, Norway closed its surveillance app down
o In the same time frame, Britain gave up on it's first attempt
Specific details in the article.
--
People who are sensible don't invest in what can't possibly ever work.
"In fact, the vast majority of virus-tracing apps used by governments
lack adequate security and are easy for hackers to attack, according
to a recent software analysis by Guardsquare, a mobile app security
company."
I ran out of NYT teaser views, so I found the article here.
o *Virus-tracing apps are rife with problems. Governments are rushing to fix them.*
<https://www.baltimoresun.com/coronavirus/sns-nyt-virus-tracing-apps-privacy-20200709-gowvxjszr5hifa52vi2zown5vu-story.html>
o In April, the NYT found India's app leaked location information
o In May, Amnesty International identified huge holes in Qatar's app
o By mid-June, Norway closed its surveillance app down
o In the same time frame, Britain gave up on it's first attempt
Specific details in the article.
--
People who are sensible don't invest in what can't possibly ever work.
Arlen Holder
Jul 13, 2020, 7:50:47 PM7/13/20
to
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 14:17:33 -0700, Leo wrote:
> Let's make it a point, you and I, to revisit these two posts next
> January. I for you!
> Let's make it a point, you and I, to revisit these two posts next
I've been keeping up on the facts, where I assess that nothing will be
different in January or even in January of 100 years from now.
There are only 7 known human coronaviruses, four of which cause from one
tenth to one third of all common colds (the other three being SARS, MERS,
and SARS-Cov-2).
Anyone thinking the mass surveillance apps is gonna save them, needs to
realize how prevalent asymptomatic transmission is, despite the (seemingly
political?) bullshit from the WHO (which, thank God, real scientists forced
them to back down on just as we force apologists to accept facts).
o *Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Spain (ENE-COVID):*
*a nationwide, population-based seroepidemiological study*
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31483-5/fulltext>
This sentence should give those who espouse trackers, cause to ponder:
"a substantial proportion of people with symptoms compatible with
COVID-19 did not have a PCR test and at least a third of infections
determined by serology were asymptomatic."
--
The ignorati allow these mass surveillance apps to destroy our privacy.
Arlen Holder
Jul 19, 2020, 12:42:16 AM7/19/20
to
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 15:12:36 +1200, Your Name wrote:
> Mobile phone tracking was never going to work effectively. Not only are
> there some people who won't use the app (for whatever reason, including
> their device being too old to run it), but there are people who don't
> own or want a mobile phone at all.
>
> Here in New Zealand, as the full lockdown was slowly eased, businesses
> were required to collect the details of customers they dealt with. In
> the case of the local dog groomer, that was a clipboard at the entrance
> where visitors wrote their contact deatils. But this isn't fully
> effective either because some people were putting fake details.
>
> Individuals were also meant keep basically a diary of where they
> visited, but I doubt many people bothered to do that.
Yeah, I saw that "diary" stuff for New Zealand, where it's completely
> Mobile phone tracking was never going to work effectively. Not only are
> there some people who won't use the app (for whatever reason, including
> their device being too old to run it), but there are people who don't
> own or want a mobile phone at all.
>
> Here in New Zealand, as the full lockdown was slowly eased, businesses
> were required to collect the details of customers they dealt with. In
> the case of the local dog groomer, that was a clipboard at the entrance
> where visitors wrote their contact deatils. But this isn't fully
> effective either because some people were putting fake details.
>
> Individuals were also meant keep basically a diary of where they
> visited, but I doubt many people bothered to do that.
different with New Zealand being an island (or Singapore) that can easily
control a lot of things that a bigger country like the USA just can't
possibly do effectively, particularly with the USA's focus on privacy.
I need to look up this "NZ COVID Tracer" where it isn't even bluetooth yet,
afaict (is it?)
<https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-novel-coronavirus-resources-and-tools/nz-covid-tracer-app/questions-and-answers-nz-covid-tracer>
Most of their cases are from overseas, not indigenous cases:
<https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-health-advice-general-public/contact-tracing-covid-19>
Their metrics sheet gives themselves high scores, but it's essentially
ignoring asymptomatic elephants and aerosol elephants, which are facts
that everyone loves to ignore because they're extremely inconvenient.
Science doesn't ignore the inconvenient elephants; politics does.
This barely mentions contact tracing for success in New Zealand:
o How New Zealand went 'hard and early' to beat Covid-19
<https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53274085>
If you read that article, it does NOT give credit in any large part
to contact tracing.
The reasons contact tracing is the wrong focus (IMHO) are in the
threads below, ordered by date, which show that anyone who doesn't
take in the facts is simply playing politics, since the facts don't
seem to give any validity to contact tracing being effective in practice.
NOTE: If contact tracing were absolutely perfect, and if there were
no losses in privacy nor opportunity cost (i.e., lost focus),
and if the disease obeyed the rules (e.g., no asymptomatic transmission
and no aerosol transmission), then... sure.... it would work just fine.
May 26:
o Coronavirus: First Google/Apple-based contact-tracing app launched
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/uV-dW7KL0U8>
May 27:
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>
May 28:
o Vulnerability in Qatar's MANDATORY COVID-19 app EHTERAZ put its users' private information at risk
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/q1mBO_1ILKQ>
May 28:
o BBC: Coronavirus: France set to roll out contact-tracing app before UK
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/uk.telecom.mobile/IIkdP4XoOU0>
May 28:
o Apparently, "Phase II" Apple/Google bluetooth API Covid tracking will be a likely mandatory component of both Android & OS (not a separate app!)
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/G6w72XSgaXE>
May 29:
o Alberta's COVID-19 tracking app ABTraceTogether requires some users to keep devices always unlocked with the app always active in the foreground
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/YOcageSxGqs>
May 29:
o India's MANDATORY GPS-based Covid tracking app: Aarogya Setu: The story of a failure
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/SrKs0F8V1hI>
May 30:
o Jordan covid tracking app AMAN which saves user location data & reports exposure data to others via the app itself... is awaiting approval by Apple
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/t0Ap6DtjVKA>
May 30:
o US states of South Dakota & North Dakota "Care19" covid tracking app on Google Play & the Apple iOS App Store records about half of where you've been
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/oyEp-4rserE>
June 2:
o Italy has released its Immuni contact tracing surveillance app for pilot trials
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/gDIdxGJdjhI>
June 2:
o France rolls out its StopCovid Covid-19 surveillance & tracking app today on iOS and Android
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ZFDFdteB774>
Jun 20:
o Bahrain "BeAware", Kuwait "Schlonik" & Norway "Smittestopp" contact tracing surveillance apps among most dangerous - mandatory live tracking via GPS in real time
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/QOQt51MBRYE>
June 20:
o NHS UK-created NHSX contact tracing app ditches centralised surveillance after DHSC Isle of Wight testing
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/uk.telecom.mobile/9KR0X3xbq0w>
June 20:
o Australia COVIDSafe covid tracking & surveillance app vulnerability
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Kp2Yj9z_YT0>
--
Anyone who proposes contact tracing as the solution, must ignore the facts.
Arlen Holder
Jul 21, 2020, 7:15:39 PM7/21/20
to
Dateline today...
o Just the facts (and logical publicly cited assessments of those facts)...
*NOT SURPRISINGLY:*
The Washington Post says that the actual number of cases is 10 times what's
been reported (I'd be surprised if it's not far more than just 10x given
asymptomatic cases and both asymptomatic & aerosol transmission).
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/21/covid-live-updates-us/>
*SURPRISINGLY:*
Looks like just under 1/4 of NYC residents (23%), are calculated, to date,
to have the coronavirus antibodies.
<https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/cdc-antibody-tests-show-virus-rates-10-times-higher-reported-n1234480>
*TENTATIVELY:*
Most likely, the assessment (which is preliminary) is that herd immunity is
not achievable (the article says it's up for debate) simply because the
antibody titer wanes quickly (half life of 73 days); however, there is some
emerging evidence that the glycoprotein triad antibody titer, itself, isn't
the only immune-response metric that we should be looking at.
<https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/covid-19-immunity-virus-antibodies-may-fade-fast-protection-may-n1234498>
*INTERESTINGLY:*
Interestingly, that article noted that immunologists argue that a
golden-bullet vaccine might confer longer-lasting immunity than the actual
disease, which, is the first time I've EVER heard that to be the case, so I
need to delve deeper into why they feel "purified" antigen invokes a
"longer lasting" immunity than the actual full-blown disease might.
NOTE: They may be conflating the asymptomatic cases with the full-blown
disease cases, where the antibody titre "could" be drastically different.
--
Just the facts (and logical publicly cited assessments of those facts)...
o Just the facts (and logical publicly cited assessments of those facts)...
*NOT SURPRISINGLY:*
The Washington Post says that the actual number of cases is 10 times what's
been reported (I'd be surprised if it's not far more than just 10x given
asymptomatic cases and both asymptomatic & aerosol transmission).
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/21/covid-live-updates-us/>
*SURPRISINGLY:*
Looks like just under 1/4 of NYC residents (23%), are calculated, to date,
to have the coronavirus antibodies.
<https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/cdc-antibody-tests-show-virus-rates-10-times-higher-reported-n1234480>
*TENTATIVELY:*
Most likely, the assessment (which is preliminary) is that herd immunity is
not achievable (the article says it's up for debate) simply because the
antibody titer wanes quickly (half life of 73 days); however, there is some
emerging evidence that the glycoprotein triad antibody titer, itself, isn't
the only immune-response metric that we should be looking at.
<https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/covid-19-immunity-virus-antibodies-may-fade-fast-protection-may-n1234498>
*INTERESTINGLY:*
Interestingly, that article noted that immunologists argue that a
golden-bullet vaccine might confer longer-lasting immunity than the actual
disease, which, is the first time I've EVER heard that to be the case, so I
need to delve deeper into why they feel "purified" antigen invokes a
"longer lasting" immunity than the actual full-blown disease might.
NOTE: They may be conflating the asymptomatic cases with the full-blown
disease cases, where the antibody titre "could" be drastically different.
--
Just the facts (and logical publicly cited assessments of those facts)...
Arlen Holder
Jul 22, 2020, 1:49:46 PM7/22/20
to
UPDATE: on the facts...
Apparently the USA just secured 100 million doses of the future vaccine at
just under two billion dollars according to the WSJ today...
<https://www.wsj.com/articles/pfizer-biontech-get-1-95-billion-covid-19-vaccine-order-from-u-s-government-11595418221>
"Vaccines to be provided to Americans free of charge."
Unfortunately, the "disease" confers a half-life antibody titre of 73 days;
but perhaps the vaccine can be better if it's purified antigen (we won't
really know yet).
IMHO, this is a far better focus than apps that can't possibly be effective
(given you need 60% uptake, assuming perfect apps, just to attain 1/3rd of
your contacts traced, and nobody has gotten anywhere near 60%).
Iceland at 38% and Singapore at about 25% are the best in the world, and
even so, that catches roughly about 5% to 18% of your contacts assuming
absolutely PERFECT apps (some iOS apps catch only 6% and some Android apps
catch only 75% of your contacts, and this ignores asymptomatics and
aerosols, etc.).
Having done the math, I suspect, in the USA, the best that can be achieved,
all things considered, is catching roughly about 2 percent of your
contacts, which is vastly below the 30% required according to
epidemiologists previously quoted in this thread.
--
Just the facts, not the bullshit, on the Covid related focus on silly apps.
Apparently the USA just secured 100 million doses of the future vaccine at
just under two billion dollars according to the WSJ today...
<https://www.wsj.com/articles/pfizer-biontech-get-1-95-billion-covid-19-vaccine-order-from-u-s-government-11595418221>
"Vaccines to be provided to Americans free of charge."
Unfortunately, the "disease" confers a half-life antibody titre of 73 days;
but perhaps the vaccine can be better if it's purified antigen (we won't
really know yet).
IMHO, this is a far better focus than apps that can't possibly be effective
(given you need 60% uptake, assuming perfect apps, just to attain 1/3rd of
your contacts traced, and nobody has gotten anywhere near 60%).
Iceland at 38% and Singapore at about 25% are the best in the world, and
even so, that catches roughly about 5% to 18% of your contacts assuming
absolutely PERFECT apps (some iOS apps catch only 6% and some Android apps
catch only 75% of your contacts, and this ignores asymptomatics and
aerosols, etc.).
Having done the math, I suspect, in the USA, the best that can be achieved,
all things considered, is catching roughly about 2 percent of your
contacts, which is vastly below the 30% required according to
epidemiologists previously quoted in this thread.
--
Just the facts, not the bullshit, on the Covid related focus on silly apps.
