Talk:COVID-19 apps

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 25 October 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samamc94. Peer reviewers: SBakion, LauraStephens435.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 14 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aorzel. Peer reviewers: Kathspeed.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WETRACE - yet another tracing app and protocol

public key / BLE https://wetrace.ch/ https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.08812.pdf https://github.com/WeTrace-ch/WeTrace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.183.127.170 (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CovidWise (Virginia)

The US state of Virginia has an official tracing app, CovidWise, that does not appear to be listed here.Jess_Riedel (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

backend for tracing teams

https://www.sormas-oegd.de/ runs on federated virtual server for each health authority

New project, new protocol

uses hashs of encounter tokens by University of Darmstadt https://tracecorona.net/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.183.125.75 (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of apps

We should consider breaking down the listing of apps down by type of functionality, perhaps in the format of a table. There seem to be only a small number of types of functionality:

  • diagnosis/reporting
  • informational apps
  • location-based surveillance / restriction
  • location-based contact tracing
  • privacy-preserving contact tracing

We could start this with annotating the existing listing with information about functionality for each app. -- The Anome (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! I've now re-sorted the table by country and name, and divided it into two tables, for frameworks and apps respectively. -- The Anome (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Let us also address dual-use, e.g. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/limits_of_location_tracking_in_an_epidemic.pdf#pdfjs.action=download Big Brother is likely to join Little Sister. Zezen (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should also break out official government-supported apps from unofficial apps. -- The Anome (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updates needed from recent announcement

See https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/4/10/21216675/apple-google-covid-coronavirus-contact-tracing-app. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuller list

Some defunct already:

https://fs0c131y.com/covid19-tracker-apps/

Zezen (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

French app

I've removed the github link from the French app entry; there's nothing there but a README file, and that's not even the beginnings of an app. However, there does seem to be something real being developed, see [1], so I haven't deleted the entry completely. -- The Anome (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mapy.cz

Mapy appears to be a vanilla travel app at the moment, with no mention of COVID-19 on its App store page; I've removed it from the table. -- The Anome (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corona 100m

Corona 100m, in spite of receiving lots of press attention, some of which suggested it had quasi-official status, seems to have been developed by a small independent developer, and now taken down by the Google Play Store (see https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tina3d.corona100m for confirmation) -- The Anome (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Korean state tracking

This article, among others, suggests that the South Korean COVID-19 tracking system wasn't app-based at all, but used a wide variety of data sources, centrally integrated, to issue alerts to those affected. This probably deserves its own article South Korean state COVID-19 surveillance system. -- The Anome (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Desviralize

I've removed the Brazilian website Desviralize from the table; it's a website, not a mobile app. -- The Anome (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@André Salem Alego: I've removed Desviralize again, for the same reason. Please provide evidence this is an app before re-adding it. -- The Anome (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zerobase.io

I intend to add a row for apps for http://zerobase.io under US (although it was developed by an international group of volunteers in US and Germany. It's a react web-based app, under Apache 2.0 license, that by default collects 0 personal information. Code is at https://github.com/zerobase-io/About-Us-Onboarding, I'm new to editing Wikipedia, any questions/advice please let me know Ekraay (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy-preserving as misleading jargon

There is overwhelming evidence in terms of WP:RS that GAFAM - of which Google/Apple are two of the five of the groups - are two of the world's most massive privacy violators! While there is a red-link claim (+a few sources) that claim that privacy-preserving contact tracing is already well-known, three technical papers do not justify such a strong claim without having organisations with a strong reputation for protecting privacy like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, La Quadrature du Net, and so on, give their opinions on whether or not the software really "preserves privacy". A term of jargon is one thing; an adjective that is to be interpreted literally is a very different thing.

So let's not jump into confusing a piece of jargon with properly sourced evidence.

Would WP:MEDRS accept that we start writing health-preserving everywhere, e.g. health-preserving face masks, health-preserving social-distancing measures? Boud (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDRS does not apply to privacy claims, it only applies to biomedical claims. As always, as an editor you're free to propose edits to ensure WP:RS. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Google is a major privacy violator does not mean any particular application by them will violate privacy. The contact tracing approach used by Apple and Google appears to protect privacy quite well.
Having typed that, I suggest the sections be re-titled "Centralized contact tracing" and "Decentralized contact tracing"; or "Location-based contact tracing" and "Proximity-based contact tracing".
"Centralized" versus "Decentralized" would divide them based on where problematic contacts are identified. "Centralized" might be a given device uploads its contact or location logs to a server and the server notifies it whether its owner has had problematic encounters. "Decentralized" might be a given device queries a server for a list of problematic encounters and then the device figures out whether its owner has had problematic encounters.
"Location-based" versus "Proximity-based" would be the method of logging encounters. Using GPS, location-specific transmitters or other locating technology to log where a device has been would be "location-based". Using Bluetooth, IrDA or other device-to-device communication to log encounters would be "proximity-based". 74.104.188.4 (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that does sound less POV. I'll try to WP:BRD the centralized/decentralized.

