Ben AdidaMay 13, 2023

I want to give a shout out to exposure notifications, the API Apple and Google created at the beginning of the pandemic. Well scoped. In close collaboration with domain experts. Privacy protecting. Measurably helped, maybe not as much as hoped, but still. And now being responsibly shut down, as promised.

We should praise folks when tech is done right. I want to see more of this responsible deployment of tech.

Show threadKate Nyhan is changing servers
@ben Responsibly shut down as promised? Ok, if we have achieved a threshold of community transmission under which an *opt-in* exposure notification system is somehow *irresponsible,* is there also a threshold that will trigger its reopening?
I mean, I would be thrilled if there is no winter wave, and if there is no new variant with even worse outcomes or an even worse attack rate - but would you put money on it?
May 13, 2023 at 3:48amWeb
Show threadKate Nyhan is changing serversMay 13, 2023
@ben And, if it was scoped so well, what's the rationale for the six feet-fifteen minutes criteria? Sure, I can see how that was a reasonable approach in March 2020. But that was when we thought SARS-CoV-2 spread via ballistic droplets. Time marches on and now we know that is a mischaracterisation of transmission dynamics.
Show threadKate Nyhan is changing serversMay 13, 2023
@ben
"Close collaboration with domain experts" - I guess it all comes down to which experts
Morawska et al. COVID-19 and Airborne Transmission: Science Rejected, Lives Lost. Can Society Do Better? Clin Infect Dis. 2023 Feb 10:ciad068. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciad068. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36763042. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciad068
COVID-19 and Airborne Transmission: Science Rejected, Lives Lost. Can Society Do Better?

In April 2020, 36 experts alerted the WHO about the importance of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2. WHO dismissed this advice until it was published in an in

OUP Academic
Show threadBen AdidaMay 13, 2023

@kdnyhan these are all valid criticisms. Here's how I see it:

- we're not testing systematically anymore. So even though I agree the pandemic isn't over, our change in how we approach it makes this tool less useful. So sunset is the right and responsible move.

- agree that criteria for "contact" could have evolved. Still, the system was useful as is. I wonder if it might have thrown too many false positives if they changed it. Only so much Bluetooth can do here.

Show threadKate Nyhan is changing serversMay 13, 2023
@ben Exposure notifications are *more* useful, not less useful, in a world without routine testing. These days, a prompt to test yourself because of an exposure notification is the only pathway by which people with asymptomatic infections might discover them, and by which people might discover their presymptomatic infection while it's still presymptomatic.
Show threadKate Nyhan is changing serversMay 13, 2023
@ben
I get that you are pointing out: with less testing happening, fewer infections are discovered, and fewer exposure notifications are generated. But those exposure notifications that *are* generated can still be useful: they prompt the exposee to test and mask, potentially extinguishing a chain of transmission.
Show threadKate Nyhan is changing serversMay 13, 2023
@ben If we were measuring value based only on the *volume* of notifications, we would have turned it off in states where people opted in to the tool at a lower rate. Lower participation rate -> fewer exposure notices, just like less testing -> fewer exposure notices.
Presumably they left it on, even in low-participation states, because someone thought that it's better to be notified of *some* exposures than to be notified of *no* exposures - which is IMO right.
Show threadKate Nyhan is changing serversMay 13, 2023
@ben These days, the guidance for people exposed (no matter their vax status) is to mask and test - so I don't see how "false positives" are a problem. No one is being forced to quarantine bc of an exposure. So what exactly was the downside to providing continued access to an opt-in exposure notification system?
Show threadKate Nyhan is changing serversMay 13, 2023
@ben Maybe the tech side requires continued investment that isn't available; maybe the privacy risk is higher now than it was before - not being an expert, I couldn't argue with explanations of that nature.
Show threadKate Nyhan is changing serversMay 13, 2023
@ben But basing the decision to remove the tool on the idea that exposure notification is no longer useful, that, I don't get.
Show threadBen AdidaMay 13, 2023

@kdnyhan it's worth a discussion as to whether this system would continue to be useful at this phase... Maybe I'm seeing it wrong.

But again, this being the first time a tool like this was deployed, I think it's worth sticking to the deployment criteria they set out at the start.

Show threadJeri DanskyMay 14, 2023

@ben Logically, I totally see your point re: the lack of systematic testing and its impact on the notifications.

But emotionally, I just feel abandoned by my government (or even more abandoned than I felt before). I almost cried when the discontinuation notice popped up on my phone.

And yes, I still give a bunch of credit to Apple and Google for what they did.

Show threadBen AdidaMay 14, 2023
@jeridansky i get it. The way we're living with COVID is not at all how i expected things to go, and it's taught me a lot, good and bad, about humanity.