Arlen Holder
Jul 23, 2020, 11:17:55 PM7/23/20
to
Preliminary assessment of the facts: (titer === AmEnglish, titre === BrEnglish)
o Antibody titers (IGg) to Covid-19 half life at about 2-1/2 months.
o Mild illness shows weaker antibody titers (not surprisingly)
o Antibody titers to full-blown illness are about 10x to 100x of mild illness
o Scientists assess one to three year protection from the disease
o A lot depends not only on iGg but also on B cells and T-cell responses
o One vaccine provokes a surprisingly strong T-cell response
o Luckily, due to dosage & purity, vaccine response could last longer than the natural disease response
The facts...
o Rapid Decay of Anti–SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in Persons with Mild Covid-19
<https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2025179>
o SARS-CoV-2 infection induces robust, neutralizing antibody responses that are stable for at least three months
<https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.14.20151126v1>
o Clinical and immunological assessment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0965-6>
o Longitudinal evaluation and decline of antibody responses in SARS-CoV-2 infection
<https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.09.20148429v1>
o Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31604-4/fulltext>
--
Those espousing mass surveillance should understand the facts first.
o Antibody titers (IGg) to Covid-19 half life at about 2-1/2 months.
o Mild illness shows weaker antibody titers (not surprisingly)
o Antibody titers to full-blown illness are about 10x to 100x of mild illness
o Scientists assess one to three year protection from the disease
o A lot depends not only on iGg but also on B cells and T-cell responses
o One vaccine provokes a surprisingly strong T-cell response
o Luckily, due to dosage & purity, vaccine response could last longer than the natural disease response
The facts...
o Rapid Decay of Anti–SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in Persons with Mild Covid-19
<https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2025179>
o SARS-CoV-2 infection induces robust, neutralizing antibody responses that are stable for at least three months
<https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.14.20151126v1>
o Clinical and immunological assessment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0965-6>
o Longitudinal evaluation and decline of antibody responses in SARS-CoV-2 infection
<https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.09.20148429v1>
o Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31604-4/fulltext>
--
Those espousing mass surveillance should understand the facts first.
Arlen Holder
Jul 24, 2020, 1:18:30 PM7/24/20
to
Dateline today:
o An alternative vaccine method than the usual methods...
o *Structural basis of RNA cap modification by SARS-CoV-2*
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17496-8>
Apparently, the virus utilizes an enzyme (nsp16) which modifies the mRNA
cap, essentially camouflaging the RNA from being considered foreign from
our intracellular RNA.
In the paper, the researchers discovered a site within the nsp16 enzyme
which can be targeted to inhibit that enzyme.
The implication is that a vaccine can be made that inhibits this nsp16
enzyme, which will result in the viral RNA being recognized as foreign
within the cell.
Note this is different from the intercellular vaccine mechanism which
targets the spike glycoprotein on the outside of the enveloped virus.
--
Those who feel surveillance is the solution don't know the facts.
o An alternative vaccine method than the usual methods...
o *Structural basis of RNA cap modification by SARS-CoV-2*
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17496-8>
Apparently, the virus utilizes an enzyme (nsp16) which modifies the mRNA
cap, essentially camouflaging the RNA from being considered foreign from
our intracellular RNA.
In the paper, the researchers discovered a site within the nsp16 enzyme
which can be targeted to inhibit that enzyme.
The implication is that a vaccine can be made that inhibits this nsp16
enzyme, which will result in the viral RNA being recognized as foreign
within the cell.
Note this is different from the intercellular vaccine mechanism which
targets the spike glycoprotein on the outside of the enveloped virus.
--
Those who feel surveillance is the solution don't know the facts.
Arlen Holder
Jul 26, 2020, 9:07:14 AM7/26/20
to
UPDATE (on DIY face masks & the pitfalls of throwaway masks)
o *Face Masks for the General Public by the Royal Society DELVE Initiative*
<https://rs-delve.github.io/reports/2020/05/04/face-masks-for-the-general-public.html>
o *Testing Shows Type of Cloth Used in Homemade Masks Makes a Difference*
<https://newsroom.wakehealth.edu/News-Releases/2020/04/Testing-Shows-Type-of-Cloth-Used-in-Homemade-Masks-Makes-a-Difference>
o *DIY Cloth Face Coverings*
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.html>
See also:
o *What are the best materials for making a DIY ~0.3 micron mask at home to filter in the coronavirus?*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.home.repair/Mz_aRrYW_Ow>
o *The environmental dangers of employing single-use face masks*
<https://www.plasticwastehub.org.uk/news/the-environmental-dangers-of-employing-single-use-face-masks-as-part-of-a-covid-19-exit-strategy>
--
The ignorati abound on Usenet regarding the science of the coronavirus.
o *Face Masks for the General Public by the Royal Society DELVE Initiative*
<https://rs-delve.github.io/reports/2020/05/04/face-masks-for-the-general-public.html>
o *Testing Shows Type of Cloth Used in Homemade Masks Makes a Difference*
<https://newsroom.wakehealth.edu/News-Releases/2020/04/Testing-Shows-Type-of-Cloth-Used-in-Homemade-Masks-Makes-a-Difference>
o *DIY Cloth Face Coverings*
<https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.html>
See also:
o *What are the best materials for making a DIY ~0.3 micron mask at home to filter in the coronavirus?*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.home.repair/Mz_aRrYW_Ow>
o *The environmental dangers of employing single-use face masks*
<https://www.plasticwastehub.org.uk/news/the-environmental-dangers-of-employing-single-use-face-masks-as-part-of-a-covid-19-exit-strategy>
--
The ignorati abound on Usenet regarding the science of the coronavirus.
Arlen Holder
Jul 26, 2020, 9:44:46 PM7/26/20
to
UPDATE:
"For the apps to work on smartphones with Google's Android operating
system - the most popular in the world - users must first turn on the
device location setting, which enables GPS and may allow Google to
determine their locations.
"Once Android users turn on location, however, Google may determine their
precise locations, using Wi-Fi, mobile networks and Bluetooth beacons,
through a setting called Google Location Accuracy"
"Human rights groups and technologists have warned that aggressive data
collection and security flaws in many apps put hundreds of millions of
people at risk for stalking, scams, identity theft or oppressive
government tracking. Now the Android location issue could undermine the
privacy promises that governments made to the public."
o Google Promises Privacy With Virus App but Can Still Collect Location Data
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/20/technology/google-covid-tracker-app.html>
"Users should be able to use such proximity tracing apps without any
bindings with other services, said Dr. Sang-Il Kim, the department
head for digital transformation at Switzerland's Federal Office of
Public Health, who oversees the country's virus-alert app."
--
Usenet is wonderful when everyone pitches in helpfully with knowledge.
"For the apps to work on smartphones with Google's Android operating
system - the most popular in the world - users must first turn on the
device location setting, which enables GPS and may allow Google to
determine their locations.
"Once Android users turn on location, however, Google may determine their
precise locations, using Wi-Fi, mobile networks and Bluetooth beacons,
through a setting called Google Location Accuracy"
"Human rights groups and technologists have warned that aggressive data
collection and security flaws in many apps put hundreds of millions of
people at risk for stalking, scams, identity theft or oppressive
government tracking. Now the Android location issue could undermine the
privacy promises that governments made to the public."
o Google Promises Privacy With Virus App but Can Still Collect Location Data
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/20/technology/google-covid-tracker-app.html>
"Users should be able to use such proximity tracing apps without any
bindings with other services, said Dr. Sang-Il Kim, the department
head for digital transformation at Switzerland's Federal Office of
Public Health, who oversees the country's virus-alert app."
--
Usenet is wonderful when everyone pitches in helpfully with knowledge.
Arlen Holder
Aug 1, 2020, 9:43:36 PM8/1/20
to
On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 16:59:34 +0100, mechanic wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Aug 2020 02:18:38 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>> that is nothing more than yet another lunatic fringe wacko conspiracy
>> theory.
>
> That's as maybe, but on the other hand explain how a single strand
> RNA molecule virus with thousands of base pairs evolved a protected
> protein sheath with actual hooks on it to catch pipes in our
> respiratory system? Every sign of an engineered product.
Regarding this conversation with nospam in the Windows 10 thread...
o Re: internet exporer pullled by Microsoft?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.microsoft.windows/8RGvF5vEgyg>
Hi mechanic,
While you describe this particular virus incorrectly, I realized you likely
meant that the trimeric spike proteins that hook into our cells (after
activation by furin and ACE2) are on the viral envelope, not the protein
sheath inside which is surrounding the rather large coiled up RNA strand,
where that viral envelope derives from our own cells, so it's antigenically
innocuous except for those key components of the spike protein itself.
Assuming you had meant an accurate characterization of this particular
virus, do you realize that there are six other almost exact similar
coronaviruses, four of which cause from one tenth to about one third of all
cases of the common cold?
Also assuming you had meant an accurate characterization of this virus,
where we'll all admit the RNA is huge in terms of most RNA (or DNA)
viruses, do you realize that almost all human respiratory viruses fit some,
most, or almost all of your characterizations?
My point is that for you to make an extraordinary claim about the bio
weapon aspect, you're gonna need extraordinary evidence - where your only
evidence to date is that this virus is just like many respiratory viruses
(which is to be expected).
BTW, there ARE differences in this virus, which I've covered in other
threads, but you didn't mention them.
See also:
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>
--
There are all types of people on Usenet... some of whom are well educated.
> On Sat, 01 Aug 2020 02:18:38 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>> that is nothing more than yet another lunatic fringe wacko conspiracy
>> theory.
>
> That's as maybe, but on the other hand explain how a single strand
> RNA molecule virus with thousands of base pairs evolved a protected
> protein sheath with actual hooks on it to catch pipes in our
> respiratory system? Every sign of an engineered product.
Regarding this conversation with nospam in the Windows 10 thread...
o Re: internet exporer pullled by Microsoft?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.microsoft.windows/8RGvF5vEgyg>
Hi mechanic,
While you describe this particular virus incorrectly, I realized you likely
meant that the trimeric spike proteins that hook into our cells (after
activation by furin and ACE2) are on the viral envelope, not the protein
sheath inside which is surrounding the rather large coiled up RNA strand,
where that viral envelope derives from our own cells, so it's antigenically
innocuous except for those key components of the spike protein itself.
Assuming you had meant an accurate characterization of this particular
virus, do you realize that there are six other almost exact similar
coronaviruses, four of which cause from one tenth to about one third of all
cases of the common cold?
Also assuming you had meant an accurate characterization of this virus,
where we'll all admit the RNA is huge in terms of most RNA (or DNA)
viruses, do you realize that almost all human respiratory viruses fit some,
most, or almost all of your characterizations?
My point is that for you to make an extraordinary claim about the bio
weapon aspect, you're gonna need extraordinary evidence - where your only
evidence to date is that this virus is just like many respiratory viruses
(which is to be expected).
BTW, there ARE differences in this virus, which I've covered in other
threads, but you didn't mention them.
See also:
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>
--
There are all types of people on Usenet... some of whom are well educated.
Arlen Holder
Aug 9, 2020, 6:46:40 PM8/9/20
to
Update, dateline today:
<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/early/2020/08/07/sciadv.abd3083/F1.large.jpg>
Some masks _increase_ the number of particles (e.g., fleece), while many
(most actually) decrease the number of particles, and a valved N95 is worse
for you, if you're next to that person (than an non-valved N95).
Go figure. See the paper published today for details, summarized below...
o Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech
<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/08/07/sciadv.abd3083>
"We compared a variety of commonly available mask types and observed that
some mask types approach the performance of standard surgical masks, while
some mask alternatives, such as neck fleece or bandanas, offer very little
protection."
"For the bandana (red curve), the droplet rate is merely reduced by a
factor of two and the repetitions of the speech are still noticeable. The
effect of the cotton mask (orange curve) is much stronger. "
"We noticed that speaking through some masks (particularly the neck
fleece) seemed to disperse the largest droplets into a multitude of smaller
droplets (see Supplementary Fig. S5), which explains the apparent increase
in droplet count relative to no mask in that case. Considering that smaller
particles are airborne longer than large droplets (larger droplets sink
faster), the use of such a mask might be counterproductive."
"Furthermore, the performance of the valved N95 mask is likely affected
by the exhalation valve, which opens for strong outwards airflow. While the
valve does not compromise the protection of the wearer, it can decrease
protection of persons surrounding the wearer. In comparison, the
performance of the fitted, non-valved N95 mask was far superior."
--
This newsgroup died the day it became a chitchat group for amusement.
<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/early/2020/08/07/sciadv.abd3083/F1.large.jpg>
Some masks _increase_ the number of particles (e.g., fleece), while many
(most actually) decrease the number of particles, and a valved N95 is worse
for you, if you're next to that person (than an non-valved N95).
Go figure. See the paper published today for details, summarized below...
o Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech
<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/08/07/sciadv.abd3083>
"We compared a variety of commonly available mask types and observed that
some mask types approach the performance of standard surgical masks, while
some mask alternatives, such as neck fleece or bandanas, offer very little
protection."
