In the spring of 2020, the first covid-19 data sets were released to the public. The practice promises to reduce the spread of the disease by issuing warnings to people who have been exposed to the virus. Now, a year later, the occupants are gone again Maiko 50– plus half of US countries – can join the program.
But the big question remained: how did this skill work? Some research suggests answers, but despite such extensive releases, it is difficult to assess whether visual cues were able to halt the spread of covid-19. This is especially true in the US, where many countries have developed their own programs — the only way to show the seriousness of the epidemic in America.
To learn more about how the technology worked in the US, MIT Technology Review reached out to each state health department that set up a digital communication system and reviewed software reviews left by anonymous Americans. We asked two questions: who is using the technology, and how do people feel?
The final results of this analysis provide an overview of the unseen probability. Much of the world’s information is unused, incomprehensible, and unreliable — yet this technology may be its own as a tool to help the future outbreak of disease.
How technology works
Monitoring information was initially placed to help follow traditional methods. Using medical methods, researchers looking for people living with HIV ask patients to find out where they are and their activities through phone calls and interviews. The new technology promises to cater to all people, not just the small number of disease groups – a unique opportunity to diagnose rapidly spreading diseases.
You may remember a friend you met for lunch, but not a stranger standing in line for 15 minutes at a grocery store. The unlock notification system reminds you, do not use Bluetooth to keep track of the number of nearby phones and alert you as one of the phones included with good test results.
The first waves of the system were created by manufacturing corporations, many of which ended up collaborating with Apple and Google to create a similar measure. The Apple-Google system predicts users’ privacy, identifies their data, and does not track the whereabouts of users. With the help of two major platforms in the world, the system is the most widely accepted, and is used by many US countries.
The use of these systems has been difficult to monitor. Research has just begun to emerge software in the UK and Switzerland, For example. In the US, monitoring is so difficult that each government operates on its own. But our review has a few exceptions:
- US operations were launched late into the epidemic – as the fall / winter season was already taking place
- This technology has never been adopted, although some countries are doing better than others
- The lack of publicity in the new technology – and the lack of resources for the medical organizations that sell the technology – have disrupted the number of children and the use of technology.
Who is using this technology
We followed the information programs announced in 25 countries by the District of Columbia. Virginia was the first country to make the technology available to its residents in August 2020, while others are just getting started. Massachusetts began testing its program with a pilot in two cities in April 2021, while South Carolina is running a pilot program at Clemson University. The government did indeed begin its work in May 2020 – but legislators banned the health department from any subsequent work to digital connectivity last summer for privacy, backlash development.
Even in countries where such programs are available, not everyone can use them. Visual information is available only to smartphone users; it’s about 15% of Americans do not have a cell phone, according to the Pew Research Center. However, half of the US population can now be admitted. Whether they decide to do so or not is another matter.
Since most countries do not speak publicly about users, we made an effort to inform the health department to find out how many people have chosen to use the technology.
Twenty-four states and DCs shared what they are using, indicating that, by early May, 36.7 million Americans had voted in favor of the proposal. Hawaii has the largest population, at about 46%. In four other countries, more than 30% enrolled: Connecticut, Maryland, Colorado, and Nevada. The other seven countries have more than 15% of the population covered.
That number is important: model education has determined that if about 15% of the population participates in the system, it could significantly reduce the number of cases in communities, hospitals, and deaths. By this measure, 13 countries – all together representing one-third of the U.S. population – have experienced greater security through recognition.
The remaining 11 who have failure notification programs fail to achieve this. Of the 11, the three states have less than 5% of their population: Arizona, North Dakota, and Wyoming. South Dakota, one government that did not respond to a press conference, shares the Care19 Diary with low-income countries in North Dakota and Wyoming.
Comparison of countries is not perfect, however, because there are no state laws governing how territories collect or report – and some may choose others differently. For example, when DC specifies the number of “notified information” on Reopen the Metrics page, this figure is much higher than the population. A representative of DC Health explained that those who can join include visitors as well as people who work in DC, even if they live anywhere else. In our objectives, we saw the extent of DC initiation as part of the surrounding areas (including areas adjacent to Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia).
Another reason these prices are difficult to measure: Several countries with high consumer prices benefit from significant changes that Apple and Google were released in September: Exposure Notification Express, or ENX. The system has made it much easier for countries to run apps, and has also asked millions of iPhone users to avoid downloading anything. They can trigger notifications by simply turning the switch on their phones.
Starting an ENX is easy, and experts say it may look safer than downloading a new app. It has greatly encouraged the number of countries that use it. For example, Hawaii saw its users more than twice from February to May and launch ENX.
The descriptive method means that we have less user experience, however. States will not be able to track ENX initiatives directly, and will instead need to rely on Apple on their numbers.
Beyond the numbers
Even if most people download or change the app on their iPhone, the system should be used appropriately to make a difference in covid cases. That’s why we tried to understand how people re-use the machine.
A recent research found that Americans are less likely to trust in digital technology. However, this was due to a study in which many countries did not launch their own programs. As a public consultant on US government applications, MIT Technology Review analyzed and evaluated app reviews from the Google Play store. We just checked out the Google Play review (from Android users) to find out more available and up-to-date. (Most iPhone users can now turn on notifications without downloading the app.)
Checking software reviews is not a perfect system. Users who choose to review their government program do not represent the type of EN-activating individuals – rather, it is the users who want to share the power of technical expertise.
However, here is what we found:
- Most government programs have numbers between 3 and 4.
- Michigan has the lowest score, at 2.6.
- DC, California, New York, Delaware, and Massachusetts have more, than 4.
Many 1-star reviewers seem to misunderstand how their state program works, have not relied on expertise, or been unable to understand how the program interacts with the public health system. This shows that, for most Americans, the program did not work well even though it was used in a professional way.
What we learn from the negative analysis
Negative comments provide a snapshot of what many people think and the erroneous assumptions that these machines have experienced.
Minor corruption made a big difference.
Repeatedly, the reviewers said they were disappointed by the lack of a starting number. To protect your privacy, when you suspect you have covid you do not record your name or any other identifiable information in the program: instead, you enter a number that your health department provides. Some reviewers say they do not know where to find a security number if they have been tested for the virus, or if they have been exposed to the virus. We have heard from developers in other countries about this issue.
Some US and other countries have changed the system by changing the way the code is sent, but in most cases, users have to wait for an agent to call them. This waiting time reduces technical dependency, and significantly slows down digital connectivity.
“Dependence” is not just about the program. It’s bigger than that.
Many programmers no longer trust the new technology, the government, or both. A Pew Research Center Research A survey conducted in July 2020 found that 41% of Americans would probably not be able to speak to a health worker by phone or text message, and 27% said they would not be comfortable sharing the names of their recent contacts — all necessary for research policy.
Pursuing digital connectivity faces the same challenges. Some reviewers felt they were protecting their privacy so they came up with pages of their app to brag about their refusal to use this technology. Many also quoted the Pennsylvania writer as saying: “Turn on my wifi, GPS, and Bluetooth? Fun. No thanks, Harrisburg.”
Less use makes mistrust grow.
The most important thing in digital research is that you have to get involved to make it work – about 15% of the community, but especially the highest. When people are not participating, the chances of getting a match are slim – no matter how many – so the system will not send notifications to just a few people. do have visual cues.
A few comments came in which they asked other citizens of their respective states to select the information, and reminded their reviewers that good use makes the voice work better in conversations that seem to remind the Facebook controversy more than the marketplace.
Source link
