England & Wales Tracing App to be released Sept 24th

[nlogax]

+1.

I’m not downloading it either.

Only trouble is, how long before it becomes mandatory, or de-facto mandatory?

The only way that's going to happen is if it becomes mandatory to own a smartphone.

I.e. not in our lifetimes.

 

[bspahh]

The part I still don't quite get is what happens after someone tests positive and how that is processed. At some point someone has to say 'the keys for people who associated with this phone need to be alerted' - and given the way this is set up, the 'infected' owner of the phone has to be involved. But who does what and what safeguards are there?

If you are using the app, and you come down with the virus, you get a passcode from your doctor, and at that point your phone uploads the random keycodes that your phone has generated over the last couple of weeks. https://ncase.me/contact-tracing/ says that you can choose to hide the keycodes that you want to keep private. I don't know if that is the case with the NHS app.

If another user had been close to you, then every so often the app on my phone will check with the central database to see if any of the keycode from contacts from that user have been flagged as being from someone with the infection. A comment in a footnote of the cartoon at the WWW site says:

"the real DP-3T protocol (the thing implemented by Apple and Google) is even MORE secure! It uses a "cuckoo filter" so that phones only know the covid-19 messages they heard, without revealing ALL covid-19 messages."

At this point if you have been too close for too long to infected, will get a warning to self-isolate for 14 days. Other people in your house do not have to also self-isolate unless you get COVID symptoms. If you get COVID symptoms you can book a test using the app. If you don't get any symptoms then you can stop isolating after 14 days without a test.

I saw a comment on the NHS WWW site today, saying that self-isolation after a warning from the app is recommended, but voluntary, if you don't have symptoms.

 

[bramling]

The only way that's going to happen is if it becomes mandatory to own a smartphone.

I.e. not in our lifetimes.

I hope that’s the case, however how long before somewhere decides “no entry unless you show us a phone which has T&T active”?

The only consolation is that, unlike masks, there’s no ready visible way of knowing if someone has the app or not, so it won’t be something Karen can get worked up about. However somewhere like Bridgnorth Cliff Railway could.

 

[MikeWM]

If you are using the app, and you come down with the virus, you get a passcode from your doctor, and at that point your phone uploads the random keycodes that your phone has generated over the last couple of weeks. https://ncase.me/contact-tracing/ says that you can choose to hide the keycodes that you want to keep private. I don't know if that is the case with the NHS app.

Ok, that's the part I didn't quite get the details, thanks. So there is gatekeeping by the NHS before you can say 'these keys should be marked as infected'.

That was my concern - you don't want the situation where you've been sitting next to someone you don't like in a pub, and you can decide to mark yourself as infected just to annoy then!

 

[nlogax]

I hope that’s the case, however how long before somewhere decides “no entry unless you show us a phone which has T&T active”?

If the government decides everyone who already owns a phone will need to install the app then they'll have to pay for an awful lot of device upgrades first. Don't worry about that..ain't gonna happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's hard to make it legally mandatory given that having a smartphone isn't mandatory.

I hope that’s the case, however how long before somewhere decides “no entry unless you show us a phone which has T&T active”?

I think there are pubs where the only option for ordering is the app. Smartphone ownership isn't a protected characteristic, so I wouldn't rule this out.

 

[david1212]

Unless there is a version for either of these



or even this



then for me no !!

.. however how long before somewhere decides “no entry unless you show us a phone which has T&T active”?

If that becomes the case then no business for them. Could this be considered as unreasonable discrimination ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If that becomes the case then no business for them. Could this be considered as unreasonable discrimination ?

No. Smartphone ownership is not a protected characteristic.

 

[ainsworth74]

No. Smartphone ownership is not a protected characteristic.

It's not direct discrimination but there's always scope for arguing indirect discrimination for instance mandating a smartphone could be discriminatory for people with certain disabilities and therefore the mandate could be illegal that way. Though, as with all things decimation, the get out clause is always whether or not the discrimination (if there is any) is in pursuit of a legitimate aim (promoting the health and safety of patrons and staff for instance). To be clear I'm not arguing one way or the other or suggesting that any such arguments would be successful or not. But I can see the scope for a challenge if anyone felt aggrieved enough to do so.

 

[island]

Genuinely intrigued as to why that's the case for you?

Because I do not want or need any further curbs on my already dwindling civil liberties.

I will comply with the law, and I will (reluctantly) stay off work and away from other people besides my wife if I am asked to self-isolate due to potential COVID19 infection. But in those circumstances (and under current rules) I will want to go out to my large local park, still staying well clear of anyone I could possibly infect, for exercise.

Under the proposals that I have seen, failing to self-isolate when you are suspected of having been exposed to COVID19 will be an offence, and based on the law for people returning from abroad, going out to exercise will not be permitted. Therefore, if those proposals become law, I will take all available legal steps to not raise a suspicion that I have been exposed to COVID19, and that will include deletion of the app.