"For the bandana (red curve), the droplet rate is merely reduced by a
factor of two and the repetitions of the speech are still noticeable. The
effect of the cotton mask (orange curve) is much stronger. "
"We noticed that speaking through some masks (particularly the neck
fleece) seemed to disperse the largest droplets into a multitude of smaller
droplets (see Supplementary Fig. S5), which explains the apparent increase
in droplet count relative to no mask in that case. Considering that smaller
particles are airborne longer than large droplets (larger droplets sink
faster), the use of such a mask might be counterproductive."
"Furthermore, the performance of the valved N95 mask is likely affected
by the exhalation valve, which opens for strong outwards airflow. While the
valve does not compromise the protection of the wearer, it can decrease
protection of persons surrounding the wearer. In comparison, the
performance of the fitted, non-valved N95 mask was far superior."
--
This newsgroup died the day it became a chitchat group for amusement.
Arlen Holder
Sep 2, 2020, 4:29:13 PM9/2/20
to
On Tue, 01 Sep 2020 15:55:13 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
> It's complicated, but something can be said for having a somewhat tamed
> dysregulated immune response rather than COVID during a flare-up,
Yes. Agreed.
I took plenty of immunology in my undergraduate days way back when.
To say "It's complicated" pretty much summarizes four semesters of just
immunology alone, let alone biochemistry, physiology, microbiology, etc.
The immune response is super freaking complicated.
I'm glad you realize this fact, because it seems most people think the
entire immune system is all humoral, and not cell mediated at all...
a. You get the vaccine well before you get the disease.
b. Then, whenever you're exposed, you don't ever get the disease.
c. It's all antibodies (GAMED, but mostly G, to most people).
Pretty simple, huh?
o And yet, it's not simple,.
It's freaking complicated.
o For one thing, cytokines are the messages from hell sometimes.
The 1918 flu killed, for the most part, the young and healthy, while this
disease, for the most part, kills the old and unhealthy, and yet, in both
cases even with pneumonia, the cytokine storm timing coinciding with the
pneumonia, is what does most of the final life-ending damage.
Why?
o It's complicated why.
Here are some references, I simply chose randomly, from the NYT I was
reading when I saw your interesting note, which I appreciate since I love a
factual, sensible, logical, and adult conversation as much as anyone does.
o The Coronavirus Patients Betrayed by Their Own Immune Systems
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/health/coronavirus-cytokine-storm-immune-system.html>
o Coronavirus Can Set Off a Cytokine Storm. These Drugs May Calm It.
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/health/coronavirus-cytokine-storm.html>
o How Covid Sends Some Bodies to War With Themselves
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/magazine/covid-cytokine-storms.html>
IMHO, having training in this area, the cytokine storm, IMHO, is key:
o Does a single person espousing the privacy sink covid trackers even know
Anyone who doesn't take into account the cytokine storm, and particularly
its timing with the pneumonia, can't possibly assess Covid-19 properly.
--
Usenet is a wonderfully public discussion of varying people's views.
> It's complicated, but something can be said for having a somewhat tamed
> dysregulated immune response rather than COVID during a flare-up,
Yes. Agreed.
I took plenty of immunology in my undergraduate days way back when.
To say "It's complicated" pretty much summarizes four semesters of just
immunology alone, let alone biochemistry, physiology, microbiology, etc.
The immune response is super freaking complicated.
I'm glad you realize this fact, because it seems most people think the
entire immune system is all humoral, and not cell mediated at all...
a. You get the vaccine well before you get the disease.
b. Then, whenever you're exposed, you don't ever get the disease.
c. It's all antibodies (GAMED, but mostly G, to most people).
Pretty simple, huh?
o And yet, it's not simple,.
It's freaking complicated.
o For one thing, cytokines are the messages from hell sometimes.
The 1918 flu killed, for the most part, the young and healthy, while this
disease, for the most part, kills the old and unhealthy, and yet, in both
cases even with pneumonia, the cytokine storm timing coinciding with the
pneumonia, is what does most of the final life-ending damage.
Why?
o It's complicated why.
Here are some references, I simply chose randomly, from the NYT I was
reading when I saw your interesting note, which I appreciate since I love a
factual, sensible, logical, and adult conversation as much as anyone does.
o The Coronavirus Patients Betrayed by Their Own Immune Systems
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/health/coronavirus-cytokine-storm-immune-system.html>
o Coronavirus Can Set Off a Cytokine Storm. These Drugs May Calm It.
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/health/coronavirus-cytokine-storm.html>
o How Covid Sends Some Bodies to War With Themselves
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/magazine/covid-cytokine-storms.html>
IMHO, having training in this area, the cytokine storm, IMHO, is key:
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>
Anyone who doesn't take into account the cytokine storm, and particularly
its timing with the pneumonia, can't possibly assess Covid-19 properly.
--
Usenet is a wonderfully public discussion of varying people's views.
Arlen Holder
Sep 11, 2020, 12:34:01 PM9/11/20
to
UPDATE:
o Quick result of a dejanews search in the mobile newsgroups...
May 26:
o Coronavirus: First Google/Apple-based contact-tracing app launched
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/uV-dW7KL0U8>
May 27:
May 30:
o US states of South Dakota & North Dakota "Care19" covid tracking app on Google Play & the Apple iOS App Store records about half of where you've been
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/oyEp-4rserE>
June 2:
o Italy has released its Immuni contact tracing surveillance app for pilot trials
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/gDIdxGJdjhI>
June 2:
o France rolls out its StopCovid Covid-19 surveillance & tracking app today on iOS and Android
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ZFDFdteB774>
Jun 20:
o Bahrain "BeAware", Kuwait "Schlonik" & Norway "Smittestopp" contact tracing surveillance apps among most dangerous - mandatory live tracking via GPS in real time
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/QOQt51MBRYE>
June 20:
o NHS UK-created NHSX contact tracing app ditches centralised surveillance after DHSC Isle of Wight testing
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/uk.telecom.mobile/9KR0X3xbq0w>
June 20:
o Australia COVIDSafe covid tracking & surveillance app vulnerability
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Kp2Yj9z_YT0>
Jul 19:
o Is the New Zealand contact tracing app "NZ COVID Tracer" even bluetooth yet?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/zEZ3cWh3Sdw>
July 21:
o The best that the Singapore TraceTogether mass surveillance app can do is get 4% of your contacts under PERFECT circumstances
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Zd8iLLPsJHk>
July 27:
o Google promised privacy with coronavirus mass surveillance but governments says Google still can collect users' location data
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/MlXUr7gIxH4>
Aug 1:
o Apple's contact tracing API now available in Canada, by JF Mezei
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/sX-AJCjrZNo>
Aug 6:
o Virginia releases COVIDWISE Exposure Notification App [notice they carefully avoid the terms contact tracing]
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/4NIpT6tusJ0>
Aug 12:
o England's Exposure Notification App Entering Trials Tomorrow [Public Trials Resume on August 13th, 2020]
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/NXATV8eIFr0>
Sep 1:
o Apple and Google Launch Exposure Notifications Express That Enables Contact Tracing Without Needing an App
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/DgxDqkiRgEE>
Sept 28:
o Apple and Google Launch Exposure Notifications Express That Enables Contact Tracing Without Needing an App
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/p9RsZ-PXMqw>
--
Good assessments require an immense capacity for comprehension of detail.
o Quick result of a dejanews search in the mobile newsgroups...
May 26:
o Coronavirus: First Google/Apple-based contact-tracing app launched
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/uV-dW7KL0U8>
May 27:
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>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/sAcXqAUyZ_U>
May 28:
o Vulnerability in Qatar's MANDATORY COVID-19 app EHTERAZ put its users' private information at risk
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/q1mBO_1ILKQ>
May 28:
o BBC: Coronavirus: France set to roll out contact-tracing app before UK
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/uk.telecom.mobile/IIkdP4XoOU0>
May 28:
o Apparently, "Phase II" Apple/Google bluetooth API Covid tracking will be a likely mandatory component of both Android & OS (not a separate app!)
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/G6w72XSgaXE>
May 29:
o Alberta's COVID-19 tracking app ABTraceTogether requires some users to keep devices always unlocked with the app always active in the foreground
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/YOcageSxGqs>
May 29:
o India's MANDATORY GPS-based Covid tracking app: Aarogya Setu: The story of a failure
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/SrKs0F8V1hI>
May 30:
o Jordan covid tracking app AMAN which saves user location data & reports exposure data to others via the app itself... is awaiting approval by Apple
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/t0Ap6DtjVKA>
May 30:
o Alberta's COVID-19 tracking app ABTraceTogether requires some users to keep devices always unlocked with the app always active in the foreground
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PpSf61Jgasg>
o Vulnerability in Qatar's MANDATORY COVID-19 app EHTERAZ put its users' private information at risk
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/q1mBO_1ILKQ>
May 28:
o BBC: Coronavirus: France set to roll out contact-tracing app before UK
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/uk.telecom.mobile/IIkdP4XoOU0>
May 28:
o Apparently, "Phase II" Apple/Google bluetooth API Covid tracking will be a likely mandatory component of both Android & OS (not a separate app!)
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/G6w72XSgaXE>
May 29:
o Alberta's COVID-19 tracking app ABTraceTogether requires some users to keep devices always unlocked with the app always active in the foreground
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/YOcageSxGqs>
May 29:
o India's MANDATORY GPS-based Covid tracking app: Aarogya Setu: The story of a failure
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/SrKs0F8V1hI>
May 30:
o Jordan covid tracking app AMAN which saves user location data & reports exposure data to others via the app itself... is awaiting approval by Apple
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/t0Ap6DtjVKA>
May 30:
o Alberta's COVID-19 tracking app ABTraceTogether requires some users to keep devices always unlocked with the app always active in the foreground
May 30:
o US states of South Dakota & North Dakota "Care19" covid tracking app on Google Play & the Apple iOS App Store records about half of where you've been
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/oyEp-4rserE>
June 2:
o Italy has released its Immuni contact tracing surveillance app for pilot trials
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/gDIdxGJdjhI>
June 2:
o France rolls out its StopCovid Covid-19 surveillance & tracking app today on iOS and Android
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ZFDFdteB774>
Jun 20:
o Bahrain "BeAware", Kuwait "Schlonik" & Norway "Smittestopp" contact tracing surveillance apps among most dangerous - mandatory live tracking via GPS in real time
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/QOQt51MBRYE>
June 20:
o NHS UK-created NHSX contact tracing app ditches centralised surveillance after DHSC Isle of Wight testing
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/uk.telecom.mobile/9KR0X3xbq0w>
June 20:
o Australia COVIDSafe covid tracking & surveillance app vulnerability
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Kp2Yj9z_YT0>
o Is the New Zealand contact tracing app "NZ COVID Tracer" even bluetooth yet?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/zEZ3cWh3Sdw>
July 21:
o The best that the Singapore TraceTogether mass surveillance app can do is get 4% of your contacts under PERFECT circumstances
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Zd8iLLPsJHk>
July 27:
o Google promised privacy with coronavirus mass surveillance but governments says Google still can collect users' location data
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/MlXUr7gIxH4>
Aug 1:
o Apple's contact tracing API now available in Canada, by JF Mezei
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/sX-AJCjrZNo>
Aug 6:
o Virginia releases COVIDWISE Exposure Notification App [notice they carefully avoid the terms contact tracing]
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/4NIpT6tusJ0>
Aug 12:
o England's Exposure Notification App Entering Trials Tomorrow [Public Trials Resume on August 13th, 2020]
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/NXATV8eIFr0>
Sep 1:
o Apple and Google Launch Exposure Notifications Express That Enables Contact Tracing Without Needing an App
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/DgxDqkiRgEE>
Sept 28:
o Apple and Google Launch Exposure Notifications Express That Enables Contact Tracing Without Needing an App
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/p9RsZ-PXMqw>
--
Good assessments require an immense capacity for comprehension of detail.
Arlen Holder
Sep 15, 2020, 12:54:49 PM9/15/20
to
Factual update from:
o Iceland Rakning C-19 covid contact tracing app in the world,
at 40% has the highest penetration in the world
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/sLU5fshbYSo>
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:12:28 +0100, tim... wrote:
> try this for your starter for 10
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52294896
Hi Tim,
Wow. It's rare, on this ng, to have people actually citing facts!
o I applaud, appreciate, and agree with every fact you cited!
Thanks for starting with the facts before skipping to assessments.
o Coronavirus: NHS contact tracing app to target 80% of smartphone users
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52294896>
"The Oxford University academics are a mix of epidemiologists
and ethicists advising NHSX, the health service's digital innovation
unit, on what basis the contact-tracing app should be created.
They are not involved in coding or designing the software itself."
