Cwa-wishlist: Discussion about the app's efficiency | Diskussion über die Effizienz der App

[Tho-Mat]

Zahlen:

1. ca. 20% der Bevölkerung haben sich die App heruntergeladen. (16 Mil/80 Mil)
2. ca. 3-5% der Infizierten übermitteln dies aktuell mit der App. (281/6012)
3. ca. 20% der angefragten TANs werden nicht genutzt. (800/1050)
4. an ca. 2-3 Tage der maximalen Anzahl von 13 Tagen war die Risiko Ermittlung bei den Infizierten nicht aktiv. (ca. 20%)

Nimmt man alles zusammen ergibt sich, dass von 30.000 Infizierten statt 390.000 Schlüssel nur ca. 11.000 übermittelt wurden.

Damit liegt die aktuelle Nutzung der App bei ca. 2,8%.

Ich finde das sehr traurig und frage mich wo die Ursachen liegen und wie man dies ändern kann.

---

P.S. Da es nichts mit dem Code der CWA App zu tun hat, habe ich hier in Deutsch geschrieben.

[Sundie1]

Warum nicht die Nutzer für die Übermittlung der Testergebnisse belohnen?
Nach Eintragung eines positiven Ergebnises könnte ein Amazon, hello fresh, edeka, rewe, lieferando Gutschein generiert werden. So könnte die Charantäne sogar noch angenehmer ausgehalten werden. Sozusagen eine Win-Win Situation für alle Seiten.

[GPclips]

Hello @Tho-Mat,

thank you for sharing your thoughts. I will leave this issue open that it can be discussed by the community. For the moment there is no feature request included in your description, therefore I won't be able to assign it to one of our responsible development teams.
Please share the sources of your statistics and I will take it into the discussion with one of our leads.

Thank you,
LMM

Corona-Warn-App Open Source Team

[Tho-Mat]

@GPclips
Hier meine Auswertung:

Leider sind mir bei der Berechnung 2 logische Fehler unterlaufen, auf die ich erst bei Erstellung der Tabelle gekommen bin:

1. Die RKI Werte der ersten Tage (nach App-Start) dürfen nicht mit 13 multipliziert werten. Sondern nur mit der Anzahl Tage seit App-Start.
2. Es dürfen nur Tage berücksichtigt werden, die schon 13 Schlüssel haben können.
   Damit ändert sich die Effizienz geringfügig von 2,8% zu 3,1%.
   9151 übermittelte zu 292349 mögliche Schlüssel.

Auswertung Effizienz.xlsx

Die Werte ergeben sich aus:
https://github.com/Tho-Mat/corona-stuff/blob/master/%C3%BCberblick.xlsx

[gusowski1]

Eine statistische Analyse der täglichen Diagnoseschlüssel findet sich auch hier: https://micb25.github.io/dka/

[Tho-Mat]

Ich möchte noch einmal deutlich machen, dass es mir nicht um die Analyse der Schlüssel oder die App an sich geht.
Jede Analyse ist mit vielen Unsicherheiten behaftet und kann nur einen Trend aufzeigen.

Es geht mir darum, dass die App einfach zu wenig genutzt wird.
Bei 16Mil Downloads sollte man 15-20% Effizienz erwarten.

Aus meiner Sicht gibt es hier Handlungsbedarf Seitens der Regierung und Medien.

Mögliche Ursachen
-viele wollen die App aus diversen Gründen nicht installieren
-App Nutzung erhöht den Stromverbrauch
-App hatte zu Beginn einige Fehler
-Viele wissen nicht was die App macht
-In einigen Fällen scheint die App erst 1-2 Tage vor Übermittlung der Daten genutzt zu werden,
das legt nahe, dass diese Anwender sich erst bei Feststellung von Symptomen Gedanken über die App
machen

Natürlich sollte sichergestellt werden, dass die App ohne Zutun der Anwender einfach läuft.
Was leider auch nicht immer der Fall war. Aber hier war so weit ich das sehe nie die das Versenden und Empfangen
von Schlüsseln ein Problem sonder nur die Überprüfung des Risikos.

[daimpi]

One more data point to mention (via @micb25): To get from the number of downloads to the number of active users we might have to cut the number approximately in half: https://twitter.com/theochemiker/status/1293958645206659073

At least if we assume a similar pattern as we observe for the Swiss app: https://www.experimental.bfs.admin.ch/expstat/de/home/innovative-methoden/swisscovid-app-monitoring.html

Which would leave us currently with ~8.5m active users.

From this we would expect more like ~10% of positive tests entering CWA (which we're still underperforming by large margin though).

[micb25]

3. ca. 20% der angefragten TANs werden nicht genutzt. (800/1050)

Ein interessantes kleines Detail dazu:

Am Dienstag wurden 268 neue teleTANs berichtet laut RKI-Kennzahlen. Im selben Zeitraum wurden auf meinem Dashboard 267 Personen, die ihre Schlüssel teilten, geschätzt (Hinweis: die RKI-Woche geht bis Montag; Dienstag gibt es die Kennzahlen). Das Verhältnis von geschätzten Personen zu teleTANs beträgt diese Woche damit erstmalig nahezu 100%, in den Vorwochen lag dieses Verhältnis eher bei 80-85% (anders gesagt: 20% werden nicht genutzt).

