From the article:
> The centralized approach would allow much more data analysis
If this was really a benefit, I'd expect the journalist would have been briefed on the beneficial outcome of the data analysis, rather than just "more data analysis".
If this was really a benefit, I'd expect the journalist would have been briefed on the beneficial outcome of the data analysis, rather than just "more data analysis".
The NHSX app tried to do too much — trying to collect centralised data when one key function didn't need to be centralised was always going to be an issue when trying to get people to install it in large numbers.
Smaller samples are enough for population surveys, while high percentages are needed for the track and trace function. Mixing up the two into one app has doomed this project.
Seems a pretty clearly spelt out to me.
Doesn't it mean: there just aren't enough tests for this to be worthwhile?
[Edited to add: I re-read the article and - yes, it means there is not enough testing capacity. Limiting case detection to the number of tests you have available is absolutely not a benefit, unless you are a government trying to obscure the truth, perhaps]
Also, it's not just tests that are short, but contact tracing resources. Basically, when you shut down a business or location due to an outbreak, you want to be as precise and accurate as possible - to do otherwise will cost the affected too much, and they'll start to ignore the contact tracing system entirely.
We'll probably never know now if there was an actual benefit to the NHS's proposal, but it seemed at least plausible.