You'll notice they speak about _both_ the 80% and 56% models
in the same sentence, which is why citing facts is important indeed.
"The team estimates that 56% of the general population must use the app
to halt the outbreak. Prof Fraser said that equated to 80% of all
existing smartphone owners, based on data from Ofcom."
The point on facts is to comprehend what they mean, e.g.,
a. 80% of people who own smartphones
b. 56% of the general population
"'That's a very ambitious target,' the professor acknowledged.
'It's not something that would typically happen for a new app.
even an incredibly popular one'"
Nobody has gotten close, although the data is from March:
"On 20 March, Singapore became one of the first countries
to deploy a voluntary contact-tracing app, TraceTogether.
But only about 12% of the population installed it, and
after a spike in new cases the city-state introduced a
lockdown on 7 April, which it termed a circuit-breaker.
--
Adults first agree on the facts before they can disagree on assessment.
o Iceland Rakning C-19 covid contact tracing app in the world,
at 40% has the highest penetration in the world
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/sLU5fshbYSo>
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:12:28 +0100, tim... wrote:
> try this for your starter for 10
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52294896
Hi Tim,
Wow. It's rare, on this ng, to have people actually citing facts!
o I applaud, appreciate, and agree with every fact you cited!
Thanks for starting with the facts before skipping to assessments.
o Coronavirus: NHS contact tracing app to target 80% of smartphone users
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52294896>
"The Oxford University academics are a mix of epidemiologists
and ethicists advising NHSX, the health service's digital innovation
unit, on what basis the contact-tracing app should be created.
They are not involved in coding or designing the software itself."
You'll notice they speak about _both_ the 80% and 56% models
in the same sentence, which is why citing facts is important indeed.
"The team estimates that 56% of the general population must use the app
to halt the outbreak. Prof Fraser said that equated to 80% of all
existing smartphone owners, based on data from Ofcom."
The point on facts is to comprehend what they mean, e.g.,
a. 80% of people who own smartphones
b. 56% of the general population
"'That's a very ambitious target,' the professor acknowledged.
'It's not something that would typically happen for a new app.
even an incredibly popular one'"
Nobody has gotten close, although the data is from March:
"On 20 March, Singapore became one of the first countries
to deploy a voluntary contact-tracing app, TraceTogether.
But only about 12% of the population installed it, and
after a spike in new cases the city-state introduced a
lockdown on 7 April, which it termed a circuit-breaker.
--
Adults first agree on the facts before they can disagree on assessment.
Arlen Holder
Sep 15, 2020, 1:21:50 PM9/15/20
to
Update:
o Covid-19 apps, what a waste
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/RaLzYId4zHY>
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.
o Covid-19 apps, what a waste
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/RaLzYId4zHY>
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.
Arlen Holder
Sep 16, 2020, 1:49:59 PM9/16/20
to
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 01:50:13 +1200, ~misfit~ wrote:
> In the link you quoted below it says "80% or current smart phone users". Do you know that 40% of
> Icelanders (or 44% of New Zealanders) ISN'T =/> 80% of the smart phone users in those countries?
Hi misfit,
Wow. Another intelligent post. Much appreciated.
o You are trying to clarify the facts, as do I, which is what adults do.
We can't possibly have discussions on assessments until we agree on facts.
o (Most people jump right to the assessments, skipping the facts.)
Let's review some facts, as we can't have a discussion about assessments
until we agree on all the available facts first.
The MIT Technology Review article (cite in the sig) says:
"If a small, socially cohesive, and geographically isolated nation
like Iceland can only achieve 38% penetration, that could suggest
that efforts in other countries will struggle to get the level of
adoption required."
From that, I assess, that the US & the UK will "struggle" to get
anywhere near the best penetration yet, which is about 40%.
(You may assess that differently though, but the facts remain.)
The problem with the percentage is we don't know if that's penetration of
total population or penetration of smartphone owners, where, I will assume,
for now, based only on the wording of the article (e.g., "38% of
Icelanders") sans any other data, that it's penetration of population
(however, I would instantly change my assessment if facts are shown
otherwise).
From the BBC hit (cited in the sig), we attain two factual assessments from
the "epidemiologists and ethicists", which is their models assess
o "56% of the general population must use the app to halt the outbreak"
o "that equated to 80% of all existing smartphone owners"
Again, they stress, as did the prior article that it's just not likely:
o "That's a very ambitious target"
o "It's not something that would typically happen for a new app"
o "even an incredibly popular one"
What percentage uptake would we expect to get in America? (see cite in sig)
o "It will be an uphill battle even to hit the 10 percent mark in America"
These aren't "my" assessments, mind you, they're from the scientists:
o "Under a range of assumptions, the percentage of the population needed
to be enrolled in automated contact tracing for outbreak control (Re<1)
was estimated (eg, 40–60% uptake required for Re<1, assuming a 30% mean
transmission probability per contact event, if 75–95% actively confirm
when they get infected"
--
REFERENCES
o Nearly 40% of Icelanders are using a covid app and it hasn't helped much
<https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/05/11/1001541/iceland-rakning-c19-covid-contact-tracing/>
<https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ever-happened-digital-contact-tracing>
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>
> In the link you quoted below it says "80% or current smart phone users". Do you know that 40% of
> Icelanders (or 44% of New Zealanders) ISN'T =/> 80% of the smart phone users in those countries?
Hi misfit,
Wow. Another intelligent post. Much appreciated.
o You are trying to clarify the facts, as do I, which is what adults do.
We can't possibly have discussions on assessments until we agree on facts.
o (Most people jump right to the assessments, skipping the facts.)
Let's review some facts, as we can't have a discussion about assessments
until we agree on all the available facts first.
The MIT Technology Review article (cite in the sig) says:
"If a small, socially cohesive, and geographically isolated nation
like Iceland can only achieve 38% penetration, that could suggest
that efforts in other countries will struggle to get the level of
adoption required."
From that, I assess, that the US & the UK will "struggle" to get
anywhere near the best penetration yet, which is about 40%.
(You may assess that differently though, but the facts remain.)
The problem with the percentage is we don't know if that's penetration of
total population or penetration of smartphone owners, where, I will assume,
for now, based only on the wording of the article (e.g., "38% of
Icelanders") sans any other data, that it's penetration of population
(however, I would instantly change my assessment if facts are shown
otherwise).
From the BBC hit (cited in the sig), we attain two factual assessments from
the "epidemiologists and ethicists", which is their models assess
o "56% of the general population must use the app to halt the outbreak"
o "that equated to 80% of all existing smartphone owners"
Again, they stress, as did the prior article that it's just not likely:
o "That's a very ambitious target"
o "It's not something that would typically happen for a new app"
o "even an incredibly popular one"
What percentage uptake would we expect to get in America? (see cite in sig)
o "It will be an uphill battle even to hit the 10 percent mark in America"
These aren't "my" assessments, mind you, they're from the scientists:
o "Under a range of assumptions, the percentage of the population needed
to be enrolled in automated contact tracing for outbreak control (Re<1)
was estimated (eg, 40–60% uptake required for Re<1, assuming a 30% mean
transmission probability per contact event, if 75–95% actively confirm
when they get infected"
--
REFERENCES
o Nearly 40% of Icelanders are using a covid app and it hasn't helped much
<https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/05/11/1001541/iceland-rakning-c19-covid-contact-tracing/>
o Coronavirus: NHS contact tracing app to target 80% of smartphone users
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52294896>
o What Ever Happened to Digital Contact Tracing?
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52294896>
<https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ever-happened-digital-contact-tracing>
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>
Arlen Holder
Sep 16, 2020, 1:50:33 PM9/16/20
to
Arlen Holder
Sep 16, 2020, 1:50:47 PM9/16/20
to
UPDATE:
This is one kind of coronavirus contact tracing that _does_ work:
o Contact Tracing for Native Americans in Rural Arizona
<https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2023540>
They did it the "old way", which makes sense, given the inhabitants don't
all likely have great cellphone use and they're all known to each other and
they likely don't travel all that much, etc., which is to say they're a
special case.
For science to work, special cases are just fine - as they give us outlier
datapoints from which to make assessments upon and to make models from.
What that article showed, rather clearly so, was that in extremely small
isolated "islands" of the population, particularly good results can be
obtained if a 30-man team goes out every day to visit each and every
individual in the community - and then begin testing & ameliorative
actions.
--
To comprehend my posts requires at least normal adult facultative skills.
This is one kind of coronavirus contact tracing that _does_ work:
o Contact Tracing for Native Americans in Rural Arizona
<https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2023540>
They did it the "old way", which makes sense, given the inhabitants don't
all likely have great cellphone use and they're all known to each other and
they likely don't travel all that much, etc., which is to say they're a
special case.
For science to work, special cases are just fine - as they give us outlier
datapoints from which to make assessments upon and to make models from.
What that article showed, rather clearly so, was that in extremely small
isolated "islands" of the population, particularly good results can be
obtained if a 30-man team goes out every day to visit each and every
individual in the community - and then begin testing & ameliorative
actions.
--
To comprehend my posts requires at least normal adult facultative skills.
Arlen Holder
Sep 16, 2020, 1:50:48 PM9/16/20
to
On the vaccine, the question of fact is what percentage is "effective".
"Efficacy is simply the rate at which a vaccine will either prevent
people from contracting the virus or reduce the symptoms associated
with the virus."
o Some epidemiologists say FDA standard for coronavirus vaccine not high enough
<https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/some-epidemiologists-say-fda-standard-for-coronavirus-vaccine-not-high-enough>
"Some epidemiologists think the efficacy of the vaccine should be higher
than the 50% standard set by the Food and Drug Administration."
"Some vaccines have lower rates of efficacy, like the annual flu vaccine,
which usually has an efficacy of 40%-60%. Others are much higher, such
as the shingles vaccine, at 91%-97%, and measles vaccine, at 93%-97%."
"Efficacy is simply the rate at which a vaccine will either prevent
people from contracting the virus or reduce the symptoms associated
with the virus."
o Some epidemiologists say FDA standard for coronavirus vaccine not high enough
<https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/some-epidemiologists-say-fda-standard-for-coronavirus-vaccine-not-high-enough>
"Some epidemiologists think the efficacy of the vaccine should be higher
than the 50% standard set by the Food and Drug Administration."
"Some vaccines have lower rates of efficacy, like the annual flu vaccine,
which usually has an efficacy of 40%-60%. Others are much higher, such
as the shingles vaccine, at 91%-97%, and measles vaccine, at 93%-97%."
Arlen Holder
Sep 16, 2020, 2:54:03 PM9/16/20
to
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 04:42:31 +1000, wrote:
> That's your pig ignorant lie. They work even better with those,
Rod Speed,
You need to do a little light reading on the efficacy of these apps.
Try this:
o Here is the very first line, which, I hope you can get that far:
"Evidence for the use of automated or partly automated contact-tracing
tools to contain severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
is scarce."
--
I suspect people like Rod Speed simply don't ever read scientific papers.
> That's your pig ignorant lie. They work even better with those,
Rod Speed,
You need to do a little light reading on the efficacy of these apps.
Try this:
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>
That's not "my" assessment mind you; that's from scientists.
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landig/article/PIIS2589-7500(20)30184-9/fulltext>
o Here is the very first line, which, I hope you can get that far:
"Evidence for the use of automated or partly automated contact-tracing
tools to contain severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
is scarce."
--
I suspect people like Rod Speed simply don't ever read scientific papers.
Arlen Holder
Sep 16, 2020, 2:54:07 PM9/16/20
to
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 05:04:58 -0400, micky wrote:
> Searching the Andrid play store for Covid tracker only finds 4
> apps. , only one of which has covid in its name
As of August 2020
Here's a supposedly scientific estimate of the number of the tracking apps.
o Mobile Health Apps That Help With COVID-19 Management: Scoping Review
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343200862_Mobile_Health_Apps_That_Help_With_COVID-19_Management_Scoping_Review>
Objective: Our aim is to scope the evidence base on apps that were
developed in response to COVID-19.
Methods: Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for scoping reviews, literature
searches were conducted on Google Search, Google Scholar, and PubMed using
the country's name as keywords and 'coronavirus,' 'COVID-19,' 'nCOV19,'
'contact tracing,' 'information providing apps,' 'symptom tracking,''mobile
apps,' 'mobile applications,' 'smartphone,' 'mobile phone,' and 'mHealth.'
Countries most affected by COVID-19and those that first rolled out
COVID-19ĄVrelated apps were included.
Results: A total of 46 articles were reviewed from 19 countries, resulting
in a total of 29 apps.
Among them, 15 (52%) apps were on contact tracing, 7 (24%) apps on
quarantine, 7 (24%) on symptom monitoring, and 1 (3%) on information
provision. More than half (n=20, 69%) were from governmental sources, only
3 (10%) were from private organizations, and 3 (10%) from universities.