Ich schlussfolgere daraus, dass es inzwischen signifikant mehr Meldungen via QR-Code gibt und bin auf die nächsten Zahlen gespannt. Sollte das Verhältnis dann über 100% liegen, wäre das ein sehr starkes Indiz für eine vermehrte Meldung via QR-Code. Die Notwendigkeit eines Hotlineanrufs, um eine teleTAN zu erfragen, mag ein weiterer Faktor für die bisherige geringe Effizienz sein.

[AdrianStuttgart1]

Warum nicht die Nutzer für die Übermittlung der Testergebnisse belohnen?
Nach Eintragung eines positiven Ergebnises könnte ein Amazon, hello fresh, edeka, rewe, lieferando Gutschein generiert werden. So könnte die Charantäne sogar noch angenehmer ausgehalten werden. Sozusagen eine Win-Win Situation für alle Seiten.

Wie wär's mit einem Gutschein für ein Bestattungsinstitut?

[AdrianStuttgart1]

Könnte zum Öffnen der App nicht eine Startverzweigung eingebaut werden: Positv getestet Ja/Nein. Den Zweig der Risikoermittlung braucht ein Infizierter ja nicht mehr. Dagegen spricht, dass ein positiv Getesteter auch keinen Sinn mehr sieht, die App für den eigenen Schutz überhaupt noch zu benutzen.

[AdrianStuttgart1]

Mit einer umfänglichen Infiziertenbegleitung bliebe die App im Bewusstsein und in Verwendung. Positv Getestete fragen sich zuallererst, an welche Stelle sie sich wenden sollen. Hier könnte die App durch eine Erweiterung Hilfestellung geben. Bei leichten Beschwerden dürfte die Telefonnummer des zuständigen Gesundheitsamtes wichtig sein. Was tun, wenn dort keiner ans Telefon geht? Wie als Single die Quarantäne managen? Bei schweren Beschwerden Notarzt anrufen. Jedenfalls haben auf einen Schlag Dinge Priorität, die das Einscannen des Testergebnisses in den Hintergrund rücken.

[Sundie1]

Aus diesem Grund bin ich für eine Belohnung des einscannens. Denn wird die quote schlagartig erhöht.

[AdrianStuttgart1]

Aus diesem Grund bin ich für eine Belohnung des einscannens. Denn wird die quote schlagartig erhöht.

Wunschdenken, politisch und ethisch zweifelhaft.

[ChristophBausch]

Warum wird die App denn nicht automatisch bei Testergebnissen upgedated? Gibt es denn hier Dataprivacy Bedenken? Sollte das verbindliche update nicht moeglich sein halte ich die Pandemillion als eine gute Idee. Die zu erwartende Effizienz beim Tracing sowie den geringeren Kosten von Quarantaene / Lockdown sind Grund genug Preise fuer erfolgreiches update zu vertailen. Kenne die Architektur und den Prozessflow nicht gut genug also hoffe auf nette Einfuehrung.

[cutec-chris]

Es wird meiner Meinung nach zuwenig getan, um menschen die App shcmackhaft zu machen. z.B. https://github.com/corona-warn-app/cwa-wishlist/issues/138, ist eine Super Idee die scheinbar im 2 tage Rythmus neue Menschen haben. Und die echt das Potential hat die App weiter zu verbreiten, aber seitens SAP und Telekom hört man erstaunlich wenig in der Issue. Die wird ins interne Jira gespiegelt und dann dort weiter diskutiert statt vernünftig mit der Community zusammenzuarbeiten.

Beispiel, Kommunikation bei den Fehlern. jeder Messenger hat das Problem mit aggressiven Energiesparmaßnahmen von Telefonen. Und auch wenn das auf Technischem Weg nicht gut Lösbar ist, hätt man dem Nutzer ja ne Anleitung bauen können wie er die App für die Energiesparmaßnahmen blacklistet. Hat mich für Conversations tatsächlich 2h suchen gekostet rauszufinden wie das bei nem S7 geht. Aber bei der kohle die vom Bund an die Firmen fliesst, sollten da 50 MA Vollzeit dran arbeiten können.

Ich bin echt entäuscht wie da Geld verschleudert wird und man mit der Verabntwortung in einer Pandemie umgeht.
Zum schluss noch ein wenig positives: Es ist schön das zumindest hier loswerden zu können. Das die App OSS ist, ist ja mal nen Schritt der bei anderen Verwaltungsangelegenheiten auch seit 20 jahren überfällig ist.

[Ein-Tim]

Es wird meiner Meinung nach zuwenig getan, um menschen die App shcmackhaft zu machen. z.B. https://github.com/corona-warn-app/cwa-wishlist/issues/138, ist eine Super Idee die scheinbar im 2 tage Rythmus neue Menschen haben. Und die echt das Potential hat die App weiter zu verbreiten, aber seitens SAP und Telekom hört man erstaunlich wenig in der Issue. Die wird ins interne Jira gespiegelt und dann dort weiter diskutiert statt vernünftig mit der Community zusammenzuarbeiten.

