Những ý kiến trái chiều về ứng dụng theo dõi tiếp xúc

trung bình mỗi ngày, một người có hàng chục tiếp xúc: trực tiếp/mặt đối mặt (nguy cơ lây nhiễm cao) và "lướt qua đời nhau" như đi chợ/siêu thị (ít có nguy cơ lây nhiễm hơn) -> nếu các phần mềm cũng cảnh báo cả những tiếp xúc như này thì số lượng cảnh báo quá lớn, còn nếu bỏ qua thì cũng lỡ ko cảnh báo phần nhiều nguy cơ có thể lây nhiễm, và ko phải cảnh báo nào cũng dẫn đến lây nhiễm, cần cách ly, nên ban đầu có thể ok với ứng dụng, nhưng sau vài lần cảnh báo giả như vậy thì người dân cũng phớt lờ thôi,

số lượng người dùng điện thoại thông minh cài ứng dụng?, và ko phải ai lúc nào cũng mang theo điện thoại,

ứng dụng theo dõi tự nguyện này về sau (khi dịch qua đi) thành áp dụng bắt buộc/ép buộc?
-----
Studies suggest that people have on average about a dozen close contacts a day—incidents involving direct touch or a one-on-one conversation—yet even in the absence of social distancing measures the average infected person transmits to only 2 or 3 other people throughout the entire course of the disease. Fleeting (biến, lướt qua, lướt nhanh) interactions, such as crossing paths in the grocery store, will be substantially more common and substantially less likely to cause transmission. If the apps flag these lower-risk encounters as well, they will cast a wide net when reporting exposure. If they do not, they will miss a substantive fraction of transmission events. Because most exposures flagged by the apps will not lead to infection, many users will be instructed to self-quarantine even when they have not been infected. A person may put up with this once or twice, but after a few false alarms and the ensuing inconvenience of protracted self-isolation, we expect many will start to disregard the warnings.

And:
At least as problematic is the issue of false negatives (âm tính giả)—instances where these apps will fail to flag individuals as potentially at risk even when they’ve encountered someone with the virus. Smartphone penetration in the United States remains at about 81 percent—meaning that even if we had 100 percent installation of these apps (which is extremely unlikely without mandatory policies in place), we would still only see a fraction of the total exposure events (65 percent according to Metcalf’s Law). Furthermore, people don’t always have their phones on them.

And:
There is also a very real danger that these voluntary (tự nguyện) surveillance technologies  (công nghệ theo dõi) will effectively become compulsory (bắt buộc) for any public and social engagement. Employers, retailers, or even policymakers can require that consumers display the results of their app before they are permitted to enter a grocery store, return back to work, or use public services—is as slowly becoming the norm in China, Hong Kong, and even being explored for visitors to Hawaii.

Taken with the false positive and “griefing” (intentionally crying wolf) issues outlined above, there is a real risk that these mobile-based apps can turn unaffected individuals into social pariahs, restricted from accessing public and private spaces or participating in social and economic activities. The likelihood that this will have a disparate impact on those already hardest hit by the pandemic is also high. Individuals living in densely populated neighborhoods and apartment buildings—characteristics that are also correlated to non-white and lower income communities—are likelier to experience incidences of false positives due their close proximity to one another.

In another study:
Nearly 3 in 5 Americans say they are either unable or unwilling to use the infection-alert system under development by Google and Apple, suggesting that it will be difficult to persuade enough people to use the app to make it effective against the coronavirus pandemic, a Washington Post–University of Maryland poll finds.

Bài trước: Thật là đau đầu
Tags: health

Post a Comment

Tin liên quan

    Tài chính

    Trung Quốc