There were 6 (21%) apps available on either Android or iOS, and 10 (34%)
were available on both platforms. Bluetooth was used in 10 (34%) apps for
collecting data, 12 (41%) apps used GPS, and 12 (41%) used other forms of
data collection.
Conclusions: This review identifies that the majority of COVID-19 apps were
for contact tracing and symptom monitoring. However, these apps are
effective only if taken up by the community. The sharing of good practices
across different countries can enable governments to learn from each other
and develop effective strategies to combat and manage this pandemic.
> Searching the Andrid play store for Covid tracker only finds 4
> apps. , only one of which has covid in its name
As of August 2020
Here's a supposedly scientific estimate of the number of the tracking apps.
o Mobile Health Apps That Help With COVID-19 Management: Scoping Review
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343200862_Mobile_Health_Apps_That_Help_With_COVID-19_Management_Scoping_Review>
Objective: Our aim is to scope the evidence base on apps that were
developed in response to COVID-19.
Methods: Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for scoping reviews, literature
searches were conducted on Google Search, Google Scholar, and PubMed using
the country's name as keywords and 'coronavirus,' 'COVID-19,' 'nCOV19,'
'contact tracing,' 'information providing apps,' 'symptom tracking,''mobile
apps,' 'mobile applications,' 'smartphone,' 'mobile phone,' and 'mHealth.'
Countries most affected by COVID-19and those that first rolled out
COVID-19ĄVrelated apps were included.
Results: A total of 46 articles were reviewed from 19 countries, resulting
in a total of 29 apps.
Among them, 15 (52%) apps were on contact tracing, 7 (24%) apps on
quarantine, 7 (24%) on symptom monitoring, and 1 (3%) on information
provision. More than half (n=20, 69%) were from governmental sources, only
3 (10%) were from private organizations, and 3 (10%) from universities.
There were 6 (21%) apps available on either Android or iOS, and 10 (34%)
were available on both platforms. Bluetooth was used in 10 (34%) apps for
collecting data, 12 (41%) apps used GPS, and 12 (41%) used other forms of
data collection.
Conclusions: This review identifies that the majority of COVID-19 apps were
for contact tracing and symptom monitoring. However, these apps are
effective only if taken up by the community. The sharing of good practices
across different countries can enable governments to learn from each other
and develop effective strategies to combat and manage this pandemic.
Arlen Holder
Sep 16, 2020, 3:12:20 PM9/16/20
to
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 11:12:34 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
> There is no difference between the asymptomatic and the presymptomatic
> with regard to the app's purpose of helping to trace paths of contagion
> spread. It seems to be only a personal risk assessment application and
> as with all such risk reduction schemes, it can give a false sense of
> security if one misunderstands the purpose.
I still need you to answer a simple sensible question based on logic:
o *How is the app gonna tell _YOU_ asymptomatics were in contact with YOU?*
Please read this before you respond:
o Nearly Half of Coronavirus Spread May Be Traced to People Without Any Symptoms
<https://time.com/5848949/covid-19-asymptomatic-spread/>
--
I suspect most people haven't been keeping up with the facts in the news.
> There is no difference between the asymptomatic and the presymptomatic
> with regard to the app's purpose of helping to trace paths of contagion
> spread. It seems to be only a personal risk assessment application and
> as with all such risk reduction schemes, it can give a false sense of
> security if one misunderstands the purpose.
I still need you to answer a simple sensible question based on logic:
o *How is the app gonna tell _YOU_ asymptomatics were in contact with YOU?*
Please read this before you respond:
o Nearly Half of Coronavirus Spread May Be Traced to People Without Any Symptoms
<https://time.com/5848949/covid-19-asymptomatic-spread/>
--
I suspect most people haven't been keeping up with the facts in the news.
Arlen Holder
Sep 16, 2020, 3:12:23 PM9/16/20
to
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 11:27:32 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Sure, like everything else, it is not perfect, but that's no reason to
> discourage people from using such a measure if they want to.
These aren't "my" concerns; they're the concerns of a _lot_ of people.
There are _plenty_ of reasons _not_ to focus on these apps as a "solution".
o You either just don't know them, or, more likely, you've discounted them.
There is cost, for one thing, e.g.,
o Utah's expensive coronavirus app won┤ track people┬ movements anymore, its key feature
<https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2020/07/11/states-m-healthy-together/>
And there is harm, e.g.,
o A Scramble for Virus Apps That Do No Harm
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/business/coronavirus-cellphone-apps-contact-tracing.html>
--
I suspect a lot of people aren't reading the news about these tracing apps.
> Sure, like everything else, it is not perfect, but that's no reason to
> discourage people from using such a measure if they want to.
These aren't "my" concerns; they're the concerns of a _lot_ of people.
There are _plenty_ of reasons _not_ to focus on these apps as a "solution".
o You either just don't know them, or, more likely, you've discounted them.
There is cost, for one thing, e.g.,
o Utah's expensive coronavirus app won┤ track people┬ movements anymore, its key feature
<https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2020/07/11/states-m-healthy-together/>
And there is harm, e.g.,
o A Scramble for Virus Apps That Do No Harm
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/business/coronavirus-cellphone-apps-contact-tracing.html>
--
I suspect a lot of people aren't reading the news about these tracing apps.
Arlen Holder
Sep 16, 2020, 3:21:26 PM9/16/20
to
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 04:44:41 +1000, wrote:
> How odd that they do in South Korea and Singapore.
Rod Speed,
How do you know so very much more than all the scientists?
What's your actual evidence that the apps worked in South Korea?
o I could as well say it's because they speak Korean?
In fact, your claim is exactly the same as this claim:
o Because they speak Korean, their covid transmission is low.
Hence, your solution, is exactly the same as this proposal:
o Therefore, to solve covid, the whole world should speak Korean.
HINT:
> How odd that they do in South Korea and Singapore.
Rod Speed,
How do you know so very much more than all the scientists?
What's your actual evidence that the apps worked in South Korea?
o I could as well say it's because they speak Korean?
In fact, your claim is exactly the same as this claim:
o Because they speak Korean, their covid transmission is low.
Hence, your solution, is exactly the same as this proposal:
o Therefore, to solve covid, the whole world should speak Korean.
HINT:
"Evidence for the use of automated or partly automated contact-tracing
tools to contain severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
is scarce."
--
REFERENCE
tools to contain severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
is scarce."
--
Arlen Holder
Sep 16, 2020, 5:42:53 PM9/16/20
to
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."
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."
transmission probability per contact event, if 75%-95% actively confirm
when they get infected"
> 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
inform the control of COVID-19
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landig/article/PIIS2589-7500(20)30184-9/fulltext>
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.
Symptoms
<https://time.com/5848949/covid-19-asymptomatic-spread/>
Under a range of assumptions, the percentage of the population needed
to be enrolled in automated contact tracing for outbreak control (Re<1)
was estimated (eg, 40%-60% uptake required for Re<1, assuming a 30% mean
to be enrolled in automated contact tracing for outbreak control (Re<1)
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>
<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"
Arlen Holder
Sep 17, 2020, 4:12:25 PM9/17/20
to
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:10:08 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:
> It isn't really any different to other respiratory diseases in that
> respect - you are at your most infective in the day or two before
> showing obvious symptoms. Where it differs is that in some people the
> infection is so mild that they don't even know they have got it.
Hi Martin Brown,
I'm glad you're thinking logically and sensibly.
I agree with you on your assessment of fact where I will note there is a
reason only 4 coronaviruses cause from one tenth to more than one third of
all "common colds", while the rest are caused by many hundreds of viruses
combined.
o A Human Coronavirus Responsible for the Common Cold Massively Kills
Dendritic Cells but Not Monocytes
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3416289/>
"Epidemiological studies suggest that HCoVs account for 15 to 30%
of common colds"
> Once you have any Covid symptoms you tend to stay at home. Seeking
> medical help only if they get worse (this was the original UK strategy).
The good news is that most of us have been infected with one or more of the
four human coronaviruses that cause many common colds. We've been infected,
most likely, many times with the same coronavirus, which, for those of us
who have, we would perhaps have an additional immunity (which is being
researched as we speak):
o Immune cells for common cold may recognize SARS-CoV-2
<https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/immune-cells-common-cold-may-recognize-sars-cov-2>
"Studies have reported that 20–50% of people who hadn't been exposed
to SARS-CoV-2 showed T cell responses against different parts of the
SARS-CoV-2 virus"
> It turns out that in some people their only symptom is loss of the sense
> of smell or taste but they are infectious to others who may not be so
> lucky. The odd one ends up with their olfactory senses scrambled too.
Never forget these chemicals when dealing with SARS-CoV-2:
o ACE2
o Furin
o TMPRSS2
o Loss of smell in COVID-19 explained by scientists
<https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200729/Loss-of-smell-in-COVID-19-explained-by-scientists.aspx>
"The team found that the virus attacks cells that support the olfactory
sensory neurons, whose role focuses on detecting and transmitting
signals from the nose to the brain. Also, olfactory sensory neurons
do not express the gene that encodes the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2
(ACE2) receptor protein, which is used by the novel coronavirus to enter
human cells. Instead, the ACE2 is expressed in cells that give metabolic
and structural support to olfactory sensory neurons."
o Non-neuronal expression of SARS-CoV-2 entry genes in the olfactory system suggests mechanisms underlying COVID-19-associated anosmia
<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/31/eabc5801>
Bear in mind, notice I said never forget these four chemicals?
o ACE2
o Furin
o TMPRSS2
Well, those are extremely well known, only one of which is involved with
SARS-CoV-1, which is one key reasons SARS-2 is different than SARS-1; but
in the past couple of days, a fourth key chemical has been implicated:
o UCSD Researchers Discover Carbohydrate In Lungs That COVID-19 Uses To Infect
<https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/ucsd-researchers-discover-carbohydrate-in-lungs-that-covid-19-uses-to-infect/2406705/>
"The team discovered that the virus binds to heparin. When heparin is
bound, the virus is able to bind to ACE2. The virus, the researchers
found, must bind both heparan sulfate on the cell surface and ACE2 in
order to get inside human lung cells grown in a laboratory dish."
So now, the new rule is "Never forget these FOUR chemicals":
o ACE2 / heparan sulfate
o Furin
o TMPRSS2
--
Every Usenet thread should strive to add value so that all always benefit.
> It isn't really any different to other respiratory diseases in that
> respect - you are at your most infective in the day or two before
> showing obvious symptoms. Where it differs is that in some people the
> infection is so mild that they don't even know they have got it.
Hi Martin Brown,
I'm glad you're thinking logically and sensibly.
I agree with you on your assessment of fact where I will note there is a
reason only 4 coronaviruses cause from one tenth to more than one third of
all "common colds", while the rest are caused by many hundreds of viruses
combined.
o A Human Coronavirus Responsible for the Common Cold Massively Kills
Dendritic Cells but Not Monocytes
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3416289/>
"Epidemiological studies suggest that HCoVs account for 15 to 30%
of common colds"
> Once you have any Covid symptoms you tend to stay at home. Seeking
> medical help only if they get worse (this was the original UK strategy).
The good news is that most of us have been infected with one or more of the
four human coronaviruses that cause many common colds. We've been infected,
most likely, many times with the same coronavirus, which, for those of us
who have, we would perhaps have an additional immunity (which is being
researched as we speak):
o Immune cells for common cold may recognize SARS-CoV-2
<https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/immune-cells-common-cold-may-recognize-sars-cov-2>
"Studies have reported that 20–50% of people who hadn't been exposed
to SARS-CoV-2 showed T cell responses against different parts of the
SARS-CoV-2 virus"
> It turns out that in some people their only symptom is loss of the sense
> of smell or taste but they are infectious to others who may not be so
> lucky. The odd one ends up with their olfactory senses scrambled too.
Never forget these chemicals when dealing with SARS-CoV-2:
o ACE2
o Furin
o TMPRSS2
o Loss of smell in COVID-19 explained by scientists
<https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200729/Loss-of-smell-in-COVID-19-explained-by-scientists.aspx>
"The team found that the virus attacks cells that support the olfactory
sensory neurons, whose role focuses on detecting and transmitting
signals from the nose to the brain. Also, olfactory sensory neurons
do not express the gene that encodes the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2
(ACE2) receptor protein, which is used by the novel coronavirus to enter
human cells. Instead, the ACE2 is expressed in cells that give metabolic
and structural support to olfactory sensory neurons."
o Non-neuronal expression of SARS-CoV-2 entry genes in the olfactory system suggests mechanisms underlying COVID-19-associated anosmia
<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/31/eabc5801>
Bear in mind, notice I said never forget these four chemicals?
o ACE2
o Furin
o TMPRSS2
Well, those are extremely well known, only one of which is involved with
SARS-CoV-1, which is one key reasons SARS-2 is different than SARS-1; but
in the past couple of days, a fourth key chemical has been implicated:
o UCSD Researchers Discover Carbohydrate In Lungs That COVID-19 Uses To Infect
<https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/ucsd-researchers-discover-carbohydrate-in-lungs-that-covid-19-uses-to-infect/2406705/>
"The team discovered that the virus binds to heparin. When heparin is
bound, the virus is able to bind to ACE2. The virus, the researchers
found, must bind both heparan sulfate on the cell surface and ACE2 in
order to get inside human lung cells grown in a laboratory dish."