Ich glaube das Problem bei diesen Feature Requests ist immer noch die Deutsche Bürokratie.
Es funktioniert ja nicht einfach so das SAP & Telekom darüber entscheiden was in die App kommt und was nicht, das macht das RKI.
Somit müssten diese Sachen alle immer an das RKI herangetragen werden (von diesem dann vielleicht sogar noch ans Gesundheitsministerium) und so weiter.
Beide (sowohl RKI als auch Gesundheitsministerium) haben momentan auch noch viele andere Dinge (die mit Corona zusammenhängen) zu tun, deswegen werden solche Dinge höchstwahrscheinlich erstmal intern diskutiert, ein konkreter Vorschlag inkl. Umsetzung und Co. wird ausgearbeitet und erst dann wird das ans RKI weitergegeben.

Wo ich dir @cutec-chris aber Recht gebe, ist das es klarer für die GitHub Community werden muss was in den internet JIRA Issues diskutiert wird.
Dazu gibt es hier einen offenen Issue.

Beispiel, Kommunikation bei den Fehlern. jeder Messenger hat das Problem mit aggressiven Energiesparmaßnahmen von Telefonen. Und auch wenn das auf Technischem Weg nicht gut Lösbar ist, hätt man dem Nutzer ja ne Anleitung bauen können wie er die App für die Energiesparmaßnahmen blacklistet.

Hier bin ich anderer Meinung, es würde nur zu noch mehr Verunsicherung führen wenn Anleitungen herausgegeben würden, außerdem macht man sich zum Gespött ("50 Millionen und der Nutzer muss selber nachbessern")
Außerdem scheinen die Probleme ja größtenteils Technisch gelöst worden zu sein, oder nicht?

[thomasaugsten]

Danke für dein Feedback wir nehmen such die Vorschläge aus der Community ernst, aber diese App hat hohe Datenschutzvorgaben die es erschweren das persönliche Daten mit der App verknüpft werden damit die Akzeptanz der App nicht verringert werden. Die hier genannten Zahlen muss man auch im Verhältnis der Installationen und der kompatiblen Smartphones in Deutschland sehen

Wir haben auch mit Apple und Google eine Lösung (ohne Push Notification wie es die Messenger machen) erarbeitet die eine manuelle Einstellung von Seiten des Users für eine Hintergrundaktualisierung nicht mehr notwendig macht.

[alanrick]

Have I understood correctly that only 3% of Covid cases were entered into the CWA system and propagated to only 20% of the German population? Very disappointing 😢
But it implies that the focus should be on encouraging users to enter the results or encouraging laboratories to support CWA-compatible qrcodes.

I was recently tested and surprised at the crude way the results where accessed and presented so my biggest disappointment is that the health authorities are putting so little effort into supporting the labs and test-centers and lack of national coordination on this. IMHO a prerequisite for an effective CWA.

[thomasaugsten]

Hi the number of 3% is an old number related to all citizens regardless if there using the app or has a compatible smartphone.
We are working together with the labs to get a 100% coverage but with the tests on airports and autobahnen their a lot of new labs which need a certain onboarding time.

[Tho-Mat]

The 3% is not the number of infected persons that report their infections via CWA.
At 20.08 ca. 1700 of ca 43000 infected persons report their infection via CWA.
But a lot of the CWA reporters do not report 13 keys. Some only report 1 or 2 keys.
This reduces the efficiency.
At 06.08 from ca. 395730 possible keys only 13009 were reported.
That leads to 3,3%

[cutec-chris]

Ich glaube das Problem bei diesen Feature Requests ist immer noch die Deutsche Bürokratie.
Es funktioniert ja nicht einfach so das SAP & Telekom darüber entscheiden was in die App kommt und was nicht, das macht das > RKI.

Das stimmt, da hab ich wohl den wichtigsten Player vergessen. Aber auch hier wäre Transparenz hilfreich. Warum nicht die Anforderung ans RKI und deren Reaktionen öffentlich ? Schliesslich wird das ganze auch aus Öffentlichen geldern finanziert.

Hier bin ich anderer Meinung, es würde nur zu noch mehr Verunsicherung führen wenn Anleitungen herausgegeben würden, > außerdem macht man sich zum Gespött ("50 Millionen und der Nutzer muss selber nachbessern")
Außerdem scheinen die Probleme ja größtenteils Technisch gelöst worden zu sein, oder nicht?

Das kann ich nicht nachvollziehen. Wenn auf einem 7 Jahre alten S7 das nicht mehr geupdatet wird, die Stromsparmaßnahmen für die App deaktiviert werden müssen find ich das dem Nutzer durchaus zu erklären. Das Problem ist mit einem einleitenden Satz verständlich zu machen. An anderer Stelle wird von jedem Hansel im Supermarkt erwartet zu wissen was E325 ist. Ich bin zwar auch hier nicht der selben Meinung wie gerichte und Verbraucherschutzministerien, aber wenn es (noch) keine Technische Lösung gibt kann man den benutzer durchaus vernünfig führen.