 

[bramling]

Because I do not want or need any further curbs on my already dwindling civil liberties.

I will comply with the law, and I will (reluctantly) stay off work and away from other people besides my wife if I am asked to self-isolate due to potential COVID19 infection. But in those circumstances (and under current rules) I will want to go out to my large local park, still staying well clear of anyone I could possibly infect, for exercise.

Under the proposals that I have seen, failing to self-isolate when you are suspected of having been exposed to COVID19 will be an offence, and based on the law for people returning from abroad, going out to exercise will not be permitted. Therefore, if those proposals become law, I will take all available legal steps to not raise a suspicion that I have been exposed to COVID19, and that will include deletion of the app.

I hadn’t realised that exercise wasn’t permitted for people returning from abroad. Were that to become the case for T&T I think that would be enough to start civil disobedience off.

Two weeks without exercise, even in places with gardens, is not good for wellbeing. I presume this is largely for enforcement reasons.

 

[Huntergreed]

I hadn’t realised that exercise wasn’t permitted for people returning from abroad. Were that to become the case for T&T I think that would be enough to start civil disobedience off.

Two weeks without exercise, even in places with gardens, is not good for wellbeing. I presume this is largely for enforcement reasons.

It is to become the case for T&T, it'll be mandatory to self isolate by law (no leaving for any reason, at all, no shopping, no exercise) for 2 weeks in England. I think it's so wrong and I pray to god Nippy doesn't do the same up here.

 

[bramling]

It is to become the case for T&T, it'll be mandatory to self isolate by law (no leaving for any reason, at all, no shopping, no exercise) for 2 weeks in England. I think it's so wrong and I pray to god Nippy doesn't do the same up here.

As I say, that could well be a trigger for civil disobedience. It could certainly be justified for having really close contact (though I don’t see why people couldn’t go out for basic exercise), however if people are going to get two weeks in doors just because their app has gone bing, no chance.

I wonder whether it may end up being the police who end up doing the equivalent of the men in grey suits and declare enough’s enough. Whilst some may get a buzz out of all this, I bet most are thoroughly fed up being dumped with all this.

 

[43066]

It may seem like an oversight, but it's one that (for once) isn't the governments fault as that's all that the bluetooth tracing API that google/apple developed will support.

I think that it'll still reach a fair number of people, it's up to 500k on the play store. Not sure about iOS installs but I expect about the same if not more. I don't think the government expects this to be a 'big win' as a tool for managing this, so much as an 'every little helps'

Thanks for clarifying the point re iOS.

Therefore, if those proposals become law, I will take all available legal steps to not raise a suspicion that I have been exposed to COVID19, and that will include deletion of the app.

I think that’s quite understandable. Apart from the data protection concerns, for those who don’t want to have the inconvenience of isolating (almost certainly needlessly), and potentially difficult conversations with employers etc., simply not downloading the app seems like a no brainer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is to become the case for T&T, it'll be mandatory to self isolate by law (no leaving for any reason, at all, no shopping, no exercise) for 2 weeks in England. I think it's so wrong and I pray to god Nippy doesn't do the same up here.

It's right, because the virus doesn't miraculously not spread in supermarkets, for example.

At the moment it is prudent to have a 14 day stock of non-perishable food in the home. Perhaps that should be legally required and randomly inspectable?

If a 14 day special would badly affect you, as I suspect it would me, take steps to avoid the risk of it. Those same steps will also reduce the risk of transmission, so bonus.

As I say, that could well be a trigger for civil disobedience. It could certainly be justified for having really close contact (though I don’t see why people couldn’t go out for basic exercise), however if people are going to get two weeks in doors just because their app has gone bing, no chance.

Because they might spread it to others - that's the whole point.

This is why I favour hotel quarantine - it can actually be controlled to prevent selfish people deciding they are more important than others. If you don't like it, take steps to reduce your risk, such as complying religiously to 2m distancing (T&T aren't themselves interested beyond that, though there's some evidence that the app does look up to 4m if you're there for a long time) and not taking a foreign holiday at present.

 

[Bantamzen]

At the moment it is prudent to have a 14 day stock of non-perishable food in the home. Perhaps that should be legally required and randomly inspectable?

Errrr what? You are suggesting that not only people should have 2 weeks of provisions, which might not be as easy as you seem to think especially for large families, but that some fascist with a clipboard could barge into your house to check.....? Yikes, what will you think of next?

 

[birchesgreen]

For some reason the Viz comic strip "Bottom Inspectors" just popped into my head.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Errrr what? You are suggesting that not only people should have 2 weeks of provisions, which might not be as easy as you seem to think especially for large families, but that some fascist with a clipboard could barge into your house to check.....? Yikes, what will you think of next?

That people might just be, you know, prudent and selfless?

 

[Huntergreed]

That people might just be, you know, prudent and selfless?

I do find your authoritarian approach to all this quite scary indeed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do find your authoritarian approach to all this quite scary indeed.