So now, the new rule is "Never forget these FOUR chemicals":
o ACE2 / heparan sulfate
o Furin
o TMPRSS2
--
Every Usenet thread should strive to add value so that all always benefit.
Arlen Holder
Sep 17, 2020, 4:38:17 PM9/17/20
to
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 10:21:16 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Yes, also evidence has also been scarce that wearing a mask (source
> control) has helped a single individual to avoid getting infected. It
> is about how large groups of individuals, not individual individuals,
> respond to such schemes that matters. Some countries have fewer crazy
> people per capita than the USA does, and as such can do the right thing
> (whatever they think that is) in greater numbers.
I wouldn't characterize the USA as "crazy people" (although plenty do
exist, but I've been around the world, and trust me, the Japananese are
crazy in some ways, as are the Germans, as are the Italians, etc.).
What I would agree with you upon is that the USA is completely different in
terms of privacy and trust in government than many other countries, which
is what was clearly stated in the articles previously cited that compared,
oh, say, Iceland (40%) to the uptake forecast in the USA (10%).
The USA is a "melting pot" of hugely variant cultures, with a primal
history of "freedom" of both migration and of thought, and of a common
dislike for needless government and corporate surveillance.
o What Ever Happened to Digital Contact Tracing?
<https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ever-happened-digital-contact-tracing>
Usenet allows intelligent adults to communicate and learn from each other.
> Yes, also evidence has also been scarce that wearing a mask (source
> control) has helped a single individual to avoid getting infected. It
> is about how large groups of individuals, not individual individuals,
> respond to such schemes that matters. Some countries have fewer crazy
> people per capita than the USA does, and as such can do the right thing
> (whatever they think that is) in greater numbers.
I wouldn't characterize the USA as "crazy people" (although plenty do
exist, but I've been around the world, and trust me, the Japananese are
crazy in some ways, as are the Germans, as are the Italians, etc.).
What I would agree with you upon is that the USA is completely different in
terms of privacy and trust in government than many other countries, which
is what was clearly stated in the articles previously cited that compared,
oh, say, Iceland (40%) to the uptake forecast in the USA (10%).
The USA is a "melting pot" of hugely variant cultures, with a primal
history of "freedom" of both migration and of thought, and of a common
dislike for needless government and corporate surveillance.
o What Ever Happened to Digital Contact Tracing?
<https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ever-happened-digital-contact-tracing>
"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 (Re<1)
was estimated (eg, 40%-60% uptake required for Re<1, assuming a 30% mean
transmission probability per contact event, if 75%-95% actively confirm
when they get infected"
However, in some cohesive communities, manual contact tracing has worked:
to be enrolled in automated contact tracing for outbreak control (Re<1)
was estimated (eg, 40%-60% uptake required for Re<1, assuming a 30% mean
transmission probability per contact event, if 75%-95% actively confirm
when they get infected"
o Contact Tracing for Native Americans in Rural Arizona
<https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2023540>
They did it the "old way", which makes sense, given the inhabitants don't
all likely have great cellphone use and they're all known to each other and
they likely don't travel all that much, etc., which is to say they're a
special case.
--
<https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2023540>
They did it the "old way", which makes sense, given the inhabitants don't
all likely have great cellphone use and they're all known to each other and
they likely don't travel all that much, etc., which is to say they're a
special case.
Usenet allows intelligent adults to communicate and learn from each other.
Arlen Holder
Sep 17, 2020, 4:38:19 PM9/17/20
to
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 10:06:11 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Also asymptomatic. That being said, shedding of newly created virus
> particles could be called a symptom of hosting the virus while not
> having the full-blown 'disease' associated with it.
Asymptomatic spread percentages are not fully known (because it's
asymptomatic that's why); but many reliable estimates put it in the huge
range, as does this one:
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."
Anyone whose plan doesn't take into account nearly half the cases,
certainly needs to consider reconsidering their plan, IMHO.
--
Usenet allows intelligent people to discuss difficult topics of import.
> Also asymptomatic. That being said, shedding of newly created virus
> particles could be called a symptom of hosting the virus while not
> having the full-blown 'disease' associated with it.
Asymptomatic spread percentages are not fully known (because it's
asymptomatic that's why); but many reliable estimates put it in the huge
range, as does this one:
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."
certainly needs to consider reconsidering their plan, IMHO.
--
Usenet allows intelligent people to discuss difficult topics of import.
Arlen Holder
Sep 17, 2020, 4:46:54 PM9/17/20
to
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:
--
Assuming 100% uptake how does your app handle these asymptomatics?
> 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?
<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."
--
Assuming 100% uptake how does your app handle these asymptomatics?
Arlen Holder
Sep 17, 2020, 4:52:54 PM9/17/20
to
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.
>> 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
Sep 17, 2020, 7:34:15 PM9/17/20
to
On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 08:54:05 +1000, wrote:
> You have already been told repeatedly
> and that even it it didn┤, 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.
> You have already been told repeatedly
> and that even it it didn┤, 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
--
Usenet allows people of varying intelligence to attempt adult discourse.
Arlen Holder
Sep 17, 2020, 7:47:38 PM9/17/20
to
On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 08:35:14 +1000, wrote:
> And even more don't.
Rod Speed,
If you're going to attempt an adult discourse, you have to utilize what we
would call "adult cognitive skills" in that process of adult conversation.
I completely understand your point of view, if for no other reason that it
only skims the barest depth of factual details necessary for a "plan".
But what I am trying to get _you_ to do, is delve to the 2nd level of
factual detail, which you don't yet seem to be able to comprehend in the
least.
You have to answer this question, Rod Speed.
o You can't simply ignore these "inconvenient" facts.
Adults need to agree on the facts before they can proceed to assessments.
o Facts are funny that way.
Only _after_ you agree on the facts, can we disagree on assessments.
o People are funny that way.
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
FACT:
What, exactly, do the apps tell the users in those circumstances?
o Your answer = ?
> And even more don't.
Rod Speed,
If you're going to attempt an adult discourse, you have to utilize what we
would call "adult cognitive skills" in that process of adult conversation.
I completely understand your point of view, if for no other reason that it
only skims the barest depth of factual details necessary for a "plan".
But what I am trying to get _you_ to do, is delve to the 2nd level of
factual detail, which you don't yet seem to be able to comprehend in the
least.
You have to answer this question, Rod Speed.
o You can't simply ignore these "inconvenient" facts.
Adults need to agree on the facts before they can proceed to assessments.
o Facts are funny that way.
Only _after_ you agree on the facts, can we disagree on assessments.
o People are funny that way.
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
What, exactly, do the apps tell the users in those circumstances?
o Your answer = ?
Arlen Holder
Sep 17, 2020, 8:04:15 PM9/17/20
to
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
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.
> 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
b. contaminated surfaces from people who left the room long ago
c. droplet contact with asymptomatic carriers of the disease
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.
Arlen Holder
Sep 18, 2020, 10:34:39 AM9/18/20
to
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 09:59:28 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
> They can't, because I don't have a smartphone.
No smartphone? No problem!
o This tried-and-true contact-tracing method is the one for you!
o Contact Tracing for Native Americans in Rural Arizona
<https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2023540>
"We developed an aggressive, integrated early-response plan that relied
heavily on contact tracing to limit the spread of Covid-19."
"More than 1600 cases of Covid-19 have been diagnosed on the reservation
served by our hospital, with only one of these patients being intubated
in our emergency department. Of some 400 patients who needed
hospitalization, nearly half have been transported to facilities that
provide higher-level care. Our community's case fatality rate so far is
1.1%, less than half the rate reported for the rest of Arizona."
--
Usenet allows people of varying intelligence to discuss items of import.
> They can't, because I don't have a smartphone.
No smartphone? No problem!
o This tried-and-true contact-tracing method is the one for you!
o Contact Tracing for Native Americans in Rural Arizona
<https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2023540>
heavily on contact tracing to limit the spread of Covid-19."
"More than 1600 cases of Covid-19 have been diagnosed on the reservation
served by our hospital, with only one of these patients being intubated
in our emergency department. Of some 400 patients who needed
hospitalization, nearly half have been transported to facilities that
provide higher-level care. Our community's case fatality rate so far is
1.1%, less than half the rate reported for the rest of Arizona."
--
Usenet allows people of varying intelligence to discuss items of import.
Arlen Holder
Sep 22, 2020, 8:54:13 AM9/22/20
to
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 06:22:35 -0400, micky wrote:
> Oh, yeah. I forgot that I did get box that would download that, and I
> guess I could either do that from a PC and copy it to a phone, or do it
> on the phone.
More often than not, I download APKs to Windows, where I have terabytes of
disk space & which is easier to organize, what with the mouse & keyboard.
Then I install the app on any number of Android devices I feel like.
o It just works.
> I don't know what to do with an apk file but I could find
> out. And I have another phone and -- I'm spoiled now -- it would be
> almost automatically installed in the next phone.
All you do is slide the apk onto the Android phone (either over WiFi or
USB) and doubleclick them on the Android phone to install them.
There's never a need to log into Google Play, and pretty much any one APK
will work on almost every single Android phone on the planet.
Note: Even if you do it 100% from the phone, there's _still_ never a need
to log into Google Play, since Aurora is the Google Play shell + privacy,
nor is there ever a need to even have a "Google Account" set up on the
phone, since you have 100% functionality without a Google Account:
o Is there any free FUNCTIONALITY that you need to do on Android, that you can't do WITHOUT a Google Account?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/xzaii4eUY_E>
Note: That's decidedly unlike with iOS where the functionality drops to
nearly zero without an iCloud account, plus, it adds an Advertiser ID,
which Android doesn't have if you don't set up an account on the Android
phone... and note you can still use your gmail on Android - just don't set
it up in the OS itself).
o How many functionalities do you perform, every day, on Android, that are impossible on iOS [and vice versa]?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/zW9ZfeMAkg4>
> Plus, I was suspicious because the app store doesn't have it.
The problem with Google & Apple app stores is they don't tell you why they
removed the apps (or the apps removed themselves, which is very common):
o <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.phantomalert>
An example of an app that Google likely removed unilaterally is the open
source NewPipe code, which is YouTube Red payware for free, on steroids
o <https://newpipe.schabi.org/>
As an example of an app the developers essentially removed themselves, take
the AdClear ad blocker, which according to the developers, breaks Google
rules so what they put on Google Play is a mere stub of the fully
functional app:
o <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.seven.adclear.fsb>
Where, on their web site, you can get the fully functional app instead:
o <https://adclear.com/>
An example of an app that is on Google Play, but only for Pixels, take
either the Google Gcam app or the Google Recorder & Transcriber app, both
of which are perhaps the best in their class, and both are widely ported to
almost all current Android phones (I have both, for example, as the default
app in their class on my $100 64GB/4GB 8-core Moto G(7) Android 10 device.
o Hint: Changing the camera app can remarkably improve your photo quality of results (but why?)
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.photo.digital/LtY49dG01mc>
o Offline speech-to-text recorder/transcription unofficial Google Recorder APK port now available for many Android phones
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/_Amn35T16NA>
> I googled but didn't see that. It's hard to take a mere 2 senators
> seriously these days.
Luckily, we live in the United States, not in some theocracy, where the
"puritanical" politicians can't as easily declare information as a vice.
As with phone call spoofers and radar detectors, most states recognize it's
just information, and to block this information is the first step toward
being in a world that resembles the Orwellian duplicity of the First
Testament (IMHO).
What I didn't bother to assess was what the tool does for Covid, as a quick
skim ascertained the PhantomAlert app was likely a vending shell which
likely required a subscription for full functionality.
> I don't think people should avoid DUI checkpints
> but my plan was just to have another map. I had read that someone was
> suing phantomalart for stealing their map. Phantom had put in trap
> streets, streets that don't exist, to see if anyone stole their map.
Yeah, I saw all those when I ran a search and decided not to post them
since it was ancillary to the point of figuring out what PhantomAlert was.
o Rival accuses Google's Waze of stealing traffic data
<https://www.cnet.com/news/lawsuit-claims-waze-stole-traffic-information-from-competitor-before-its-sale-to-google/>
"A competitor to Waze claims in a lawsuit the driving directions app
stole its data, unjustly beefing up its product before selling
to Google."