Ich hab mit das Wochenlang auf eminem S7 angeguckt und wusste von anderen Apps was Phase ist. Hab zufälligerweise mit nem Hotline Mitabeiter der für die CWA abgestellt ist beim klettern darüber gesprochen. Selbst da wusste man von nix. 2 Tage später haben die Medien das ganze breitgetreten. Das hat zu viel merh Verunsicherung geführt als Transparent darüber zu informieren (mindestens wenn die Leute schon an der Hotline gelandet sind...)

[Ein-Tim]

Das stimmt, da hab ich wohl den wichtigsten Player vergessen. Aber auch hier wäre Transparenz hilfreich. Warum nicht die Anforderung ans RKI und deren Reaktionen öffentlich ? Schliesslich wird das ganze auch aus Öffentlichen geldern finanziert.

Das wäre sicherlich gut, aber wenn diese Sachen ans RKI herangetragen werden und es sollte abgelehnt werden, wird das ja hier begründet.
Mehr Transparenz geht in Deutschland nicht 😉

Das kann ich nicht nachvollziehen. Wenn auf einem 7 Jahre alten S7 das nicht mehr geupdatet wird, die Stromsparmaßnahmen für die App deaktiviert werden müssen find ich das dem Nutzer durchaus zu erklären.

Ich gebe dir recht, vielleicht ist es in einigen Fällen Sinnvoll den Nutzern Erklärungen, etc. bereitzustellen, aber dann m.M.n nur für Probleme die nur durch den Nutzer gelöst werden können und nicht durch Updates, etc.

Ich hab mit das Wochenlang auf eminem S7 angeguckt und wusste von anderen Apps was Phase ist. Hab zufälligerweise mit nem Hotline Mitabeiter der für die CWA abgestellt ist beim klettern darüber gesprochen. Selbst da wusste man von nix. 2 Tage später haben die Medien das ganze breitgetreten. Das hat zu viel merh Verunsicherung geführt als Transparent darüber zu informieren (mindestens wenn die Leute schon an der Hotline gelandet sind...)

Dazu kann ich nicht mehr sagen als:
Ich gebe dir Recht, man hätte bei den Problemen mit der nicht erfolgreichen Hintergrundaktualisierung schneller und transparenter reagieren müssen.
Allerdings sind diese jetzt gelöst, ich hoffe SAP und Co. haben daraus gelernt und falls es nochmal zu so etwas kommen sollte (hoffentlich nicht) wird anders & schneller reagiert.

[alanrick]

Distribution of QRcodes
My Corona test was performed at the beginning of August and I've followed up with the lab to determine why it did not include a qr-code. It turns out that the effort is negligible (10C and OEGD forms), but the roll-out was very late. At the end off June the Kassenärztliche BundesVereinigung planned the availability of the 10C form for sometime in July. In addition there's a lag while the doctors order the new forms or their software is updated.

I wrote to my own doctor suggesting they use the new forms but this is not scalable. The laboratory I contacted in BW had escalated the matter as early as April but whoever is responsible (Ministerium?) appears to have reacted slowly, if at all.

Is the effectivity monitored? I'm sure it's now above 3.3%, but has it reached 10%?

[micb25]

Distribution of QRcodes
My Corona test was performed at the beginning of August and I've followed up with the lab to determine why it did not include a qr-code. It turns out that the effort is negligible (10C and OEGD forms), but the roll-out was very late. At the end off June the Kassenärztliche BundesVereinigung planned the availability of the 10C form for sometime in July. In addition there's a lag while the doctors order the new forms or their software is updated.

Regarding the QR codes: I really doubt that the diagnosis key upload via QR codes is working properly right now. My dashboard depicts the number of estimated people that shared their diagnosis key with the CWA server. But you can also see the number of issued teleTANs by the telephone hotline (reported by RKI once a week). By comparing these two numbers on a weekly basis, it seems like for the majority of the cases people upload their diagnosis keys via an issued teleTAN. Otherwise the estimated number people sharing their diagnosis key should be much higher as compared to the issued teleTANs.

[Ein-Tim]

@micb25
If you haven't done so yet, you could comment your assumption here 👍

[svengabr]

@micb25
If you haven't done so yet, you could comment your assumption here 👍

I share the opinion of @Ein-Tim and the dashboard of @micb25 looks really interesting to me. The QR code issue is currently one of our number 1 priorities and we hope we can give an official update on this issue in https://github.com/corona-warn-app/cwa-documentation/issues/400 soon.

Best regards,
SG

Corona-Warn-App Open Source Team

[alanrick]

My doctor confirmed the lag between the availability of the 10c/OEGD forms, and the software-update at the doctor's surgery that is necessary to support this. Hopefully the QR code situation will improve by October.

@micb25 's dashboard is very illuminating. My interpretation is that _currently_ the maximum efficiency of the app is ~5% (i.e. those who use the app will have a ~5% chance of being informed, because ~95% of those tested positive haven't entered this into the CWA ecosystem). But the aggregate efficiency is ~1%, because only ~20% have the CWA installed.