France- StopCovid vs ROBERT ROBust and privacy-presERving proximity Tracing protocol

It's not clear for me if the StopCovid app developed by the French gvt and ROBERT, the ROBust and privacy-presERving proximity Tracing protocol developed by INRIA are the same project. So for the moment, it's 2 rows but they could be merged later. LaMèreVeille (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the North Korean French government is keeping this secret, keeping two separate rows makes sense. Boud (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contact Tracer

The Anome I couldn't find any mention in the press about this app that was supposed launched in France, Italy, Spain or US . Even the French translation is wrong La suivi des contacts instead of Le suivi des contacts. Do you think the app should appear in the table or is it just advertising? LaMèreVeille (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a source can't be provided, it should be removed. I'll take a look. -- The Anome (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've now removed several apps which don't have a third-party cite from a reliable source, and are not from an authoritative source such as a national government, industrial collaboration, major university or NGO, or part of one of the consortia that are themselves supported by multiple third-party cites. -- The Anome (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OHIOH.de

I've also removed OHIOH.de, because it seems to be a webapp, not a mobile device app. -- The Anome (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Digital contact tracing

NOT MERGED
No consensus to merge. Last timestamp was more than 2 months before this close. – robertsky (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Digital contact tracing should be merged here - it doesn't seem that there are many digital contract tracing efforts that are not about COVID-19. Regard, HaeB (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While most current digital contact tracing protocols are built for COVID-19, they will likely be used in and associated with future pandemics. They are not something exclusive to this pandemic and deserve their own independent page. Bravetheif (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This page COVID-19 apps is specific for covid-19, Digital contact tracing not. LaMèreVeille (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that COVID-19 contact tracing is the only digital contact tracing so far, I think it would probably make sense. We'd have to drop the purely informational apps from this, but I think that would be no great loss. -- The Anome (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not all COVID-19 apps are digital contact tracing apps, and digital contact tracing has been used with past pandemics (albeit to a lesser degree). In the recent past it was used as part of the Ebola outbreak in 2015. Bravetheif (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very different kind of app. It is merely a tool for the tracers, facilitating data entry and reporting by digitizing an existing paper-based process using mobile phones. I.e. it does not satisfy your own definition at digital contact tracing ("a method of contact tracing that takes advantage of mobile devices to determine contact between an infected patient and a user"). Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that not all COVID-19 apps are digital contact tracing apps, it would be good to expand the (COVID-19 app) page to include these. For instance, the symptom trackers launched in NYC (STOP COVID NYC) and the UK (COVID Symptom Tracker) for population level monitoring don't fall into this category. --CaitlinStewart (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"they will likely be used in and associated with future pandemics" - this seems a bit speculative to me, but even if it turns out to be correct in a few years or decades, we can still split the article then. At present, I can see basically no information in digital contact tracing that would be out of place in an article specifically about COVID-19. Do you?
By the way, I find it a bit strange that you started this separate article without even linking to the existing one at COVID-19 apps.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has been used in the past with an Ebola outbreak in 2015. I'm sure it has been used before then too. Separating the articles allows more detailed breakdown of the pros and cons of each methodology without clogging up this page. I chose to try and keep the two pages independent until I got around to writing a "history" section, because otherwise they're separate concepts. Bravetheif (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the lack of links between the articles. Editors who try to cover a separate but related topic in a new article usually link it from the existing one and vice versa, and don't proceed like you did. I'm sorry, but little of what you have said is suitable to dispel the impression that this was an intentional WP:REDUNDANTFORK.
By the way, in this edit you copied a substantial amount of text from the lede of this article (COVID-19 apps) into yours without attribution. This is a copyright violation, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, the claim about the 2015 Ebola outbreak is erroneous. Regarding "I'm sure it has been used before then too", we don't make content decisions based on such vage WP:OR hunches. What's more, there is good reason to assume that this assumption is not just vague and OR but actually wrong: These contact tracing apps only become useful above a fairly high adoption rate (estimated to be 60% for COVID-19 by one researcher), so it's unlikely that there exists a country that has used them in the past to actually combat an epidemic but escaped notice of all the people who have been working on the current COVID-19 apps.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support the merge b/c there's too much overlap for the articles to be separate. Non-COVID info can be in a "history of digital contact tracing" or "non-COVID digital contact tracing" section within this article. If the article gets too long, we should break out the "List of apps by country". I'm sure we'll rename this to "digital contact tracing apps" when the next pandemic comes along (hopefully not for another ten years), but until then "COVID-19 apps" is fine. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Separate as such: Some COVID-19 apps are using digital contact tracing technology. So all the content related to technology should be moved to digital tracing technology. But COVID-19 apps deserves its own article for their specities and countries deployments for example. Wykx (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to merge. COVID-19 apps is specific to COVID-19. Digital contact tracing is broader. It's important to have a separate page for Digital contact tracing to hold information about what needs doing before the next pandemic so we can be more successful, I believe this page could save lives. I have added links between the pages for usability, I think this clears up any confusion. billysielu 13:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - these are not the same thing, and it would be confusing to merge them, even if digital contract tracing is not widely used it's still important and notable to have as a separate page. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If anything it is COVID-19 apps that should be merged with digital contact tracing as digital contact tracing is the broader term and COVID-19 apps are an example of digital contact tracing. I agree that digital contact tracing could definitely be something that becomes more popular in the future, and as others have mentioned has already been used to a lesser degree in the past.NK1406 (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Agree with NK1406, I would rather have it flipped the other way. Still, I'm opposed to it, because there will probably be increased usage for this in the future. COVID Apps are very specifically for COVID and only COVID, and most governments have said they will discontinue the apps once the pandemic is over. However, if this happens in another pandemic, I would be willing to merge it into a list of sorts. TheKaloo (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Terminology: Contact Tracing versus Exposure Alerting