Basically PhantomAlert alleged that Waze stole their maps before Google
bought them.
o PhantomAlert sues Google subsidiary Waze over allegations the map and
traffic data company stole some of its database
<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/03/google-sued-paper-towns-rip-off-claim-phantomalert-waze>
"The complaint states: Among other methods, PhantomAlert determined that
Waze had copied its Points of Interest database by observing the
presence of fictitious Points of Interest in the Waze application,
which PhantomAlert had seeded into its own database for the purpose
of detecting copying."
>>I'm not sure exactly what they're selling for covid though.
>
> Everyone has a warning about that. If there could only be so much
> cooperation about other things, like making enough masks.
Well, I don't know if you've noticed, but I'm not big on surveillance apps,
particularly covid-surveillance apps, for a variety of reasons, one of
which is that they can't possibly work, for a long list of reasons:
o A systematic review to inform the control of COVID-19
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landig/article/PIIS2589-7500(20)30184-9/fulltext>
desperate, out of sheer fear (there are no atheists in a foxhole); but they
can't work, even with those who are scared out of their wits because:
a. They won't attain necessary uptake in the western world to be effective
b. They tell you nothing about contact with asymptomatics
c. They tell you nothing about contact with people spewing aerosols
d. They tell you nothing about contact with people contaminating surfaces
e. They no doubt impinge on your privacy (phones can/will be hacked)
And, in the end, they clearly (IMHO) do far more harm for utterly no good.
Note that asymptomatic-based infection is apparently astoundingly huge
where you can only ignore them if you are playing political games:
yet another pipe dream by those who are driven mad by their fears
who errantly believe a vaccine can possibly achieve "herd immunity":
o Seasonal coronavirus protective immunity is short-lasting
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1083-1>
"Caution should be taken when relying on policies that require
long-term immunity, such as vaccination or natural infection
to reach herd immunity."
--
Note that last cite was from last week, which is a 35-year study of serum
samples taken frequently, where the number of coronavirus infections was 10
times the number of people studied, where any one individual was definitely
reinfected from 3 to 17 times, sometimes in 6 months and frequently in a
year.
> Oh, yeah. I forgot that I did get box that would download that, and I
> guess I could either do that from a PC and copy it to a phone, or do it
> on the phone.
More often than not, I download APKs to Windows, where I have terabytes of
disk space & which is easier to organize, what with the mouse & keyboard.
Then I install the app on any number of Android devices I feel like.
o It just works.
> I don't know what to do with an apk file but I could find
> out. And I have another phone and -- I'm spoiled now -- it would be
> almost automatically installed in the next phone.
All you do is slide the apk onto the Android phone (either over WiFi or
USB) and doubleclick them on the Android phone to install them.
There's never a need to log into Google Play, and pretty much any one APK
will work on almost every single Android phone on the planet.
Note: Even if you do it 100% from the phone, there's _still_ never a need
to log into Google Play, since Aurora is the Google Play shell + privacy,
nor is there ever a need to even have a "Google Account" set up on the
phone, since you have 100% functionality without a Google Account:
o Is there any free FUNCTIONALITY that you need to do on Android, that you can't do WITHOUT a Google Account?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/xzaii4eUY_E>
Note: That's decidedly unlike with iOS where the functionality drops to
nearly zero without an iCloud account, plus, it adds an Advertiser ID,
which Android doesn't have if you don't set up an account on the Android
phone... and note you can still use your gmail on Android - just don't set
it up in the OS itself).
o How many functionalities do you perform, every day, on Android, that are impossible on iOS [and vice versa]?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/zW9ZfeMAkg4>
> Plus, I was suspicious because the app store doesn't have it.
The problem with Google & Apple app stores is they don't tell you why they
removed the apps (or the apps removed themselves, which is very common):
o <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.phantomalert>
An example of an app that Google likely removed unilaterally is the open
source NewPipe code, which is YouTube Red payware for free, on steroids
o <https://newpipe.schabi.org/>
As an example of an app the developers essentially removed themselves, take
the AdClear ad blocker, which according to the developers, breaks Google
rules so what they put on Google Play is a mere stub of the fully
functional app:
o <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.seven.adclear.fsb>
Where, on their web site, you can get the fully functional app instead:
o <https://adclear.com/>
An example of an app that is on Google Play, but only for Pixels, take
either the Google Gcam app or the Google Recorder & Transcriber app, both
of which are perhaps the best in their class, and both are widely ported to
almost all current Android phones (I have both, for example, as the default
app in their class on my $100 64GB/4GB 8-core Moto G(7) Android 10 device.
o Hint: Changing the camera app can remarkably improve your photo quality of results (but why?)
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.photo.digital/LtY49dG01mc>
o Offline speech-to-text recorder/transcription unofficial Google Recorder APK port now available for many Android phones
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/_Amn35T16NA>
> I googled but didn't see that. It's hard to take a mere 2 senators
> seriously these days.
Luckily, we live in the United States, not in some theocracy, where the
"puritanical" politicians can't as easily declare information as a vice.
As with phone call spoofers and radar detectors, most states recognize it's
just information, and to block this information is the first step toward
being in a world that resembles the Orwellian duplicity of the First
Testament (IMHO).
What I didn't bother to assess was what the tool does for Covid, as a quick
skim ascertained the PhantomAlert app was likely a vending shell which
likely required a subscription for full functionality.
> I don't think people should avoid DUI checkpints
> but my plan was just to have another map. I had read that someone was
> suing phantomalart for stealing their map. Phantom had put in trap
> streets, streets that don't exist, to see if anyone stole their map.
Yeah, I saw all those when I ran a search and decided not to post them
since it was ancillary to the point of figuring out what PhantomAlert was.
o Rival accuses Google's Waze of stealing traffic data
<https://www.cnet.com/news/lawsuit-claims-waze-stole-traffic-information-from-competitor-before-its-sale-to-google/>
"A competitor to Waze claims in a lawsuit the driving directions app
stole its data, unjustly beefing up its product before selling
to Google."
Basically PhantomAlert alleged that Waze stole their maps before Google
bought them.
o PhantomAlert sues Google subsidiary Waze over allegations the map and
traffic data company stole some of its database
<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/03/google-sued-paper-towns-rip-off-claim-phantomalert-waze>
"The complaint states: Among other methods, PhantomAlert determined that
Waze had copied its Points of Interest database by observing the
presence of fictitious Points of Interest in the Waze application,
which PhantomAlert had seeded into its own database for the purpose
of detecting copying."
>>I'm not sure exactly what they're selling for covid though.
>
> Everyone has a warning about that. If there could only be so much
> cooperation about other things, like making enough masks.
Well, I don't know if you've noticed, but I'm not big on surveillance apps,
particularly covid-surveillance apps, for a variety of reasons, one of
which is that they can't possibly work, for a long list of reasons:
o A systematic review to inform the control of COVID-19
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landig/article/PIIS2589-7500(20)30184-9/fulltext>
"Evidence for the use of automated or partly automated
contact-tracing tools to contain severe acute respiratory
syndrome coronavirus 2 is scarce."
The reasons they can't possibly work are many, but the hoi polloi are
contact-tracing tools to contain severe acute respiratory
syndrome coronavirus 2 is scarce."
desperate, out of sheer fear (there are no atheists in a foxhole); but they
can't work, even with those who are scared out of their wits because:
a. They won't attain necessary uptake in the western world to be effective
b. They tell you nothing about contact with asymptomatics
c. They tell you nothing about contact with people spewing aerosols
d. They tell you nothing about contact with people contaminating surfaces
e. They no doubt impinge on your privacy (phones can/will be hacked)
And, in the end, they clearly (IMHO) do far more harm for utterly no good.
Note that asymptomatic-based infection is apparently astoundingly huge
where you can only ignore them if you are playing political games:
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."
Even the vaccine, while worthy of effort, at the moment, essentially, is
<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."
yet another pipe dream by those who are driven mad by their fears
who errantly believe a vaccine can possibly achieve "herd immunity":
o Seasonal coronavirus protective immunity is short-lasting
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1083-1>
"Caution should be taken when relying on policies that require
long-term immunity, such as vaccination or natural infection
to reach herd immunity."
--
Note that last cite was from last week, which is a 35-year study of serum
samples taken frequently, where the number of coronavirus infections was 10
times the number of people studied, where any one individual was definitely
reinfected from 3 to 17 times, sometimes in 6 months and frequently in a
year.
Arlen Holder
Sep 23, 2020, 5:09:43 PM9/23/20
to
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 08:25:08 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Phones can already be tracked,
Hi FromTheRafters,
I can tell you're different than the average poster to this ng, simply
because you appear to comprehend the nuances of detail in the topics.
Good. We can all then therefore learn from your fact-based point of view.
Bear in mind that logical and sensible adult conversation starts with the
two adults first agreeing on the facts, and only then can any adult
conversation proceed to the point that they disagree (however slightly) on
assessments.
To your fact that "Phones can already be tracked", we can go very shallow
on that, or very deep, where at the shallow level, of course that's correct
since there are court cases where the feds turn on people's phone (e.g.,
the Mafia was one case in the days of the flip phone) that does whatever
the phone can do, and the user is none the wiser.
So, um, sure, phones can be tracked, but what wasn't available before,
which is available now, is your PAST HISTORY OF ALL YOUR CLOSE CONTACTS.
Sure, they could triangulate tower pings like crazy, and get that same past
history, but if that was so accurate & easy to do, then Google/Apple
wouldn't have needed to put out the bluetooth api to track that same
information.
So, in summary, I agree with your fact that "phones can already be
tracked", but I add my adult assessment of why add yet another way that
allows them your past history of close contacts on a silver platter?
Worse, you add this "yet another way" for absolutely no gain in
functionality!
It's almost all bad and almost no possible good can come of it, IMHO.
> Phones can already be tracked,
Hi FromTheRafters,
I can tell you're different than the average poster to this ng, simply
because you appear to comprehend the nuances of detail in the topics.
Good. We can all then therefore learn from your fact-based point of view.
Bear in mind that logical and sensible adult conversation starts with the
two adults first agreeing on the facts, and only then can any adult
conversation proceed to the point that they disagree (however slightly) on
assessments.
To your fact that "Phones can already be tracked", we can go very shallow
on that, or very deep, where at the shallow level, of course that's correct
since there are court cases where the feds turn on people's phone (e.g.,
the Mafia was one case in the days of the flip phone) that does whatever
the phone can do, and the user is none the wiser.
So, um, sure, phones can be tracked, but what wasn't available before,
which is available now, is your PAST HISTORY OF ALL YOUR CLOSE CONTACTS.
Sure, they could triangulate tower pings like crazy, and get that same past
history, but if that was so accurate & easy to do, then Google/Apple
wouldn't have needed to put out the bluetooth api to track that same
information.
So, in summary, I agree with your fact that "phones can already be
tracked", but I add my adult assessment of why add yet another way that
allows them your past history of close contacts on a silver platter?
Worse, you add this "yet another way" for absolutely no gain in
functionality!
"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
tools to contain severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
is scarce."
inform the control of COVID-19
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landig/article/PIIS2589-7500(20)30184-9/fulltext>
--
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landig/article/PIIS2589-7500(20)30184-9/fulltext>
It's almost all bad and almost no possible good can come of it, IMHO.
Arlen Holder
Sep 28, 2020, 2:57:05 PM9/28/20
to
On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 19:30:21 +0200, s|b wrote:
> Will that not create more panic than it's worth? Or useless testing?
> They need all the tests they can get, right?
Hi s|b,
Worse, you'd need at least a 60% uptake to even _begin_ to be effective
(i.e., 30% of your 15-minute contacts are detected), and no western country
on the planet has even gotten close.
In fact, the _only_ countries with even 40% uptake were admitted closely
knit trusting societies, usually on an island nobody visits in the middle
of the ocean (you know who they are).
That's 20% of your contacts are caught in the _best_ case known to man.
Even worse, as many as 40% of the people are asymptomatic carriers of the
disease, which the app completely misses; plus the disease is reputedly
transmitted by other ways the apps also can't detect such as contact
surfaces and aerosols left in a room an hour after the infected person
left.
I realize you know I base my assessments on facts, but how many people
espousing these covid apps are posting any well-cited facts like I do?
None of them, right?
My assessment of the facts is that these surveillance apps do more harm
than good, and, as such, are a complete waste of focus on resources.
It's like they're asking all of us to wear a religious talisman that they
provide, and even a prescribed prayer we should chant three times, so that
we can "feel" like they're actually "doing something" about it.
> Official release should be tomorrow. I haven't seen or heard much
> publicity about the app. Maybe they will make a fuss about it tomorrow.
> But my gut feeling says not many people will install it, maybe Donald
> Duck will...