[Marco2907]

Hello @Tho-Mat ,

thanks again for sharing your content. At the moment we are still clarifying this topic with the community. I will come back as soon as I can to give you an update.

Thank you,
MP

Corona-Warn-App Open Source Team

[cfritzsche]

I think this issue gives a nice umbrella around why other wishlist items are being posted.
@daimpi wrote:

One more data point to mention (via @micb25): To get from the number of downloads to the number of active users we might have to cut the number approximately in half: https://twitter.com/theochemiker/status/1293958645206659073

At least if we assume a similar pattern as we observe for the Swiss app: https://www.experimental.bfs.admin.ch/expstat/de/home/innovative-methoden/swisscovid-app-monitoring.html

Which would leave us currently with ~8.5m active users.

From this we would expect more like ~10% of positive tests entering CWA (which we're still underperforming by large margin though).

Based on this new data point of 14 million active apps, I make the following calculations:

• 80% of downloaded CWA are active
• Roughly 70 million people in Germany are old enough to run the app. So 25% of the eglible population has downloaded and 20% have it active.
• About 6-8% of infected people upload their keys with CWA. Since the number of infected persons includes kids, we can assume roughly 20% of infected persons are not old enough to have CWA.
• If of the remaining 80% of infected persons all active CWA users (20%) were to upload their keys, that would give 16% of infected persons uploading their keys.
• So I would guess only up to 50% of infected people with active CWA don't currently upload keys

Since this issue was a combination of different factors, I think we can point out these areas that could improve:

1. Obviously more people should download CWA. 80% of the population are old enough. Estimates suggest 60% of the population have the technical prerequisites to download CWA. So here we have a potential to increase usage of 35% of the population.
2. As stated above, about 80% of the downloaded CWAs are active, that is about 5% of the population with inactive CWAs.
3. Of the active CWAs of infected people, roughly 50% don't upload their keys.
4. Lastly of the people downloading, not all have a 13 day record.

I think for 3. the main reason is the as-of-yet not really working QR code connection and retrieval of the test that is being worked on.
For 1. and 2., I suggest that continued marketing pushes would be required along with a debate of other forms of usage. For example any kind of voluntary QR code scan or room beacon solution for restaurant, event or office visit within the app would help reduce paperwork, use the decentral architecture and motivate the app.
@svengabr It would be really good to get some kind of information where RKI and SAP want to go with this app. In the backlog repo we are mainly looking at speed, documentation and QR code improvements along with interoperability. Is there any discussion beyond that? How are the clients looking at the coming fall and winter with increased indoor activity that does not relate well to the current BLE approach of "more than x meters away can be ignored"?

This idea has come up a lot:

• #70
• #138
• #77
• #59

It would be nice to get feedback if you or the clients think this is interesting or planned, since this is currently occupying lots of people in the community.

[daimpi]

Interesting press conference from the Swiss team, where they talk about how many codes they distribute, how many ppl with SwissCovid get tested, what the reasons are for ppl to use the app (protecting others), why they don't use the app (many diffuse reasons) and what would increase the likelihood for non-users to adopt the app (increasing case numbers 😅) worth a watch (German): https://www.srf.ch/play/tv/tagesschau-spezial/video/medienkonferenz-des-bundesamts-fuer-gesundheit-bag?id=6af1ebc6-485c-4b4c-96eb-26626a09e4be
h/t @pdehaye

[micb25]

Interesting press conference from the Swiss team, where they talk about how many codes they distribute, how many ppl with SwissCovid get tested, what the reasons are for ppl to use the app (protecting others), why they don't use the app (many diffuse reasons) and what would increase the likelihood for non-users to adopt the app (increasing case numbers sweat_smile) worth a watch (German): https://www.srf.ch/play/tv/tagesschau-spezial/video/medienkonferenz-des-bundesamts-fuer-gesundheit-bag?id=6af1ebc6-485c-4b4c-96eb-26626a09e4be

The Swiss study including SwissCovid aspects can be found here (German).

[Tho-Mat]

[Tho-Mat]

Wie meine aktuellen Auswertungen zeigen, steigt sowohl der % Satz der Neu-infizierten, die ihre Schlüssel teilen als auch deren Effizienz (3,5%).
Allerdings nur sehr langsam. Die Hauptursache der Differenz zwischen Effizienz und Prozentsatz liegt in darin, dass viele Anwender die App erst installieren, wenn sie Symptome zeigen bzw. wenn sie einen Test machen. Sie übermitteln nur ca. 1-3 Schlüssel für die letzten Tage.

Mann sollte den zweiten Aspekt -App wird installiert, wenn man einen Test macht- nicht unterschätzen. Es mag auf den ersten Blick negativ klingen, aber:
Nicht nur die Infizierten wollen ihren Test mit der App abholen, auch die nicht-Infizierten.
Je mehr Tests also mit einem QR-Code durchgeführt werden, desto mehr Anwender haben die App anschließend installiert, und hoffentlich auch aktiviert.