A useful idea has emerged (from the blog of Harper Reed) that we would all be better off distinguishing Contact Tracing (the manual process that health officials engage in) from "Exposure Alerting", which is what most of the "digital contact tracing" apps are actually doing. This seems like a very useful and clarifying distinction; what kind of agreement might be useful to gather before making an edit like this?Ivarley (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some news coverage on the Google/Apple name change to "Exposure Notification" that could certainly be added, but for broader changes we may need to give it time to see if the term actually replaces "contact tracing" in the mainstream media, or if the MSM balks at it. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also "route tracking" (usually with GPS) should be distinguished from "detect encounters" (usually with bluetooth nearby detections) as a concept--Zache (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it would be nice to explain the difference and the tradeoffs in the article. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move non-country-specific info to front of article

If there's no objections, we should move "Countries with official contact tracing apps" and "Countries considering deployment" after the non-country-specific sections. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colour-coding in tables

Colour-coding cells in the tables — e.g. licence type — would make them easier to read at a glance. —DIV (1.129.109.189 (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]


Corona-tracing animation for learning purposes

On May 17 Arguiot extended a previous information[2]; and later the same day, Rolf h nelson deleted the whole section.[3]

I recommend to go back to the much shorter previous information BeEs1 added[4] at May 16 -- instead of removing the complete section.

Any thoughts about this suggestion? 2003:E1:871E:B400:DD64:2AF1:F4FB:B421 (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Immunity Passport

The article clearly needs a section for apps that provide post-vaccination certificates, antibody test certificates and immunity passport. It currently focuses on contact tracing only but that's just one area that Covid19 apps cover. The intro of the article requires adjusting to clarify that not all Covid19 apps are contact tracing apps. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 08:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, in our sources the phrase "COVID-19 apps" usually means contact tracing rather than immunity passport apps. It sounds to me like it discussion of any current or proposed immunity passport apps should (for now) go under Immunity passport, which should in turn be linked to from COVID-19 pandemic IMHO. But if you find a strong source lumping them as "COVID-19 apps", feel free to try re-adding the edit, or alternatively just add a hatnote to Immunity passport. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TCN Protocol

Can I solicit an experienced editor to post a third opinion on the talk page at Talk:TCN Protocol#Notability? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Covid Watch History section has 10+ links that show Covid Watch did all of this, independent WP:RS, please review. Our github commit history is clear and our white paper is dated 3 weeks before anyone else's. I also included an independent source from Zcash foundation. Would someone please review this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinarwhite (talk • contribs)

@Tinarwhite If there's no answer here you can also solicit an opinion via WP:3O. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

Can this be renamed to "COVID-19 tracking apps" or "COVID-19 contact tracing apps"? Gammapearls (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"COVID-19 tracking apps" sounds good to me per WP:CONCISE. Non-tracking apps can go on COVID-19 surveillance. That said I don't see any urgency to a rename. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TeamSense?

There are two instances of "TeamSense" under the Canada and the United States, but it's not clear if this is actually in use in either jurisdiction or simply a link to an external website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firehawk12 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several countries probably missing in App list, e.g. Estonia

This is probably the official page for Estonia: https://hoia.me/en/

With download links to Apple and Google stores.

The Finland Koronavilkku has also a Swedish language version: Coronablinkern.

https://svenska.yle.fi/artikel/2020/07/31/coronablinkern-har-nu-laddats-ned-1-miljon-ganger-sa-har-fungerar-den-finlandska

--91.159.179.160 (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 pandemic in Alberta

Some content I added in the Canada section of the November 11 version of this article, I have used in the COVID-19 pandemic in Alberta in the ABTraceTogether section.Oceanflynn (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Applications for COVID-19 apps

COVID-19 applications have been a tool used in colleges and in the work place. They help to trace and minimize the spread of COVID-19. An issue with the applications is they do not have 100% reach as not everyone has a smartphone to record their data. They have been a helpful tool on college campuses especially as the vast majority of students have smartphones. These applications track symptoms, past exposure, and if you plan to be on campus or in the workplace.


RSM COVID-19 Power Apps. (n.d.). Retrieved February 01, 2021, from https://rsmus.com/what-we-do/services/technology/rsm-covid-19-power-apps.html

Surveys, apps to track COVID-19. (2020, September 30). Retrieved February 01, 2021, from https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/coronavirus/covid-19-response-public-health-in-action/surveys-apps-to-track-covid-19/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aorzel (talk • contribs) 01:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_apps"