As you may be aware, I've been publicizing each app and their many flaws,
so please do keep us informed on the Belgium surveillance apps.
--
Usenet allows intelligent adults from around the world to exchange ideas.
> Will that not create more panic than it's worth? Or useless testing?
> They need all the tests they can get, right?
Hi s|b,
Worse, you'd need at least a 60% uptake to even _begin_ to be effective
(i.e., 30% of your 15-minute contacts are detected), and no western country
on the planet has even gotten close.
In fact, the _only_ countries with even 40% uptake were admitted closely
knit trusting societies, usually on an island nobody visits in the middle
of the ocean (you know who they are).
That's 20% of your contacts are caught in the _best_ case known to man.
Even worse, as many as 40% of the people are asymptomatic carriers of the
disease, which the app completely misses; plus the disease is reputedly
transmitted by other ways the apps also can't detect such as contact
surfaces and aerosols left in a room an hour after the infected person
left.
I realize you know I base my assessments on facts, but how many people
espousing these covid apps are posting any well-cited facts like I do?
None of them, right?
My assessment of the facts is that these surveillance apps do more harm
than good, and, as such, are a complete waste of focus on resources.
It's like they're asking all of us to wear a religious talisman that they
provide, and even a prescribed prayer we should chant three times, so that
we can "feel" like they're actually "doing something" about it.
> Official release should be tomorrow. I haven't seen or heard much
> publicity about the app. Maybe they will make a fuss about it tomorrow.
> But my gut feeling says not many people will install it, maybe Donald
> Duck will...
As you may be aware, I've been publicizing each app and their many flaws,
so please do keep us informed on the Belgium surveillance apps.
--
Usenet allows intelligent adults from around the world to exchange ideas.
Arlen Holder
Oct 12, 2020, 11:43:10 AM10/12/20
to
UPDATE:
This is the old wisdom (way back in April of this year):
"Strikingly, a detectable level of infectious virus could still be
present on the outer layer of a surgical mask on day 7
(0.1% of the original inoculum)"
"At 4 degrees C, [39 degrees F] there was only around a
0.7 log-unit reduction of infectious titre on day 14"
"Overall, SARS-CoV-2 can be highly stable in a favourable environment,
but it is also susceptible to standard disinfection methods."
o Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in different environmental conditions
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30003-3/fulltext>
Here is a new study dated 07 October 2020:
"*Viable virus was isolated for up to 28 days* at 20 degrees C
[68 degrees F] from common surfaces such as glass, stainless steel
and both paper and polymer banknotes.
Conversely, infectious virus survived less than 24 h at 40 degrees C
[104 degrees F] on some surfaces."
"These findings demonstrate SARS-CoV-2 can remain infectious for
significantly longer time periods than generally considered possible.
These results could be used to inform improved risk mitigation
procedures to prevent the fomite spread of COVID-19."
o The effect of temperature on persistence of SARS-CoV-2 on common surfaces
<https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-020-01418-7>
--
Anyone claiming they have a solution had sure better understand the facts.
This is the old wisdom (way back in April of this year):
"Strikingly, a detectable level of infectious virus could still be
present on the outer layer of a surgical mask on day 7
(0.1% of the original inoculum)"
"At 4 degrees C, [39 degrees F] there was only around a
0.7 log-unit reduction of infectious titre on day 14"
"Overall, SARS-CoV-2 can be highly stable in a favourable environment,
but it is also susceptible to standard disinfection methods."
o Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in different environmental conditions
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30003-3/fulltext>
Here is a new study dated 07 October 2020:
"*Viable virus was isolated for up to 28 days* at 20 degrees C
[68 degrees F] from common surfaces such as glass, stainless steel
and both paper and polymer banknotes.
Conversely, infectious virus survived less than 24 h at 40 degrees C
[104 degrees F] on some surfaces."
"These findings demonstrate SARS-CoV-2 can remain infectious for
significantly longer time periods than generally considered possible.
These results could be used to inform improved risk mitigation
procedures to prevent the fomite spread of COVID-19."
o The effect of temperature on persistence of SARS-CoV-2 on common surfaces
<https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-020-01418-7>
--
Anyone claiming they have a solution had sure better understand the facts.
Arlen Holder
Nov 5, 2020, 12:15:00 PM11/5/20
to
This is new information about long term shedding of the virus
(but under special, not uncommon but still special circumstances).
People without symptoms and with weakened immune systems, such as cancer
patients, can seemingly shed the SARS-CoV-2 virus (apparently) for months.
A team of researchers and doctors has now reported the case of one woman
with leukemia who had no symptoms of COVID-19 but 70 days after her first
positive test, she was still shedding infectious SARS-CoV-2 particles.
Previous studies also showed long term shedding, but not _that_ long!
o Shedding of infectious virus in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19): duration and key determinants
<https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.08.20125310v1>
o SARS-CoV-2: The viral shedding vs infectivity dilemma
<https://www.idhjournal.com.au/article/S2468-0451(20)30028-6/fulltext>
(but under special, not uncommon but still special circumstances).
People without symptoms and with weakened immune systems, such as cancer
patients, can seemingly shed the SARS-CoV-2 virus (apparently) for months.
A team of researchers and doctors has now reported the case of one woman
with leukemia who had no symptoms of COVID-19 but 70 days after her first
positive test, she was still shedding infectious SARS-CoV-2 particles.
Previous studies also showed long term shedding, but not _that_ long!
o Shedding of infectious virus in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19): duration and key determinants
<https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.08.20125310v1>
o SARS-CoV-2: The viral shedding vs infectivity dilemma
<https://www.idhjournal.com.au/article/S2468-0451(20)30028-6/fulltext>
Arlen Holder
Jan 6, 2021, 9:42:13 PM1/6/21
to
Dated 01Jan2021
Airflows (aka air changes per hour, or ACH) inside passenger cars and implications for airborne disease transmission
<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/1/eabe0166>
They simulated a Prius for (a) driver & one rear seat diametrically seated passenger, and (b) aerosol droplet exchange in the conditions of (c) open & closed windows at 50mph (with A/C air flow settings).
It's slightly complex, but somewhat intuitive what they found out.
1. Lowest ACH === all 4 windows closed (i.e., ACH sucked at 62 air changes/hour)
2. Highest ACH === all four windows open (i.e., ACH was best at 250 air changes/hour)
3. Most surprising ACH === driver & passenger windows open sucked too (at 89 air changes/hour)
The rest of the two or three open window configurations earned a decent efficacy at about 150 air changes per hour.
Logic?
A. You need an air entrance and an air exit for good air exchange rates.
B. Then you need a cross-ventilation pressure gradient between the two (three or four doesn't really matter).
C. The person (represented as a cylinder) actually blocks airflow a bit
Interestingly, an "infected" driver will spew 11% of his droplets on the passenger in the all-windows-closed configuration.
On the other hand, that "infected" driver will spew "almost no injected scalar" onto the passenger with all four windows open.
Surprisingly (but they explain the air flow), opening the front right and rear left windows (i.e., the windows nobody is sitting next to), was a good way to reduce the particles injected by the driver impinging on the passenger.
(Opening the third, right rear, window, had an effect in the unwanted direction, but opening as the third window the driver's window, had an effect in the direction you want).)
Looking at it from the passenger infecting the driver standpoint, where it's 8% (versus 10% the other way around), but the window configurations are similar in effect although there are some notable differences.
Basically, the infected person (the passenger in this case) should have their window open.
Summary?
a. Drive with all windows open; don't drive with all the windows closed.
b. If you close any windows, keep two open, and keep them as the two diametrically situation windows where nobody is next to.
c. Of course, if you're infected, keep the window next to you open (and yes, I realize that's a contradiction of the above).
Please correct where, when, and if I err.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to help people understand why the apps can't work.
Airflows (aka air changes per hour, or ACH) inside passenger cars and implications for airborne disease transmission
<https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/1/eabe0166>
They simulated a Prius for (a) driver & one rear seat diametrically seated passenger, and (b) aerosol droplet exchange in the conditions of (c) open & closed windows at 50mph (with A/C air flow settings).
It's slightly complex, but somewhat intuitive what they found out.
1. Lowest ACH === all 4 windows closed (i.e., ACH sucked at 62 air changes/hour)
2. Highest ACH === all four windows open (i.e., ACH was best at 250 air changes/hour)
3. Most surprising ACH === driver & passenger windows open sucked too (at 89 air changes/hour)
The rest of the two or three open window configurations earned a decent efficacy at about 150 air changes per hour.
Logic?
A. You need an air entrance and an air exit for good air exchange rates.
B. Then you need a cross-ventilation pressure gradient between the two (three or four doesn't really matter).
C. The person (represented as a cylinder) actually blocks airflow a bit
Interestingly, an "infected" driver will spew 11% of his droplets on the passenger in the all-windows-closed configuration.
On the other hand, that "infected" driver will spew "almost no injected scalar" onto the passenger with all four windows open.
Surprisingly (but they explain the air flow), opening the front right and rear left windows (i.e., the windows nobody is sitting next to), was a good way to reduce the particles injected by the driver impinging on the passenger.
(Opening the third, right rear, window, had an effect in the unwanted direction, but opening as the third window the driver's window, had an effect in the direction you want).)
Looking at it from the passenger infecting the driver standpoint, where it's 8% (versus 10% the other way around), but the window configurations are similar in effect although there are some notable differences.
Basically, the infected person (the passenger in this case) should have their window open.
Summary?
a. Drive with all windows open; don't drive with all the windows closed.
b. If you close any windows, keep two open, and keep them as the two diametrically situation windows where nobody is next to.
c. Of course, if you're infected, keep the window next to you open (and yes, I realize that's a contradiction of the above).
Please correct where, when, and if I err.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to help people understand why the apps can't work.
Arlen Holder
Jan 7, 2021, 6:51:11 PM1/7/21
to
The key problem regarding any one person's decision on surveillance apps
o is, IMHO, that most people are making the decision out of ignorance
This thread is intended to _fight_ the ignorance of the hoi polloi
o With FACTS.
For example, dateline today, January 7, 2021, is this CDC report
o Confirming what I've been saying all along, which, essentially is:
People sans symptoms spread SARS-CoV-2 in more than half of cases
As described here:
o SARS-CoV-2 Transmission From People Without COVID-19 Symptoms
<https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774707>
A key statement, verbatim, from that report:
"The identification and isolation of persons with symptomatic COVID-19
alone will not control the ongoing spread of SARS-CoV-2."
Because:
"at least 50% of new SARS-CoV-2 infections was estimated to have
originated from exposure to individuals with infection
but without symptoms."
Specifically:
"Transmission by persons who are infected but do not have any symptoms
can arise from 2 different infection states: presymptomatic individuals
(who are infectious before developing symptoms) and individuals who
never experience symptoms"
The Catch-22 seems to be the time frame:
"the generation interval of SARS-CoV-2 was shorter than the serial
interval, indicating that the average time between 1 person being
infected and that person infecting someone else was shorter than
the average time between 1 person developing symptoms and the person
they infected developing symptoms."
Such that:
"By the time a second generation of individuals was developing symptoms,
a third generation was already being infected."
My point in bringing FACTS to the fore, is that adults can't make an
intelligent decision on the pros and cons of these surveillance apps,
without _first_ understanding what this virus is and does.
--
This is a formidable enemy where fear & ignorance won't solve the problem.
o is, IMHO, that most people are making the decision out of ignorance
This thread is intended to _fight_ the ignorance of the hoi polloi
o With FACTS.
For example, dateline today, January 7, 2021, is this CDC report
o Confirming what I've been saying all along, which, essentially is:
People sans symptoms spread SARS-CoV-2 in more than half of cases
As described here:
o SARS-CoV-2 Transmission From People Without COVID-19 Symptoms
<https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774707>
A key statement, verbatim, from that report:
"The identification and isolation of persons with symptomatic COVID-19
alone will not control the ongoing spread of SARS-CoV-2."
Because:
"at least 50% of new SARS-CoV-2 infections was estimated to have
originated from exposure to individuals with infection
but without symptoms."
Specifically:
"Transmission by persons who are infected but do not have any symptoms
can arise from 2 different infection states: presymptomatic individuals
(who are infectious before developing symptoms) and individuals who
never experience symptoms"
The Catch-22 seems to be the time frame:
"the generation interval of SARS-CoV-2 was shorter than the serial
interval, indicating that the average time between 1 person being
infected and that person infecting someone else was shorter than
the average time between 1 person developing symptoms and the person
they infected developing symptoms."
Such that:
"By the time a second generation of individuals was developing symptoms,
a third generation was already being infected."
My point in bringing FACTS to the fore, is that adults can't make an
intelligent decision on the pros and cons of these surveillance apps,
without _first_ understanding what this virus is and does.
--
This is a formidable enemy where fear & ignorance won't solve the problem.
0 new messages