[daimpi]

If you look at @janpf's dashboard, there is a detailed interactive overview on the development of keys/user and how many ppl uploaded a certain number of keys each day, over time. By a large margin the majority of ppl actually upload the maximum of 13 keys per day. It is true that there has been a slight downward trend in the avg. keys/user over the last month, but the number seems to have stabilized now 🙂.

[pdehaye]

In CWA, do people have the choice of how many keys they upload? Is that upload tied to some individual information about when they were symptomatic? Is that symptoms date tied then to a risk level?

[daimpi]

In CWA, do people have the choice of how many keys they upload?

I don't think so. The only choice is between 0 keys (i.e. don't upload) and all the keys stored in ENF (up to 13) afaik.

Is that upload tied to some individual information about when they were symptomatic? Is that symptoms date tied then to a risk level?

There is a risk estimation model, which tries to correct for delays, but there is currently no individual information on e.g. symptom onset incorporated, see here.

[Tho-Mat]

Update Effizienz

and 7-day average (1. time over 10%)

[daimpi]

Interesting survey in Germany: https://ai_society.mpib.dev/Wave_3_analysis/covid_tracking_ger_wave3.html

Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/AnaSKozyreva/status/1311303919449014275

To quote one part:

36% of participants in our sample downloaded the app. Main reasons to download: to protect one’s health or health of others.
48% say they will not download the app. Main reasons not to download: belief that it’s not effective & privacy

[alanrick]

And they’re right about effectivity, unless more people download the app because of a personal incentive. Looking at the release notes of recent releases I can’t see much development focus on increasing the personal incentive.

What is encouraging is that the UK app download count is doing well despite its catastrophic rollout so personal incentives are possible. Perhaps the venue check-in feature of the UK app is one such missing incentive.

[mrs1959]

How can we improve the amount of infected people that add their information to the app? One issue was stated very well bei @cfritzsche (see some messages above) "main reason is the as-of-yet not really working QR code connection and retrieval of the test that is being worked on."

Another issue is the fact on the default behavior that people have when they get the message that they are tested positive.
Their first thoughts are definitly not about adding the QR code to the app but on what it means for them, their friends, the people they live with, how to handle the next days, what about my kids.

The question must be: How can we generate more value for a user in adding QR code? Some of you believe in a gift - i believe more in modifying the process when receiving the QR codes.

I'm not a IT developer, but if we would have the chance to generate an ID by the app once you add your QR code, and this ID is a guarantee that you added a (not the!) QR code to the app, we could use this ID as an indicator for correct transfer of the code to the app (and as such warning all others via the app).

Once we have such an ID, we could change the process of receiving the QR code: Instead of mail, printing etc., those that provide the QR codes (board of health/laboratory) should ask (!) for the ID (I'm not familar with all processes but at our region the health institute is contacting us by phone in case of positives).

If you dont have the app installed as of not able to, thats ok - it's not mandatory. But it directly advice you, once you receive the code, to add it to the app. Think of the psychological aspect: The receiptor is asked directly for an indicator that he has feeded the app with the code. And again: It is not mandatory that the receiver has installed the App.

Regarding data privacy: The ID doesnt identify you, the ID is only an indicator that you added the code to the app. (and for sure it is all times a different ID, generated by the device and identifying the app, not the device).

Let's not emphasize on technology but on usability and process optimization!!

[ndegendogo]

@mrs1959 Hmm ... I am not sure that I get your idea ...

[mrs1959]

Hi @ndegendogo. The idea is that you get a receipt back from the application once you add the information that you have been tested positive (regardless your adding it via TAN or QR code). As such the receipt acts as an evidence.

[ndegendogo]

@mrs1959 so, I scan my QR code and get a receipt. And now?
The idea / purpose of the QR code is that
(1) I can use it to access my lab result from a database, so I get the reult faster. And (2) iirc I can use it to upload my keys and warn my contacts, in case I have been tested positive.
What is the idea / purpose of this receipt?

[mrs1959]

What happens if you receive a positive result? Unlikkely only a very few people think about warning their contacts first.

But at least in here (I have to admit that i dont know about this process in general) you get a call by a health care site (your local doctor / health care institute) by phone - so someone is calling you to inform you about next steps.

The caller asks for the receipt. Now you are not only reminded to warn your contacts but forced to do so.

[ndegendogo]

What happens if you receive a positive result? Unlikkely only a very few people think about warning their contacts first.

Agreed.

so someone is calling you to inform you about next steps.

well, actually I also don't know the details. But, yes, I assume either I call them or they call me.

The caller asks for the receipt. Now you are not only reminded to warn your contacts but forced to do so.

Here the current process is different.
Currently:
1) having the app installed is completely voluntary. Not even everybody has a smartphone that is sufficient modern to support this. So, all they can do, is asking me if I am using the app; and if yes, they can mention the receipt. As a friendly reminder, not more.
2) Also the decision to upload my keys is again completely voluntary. So, no base for any 'force' on their side.

[mrs1959]

So, all they can do, is asking me if I am using the app; and if yes, they can mention the receipt. As a friendly reminder, not more.