As much as I find it frustrating that people won't simply take this seriously.

It's not really about authoritarianism, it's about the Asian cultures[1] where you think of others before yourself (or call it the Scout Law) which I do see as superior to Western (worse in the US to be fair) "selfish" cultures. There would be no need for any of these laws if people just did the right thing.

[1] The Asian democracies, not China.

 

[JamesT]

I tried to download the app this morning, but was told I couldn't because I don't have iOS 13. But iOS 12.4 is the up-to date version for my iphone (a 6S). Something awry here?

That's not correct. If you have a 6S then iOS 14 is available for your handset, everything that could run 13 can run 14.
The normal 6 is the newest iPhone that can't run the newer OS.

 

[Bantamzen]

That people might just be, you know, prudent and selfless?

So your answer would be to trigger a wave of panic buying, followed by a wave of people dobbing each other in for not panic buying....

 

[takno]

As much as I find it frustrating that people won't simply take this seriously.

It's not really about authoritarianism, it's about the Asian cultures[1] where you think of others before yourself (or call it the Scout Law) which I do see as superior to Western (worse in the US to be fair) "selfish" cultures. There would be no need for any of these laws if people just did the right thing.

[1] The Asian democracies, not China.

You really need to read the scout law. It doesn't say what you think it does

 

[Domh245]

Because they might spread it to others - that's the whole point.

I thought you'd agreed that outdoors spread is negligble, and therefore going out to the park for a walk/jog is going to be minimal risk. It's certainly no different to the height of the pandemic last time, people were still allowed to leave the house for exercise, etc. I certainly don't think the prevalence of the virus in the UK in March was lower than it is for many of the quarantinable countries

 

[Bletchleyite]

So your answer would be to trigger a wave of panic buying, followed by a wave of people dobbing each other in for not panic buying....

No, just buy one or two more things each time you shop and a stock is soon built.

 

[The_Train]

Because I do not want or need any further curbs on my already dwindling civil liberties.

I will comply with the law, and I will (reluctantly) stay off work and away from other people besides my wife if I am asked to self-isolate due to potential COVID19 infection. But in those circumstances (and under current rules) I will want to go out to my large local park, still staying well clear of anyone I could possibly infect, for exercise.

Under the proposals that I have seen, failing to self-isolate when you are suspected of having been exposed to COVID19 will be an offence, and based on the law for people returning from abroad, going out to exercise will not be permitted. Therefore, if those proposals become law, I will take all available legal steps to not raise a suspicion that I have been exposed to COVID19, and that will include deletion of the app.

I fully understand the points you are making but what's the point in actually downloading the app in the first place if you're just going to ignore the key aspect to it and not self isolate when the app says for you to do so?

This is not a dig at the person I'm quoting directly but more a generalised point that the app is another part of this process that is pointless without compliance. If 75% of the population download the app but only a third of those actually self isolate when told to do so, for me, its just not worth the time and money.

 

[takno]

I fully understand the points you are making but what's the point in actually downloading the app in the first place if you're just going to ignore the key aspect to it and not self isolate when the app says for you to do so?

This is not a dig at the person I'm quoting directly but more a generalised point that the app is another part of this process that is pointless without compliance. If 75% of the population download the app but only a third of those actually self isolate when told to do so, for me, its just not worth the time and money.

It's all a percentages game. You don't need everyone to respond to any single measure, just enough to slow the spread. On the app specifically, I think far more than a third will self-isolate even if they don't keep slavishly to rules about walking around empty streets Even people who ignore the self isolation calls though are still adding value as part of the network, because if they themselves are infected they may well upload that to the app and warn others

 

[Yew]

It's right, because the virus doesn't miraculously not spread in supermarkets, for example.

Could you show me a case that is certainly attributable to a supermarket transmission?

Moderator note: can this take place in a separate thread please? Thanks!

 

[ainsworth74]

I fully understand the points you are making but what's the point in actually downloading the app in the first place if you're just going to ignore the key aspect to it and not self isolate when the app says for you to do so?

I can't speak for @island but for me personally if that happened to me then I'd reduce my contact with other people to zero. Right now, for instance, I go to the supermarket once a week, a takeaway around once a week and the office several times a week and an outdoor walk several times per week. If I got a notification like that I'd cut out all of the above apart from the walk (which is outdoors and it's easy to be more than even 2m away so the chance of transmission is as close to zero as it's possibel to be). My judgement would be that stopping all of those activities other than walk is a perfectly sensible and appropriate response to being notified that I might have Covid-19. Banning leaving my home to even take outdoor exercise is madness. I appreciate the policing difficulties and why, therefore, the rules have ended up the way they are but that doesn't change my view that as an individual I would be abiding by the spirit of self-isolation if not the letter by acting in the above way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could you show me a case that is certainly attributable to a supermarket transmission?

It's not possible to attribute cases in that way because of the long incubation period.