That's exactly what i mean. By asking me about whether I have the app installed and if yes, whether i can provide the receipt the following happens:

1. I get a reminder about warning others via the app
2. I want to be suportive and do it during the call, as I was asked for the receipt

All of this is voluntary still - no doubt! And there will be an amount of "non supportive" people as well as people that dont have the app installed (for whatever reason). But it would encourage definitly more users that have the app installed to warn others than we have users doing this at the moment.

So, no base for any 'force' on their side

Pardon my french - it's not my native language - replace forced to do so with encouraged to do so

[ndegendogo]

@mrs1959 ok, understood. Thanks for taking your time for these detailed explanations.

[mrs1959]

and thank you for taking the time to discuss it!

[alanrick]

Karl Lauterbach criticizes that so few positive positive-test results are fed back into the app where they could be used to warn contacts. @micb25 ‘s dashboard confirms this low figure.

But is the low figure a result of the tested not confirming the result in the app as Lauterbach suggests, or is it the result of doctors completing the OEGD/10C Form without marking checkbox 9?

IMHO checkbox 9 is unnecessary and _if_ it is responsible for the poor app performance then following Lauterbach‘s Code-improvement suggestion would bring no improvement.

[cfritzsche]

You have to consider that only about 18 million people run the app. Of those about half seem to opt for upload.
The checkbox seems to play a part. I remember in a press conference the executives said the share of People uploading after getting a teleTAN is higher than the share of people going via QR test result.

[ndegendogo]

share of People uploading after getting a teleTAN is higher than the share of people going via QR test result.

This I believe at once.
The teleTAN serves only one purpose: to allow the upload of my keys; and it is an explicit action from a user to obtain such a teleTAN.
Whereas the QR code serves two purposes (getting lab result and/or sharing DK), each being voluntary on its own.

So I guess the number of teleTANs shows already the fraction of users that have installed the app and are using it, and are willing to share their keys, although the QR did not work for them for whatever reason (missing checkbox 9, lab not yet integrated, whatever).

[ndegendogo]

So I think meaningful numbers to track "app performance" and acceptance could be:

• total number of downloads vs all people in this country. The misses are those who don't want it (after all, it is voluntary), or don't have the technical precondition (a smartphone that is not too old)
• number of people upgrading their version vs total downloads. afaik both Apple and Google shops track this number. The misses have deinstalled the app after initial download (out of frustration or whatever reasons).
• number of devices downloading the daily keys vs installations (or upgrades?). It shows 'active' users - actually: active devices, so this number is a bit tricky (if I use two devices on one account : one installation, but two active devices). The missing show issues with the daily check (although the check may even fail after the key download)
• number of DK upload (QR + teleTAN) vs active users / active devices
• share of teleTAN actually used for upload
• method of upload (QR vs teleTAN)

[alanrick]

I'm specifically sceptical about the Lauterbach/Söder claim that only 60% of CWA users testing positive agree to their results being fed into the app (QRcode/TAN). I suspect that the missing 40% of positives from CWA users not being propagated are due to either (a) the 10C/OEGD field 9 not being filled in correctly by doctors or (b) to a lesser extent, labs not being connected.

If my assumption is correct, a code change in the CWA to remove the final approval from the user won't change the situation significantly. I.e. The process is broken, not the app. Consequently app improvements should concentrate on features that encourage more downloads/usage.

At the very least it would be useful to know what percentage of scanned qr-code results aren't being returned to the CWA user through the app.

[alanrick]

Recently spoke to a doctor who'd tested themself and scanned the code into the CWA but forgot to tell the assistant to tick the box on the OEGD form. This check-box is unnecessary bureaucracy that truly messes up the process for handling positive results and reduces the efficiency of the app without any benefit whatsoever.

[MikeMcC399]

@alanrick

I'm not sure that everyone would agree with you that the checkbox is unnecessary, but read the text and judge for yourself!
OEGD form 10C

I do sympathize with doctors and their assistants though who I am sure spend a lot of their time in general on bureaucracy and handling the health system.

[alanrick]

I had indeed, @MikeMcC399 .
That text could be displayed and consented to in the CWA by the patient when the patient scans the QRcode. For a start that's more trustworthy than someone else ticking the box later. When the lab inserts the result into a server it would be deleted immediately without storing if the test-ID is not reconciled with the patient's consent.

[daimpi]

WiWo has a new article (German) on a recent Civey survey regarding CWA.
One of the main reason why ppl don't install the app: they're not convinced that it has an effect.

Article also talks about some suggested enhancements wrt more info on encounters (cf. #178, #100, https://github.com/corona-warn-app/cwa-wishlist/issues/205) and some gamification aspects. Interesting read 🙂.

[alanrick]

I listened to this weekend's SAP/Telekom CWA podcast and the press spokesperson for Telekom confirmed that:

1. they recognize there is an issue with low (60%) positive reporting, and
2. although less than 10% of the test-labs are not connected to the CWA server,
3. their call-center is currently overloaded with TAN enquiries.

In addition, the spokesperson confirms Telekom's misunderstanding about 10C/OEGD form. The spokesperson believes it is the patient that ticks the all-important "yes-I-really-want-my-results-to-go-to-the-app" checkbox whereas in many doctor surgeries this is done at a later time, often by backoffice health staff who have had no communication with the patient and must err in the direction of GDPR caution. I.e the checkbox is not ticked. The results don't go back to the patient in the CWA app.

This implies that the process is indeed broken. My interpretation: Many CWA users are willing to feed their positive results into the app but are having to resort to the overloaded TAN/Hotline workaround because the result is not being fed by the lab back into the app server, despite 90% of the labs being connected.

@MikeMcC399 I'm not trying to put the spotlight on you, but you did take the time to respond (I'm grateful) and you did suggest that you are in contact with people believing the 10C/OEGD form must offer this checkbox. Did my answer to your question make sense and might those at RKI be swayed into agreeing that the checkbox is redundant and could be bypassed (without changing the form) if the underlying software was improved to include a reconciliation mechanism?

[MikeMcC399]

@alanrick
Let me play this back to you and say I'm grateful for your link to the Telekom / SAP podcasts which I was not actively following!

I agree that Nicole Schmidt, Pressesprecherin #Telekom suggested that patients should remember to agree to their data being shared in Corona Warn App Podcast #9 at around 07:40 (the general discussion starts at 05:40). The form isn't filled out by patients though! I found the process description on https://www.kbv.de/media/sp/KBV-Vorgaben_RVO_Pflichten_Leistungserbringer.pdf from Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung, so if this is going wrong then the Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung should be following up and ensuring that those who are filling out the forms are doing it as intended.

There is another issue I found at https://github.com/corona-warn-app/cwa-app-android/pull/1514 about incorrectly coded QR forms. I don't know how many of these are in circulation though and therefore how big a problem this could be.

I'm afraid I have to disappoint you if you think that I have any special contacts or influence here. I'm just an active community member!

[alanrick]

@MikeMcC399

The form isn't filled out by patients though! I found the process description ...

Exactly! And reading the process description it's clear its primary focus is the steps necessary for the surgery to receive payment, not the quality of the information in the form.

So I remain of the opinion that it is a broken process, that could theoretically be diligently followed, but in practice won't. Removing or ignoring the check-box and instead adding an automatic reconciliation mechanism (standard procedure in accounting since the '90's) would repair the process.

I'm not disappointed in your community engagement, just grateful for your input both to the forum and also to the app itself.

[ndegendogo]

although less than 10% of the test-labs are not connected to the CWA server

... and maybe this number is by far too optimistic ...

https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/corona-warn-app-labore-101.html

[coder66]

Warum nicht die Nutzer für die Übermittlung der Testergebnisse belohnen?
Nach Eintragung eines positiven Ergebnises könnte ein Amazon, hello fresh, edeka, rewe, lieferando Gutschein generiert werden. So könnte die Charantäne sogar noch angenehmer ausgehalten werden. Sozusagen eine Win-Win Situation für alle Seiten.

Genau, am besten mit Payback, Deutschlandcard Punkte 🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂🙈🙈🙈🙈🙈🙈

[ndegendogo]

@coder66 🤪🤪oder einen Gratis-Test fürs nächste Mal
Motto: pay two - take three
😷😷😷😷😷

[Blackjacx]

Hey, I read through the issues in the wishlist and actually there are many items that target an increase in app usage: gamification, geofencing zones to prevent tracking in certain areas, etc.

I think time will show results after these features are implemented :-)

[daimpi]

Results for wave 4 of the survey mentioned above have been released: https://ai_society.mpib.dev/tracking-app/wave4.html

Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/AnaSKozyreva/status/1327213257422155779

One question is particularly about the reasons for why people decide not to share their diagnosis keys (DKs) in CWA after testing positive:

Privacy concerns and feelings of shame (e.g., because one fears that they were not careful enough) proved to be two leading potential reasons

(link)

[alanrick]

17 app current or not-yet-but-intend-to-eventually CWA users were tested positively. Of those, 14 _did_ upload their results. It is not clear if the missing 3 don’t yet use the app or deliberately didn’t upload the result but that doesn’t tally with the missing ~40%.

The number of replies to this survey question is minuscule and statistically of very little relevance so conclusions can’t be drawn. But my money is still on the unnecessary 10C/OEGD checkbox as being the most significant contribution to the poor CWA performance discussed in this thread.

[askozyreva]

@alanrick here is absolutely right. That is why we do not report reasons for not uploading test results from these 3 respondents - such a small N can't be reliable. The results that @daimpi quoted is from a different question (which was posed to the whole sample, N=1188), namely: "In your opinion, what could be the reasons why people decide not to share their positive COVID-19 test result via the Corona-Warn-App?" (before asking we displayed relevant statistics from the RKI website). So, as we report, these are not the experience-based reasons for not uploading positive test results, but _potential_ reasons that other people think might apply. Hope it clarifies it.

[pitsch]

if the sensitivity of a corona test is above 90%, the corona warning app will give a sensitivity of 30%. for the users, this correlation is anything but transparent in the risk assessment. (despite an extensive FAQ) it would make sense if the data were made available to the public independently and promptly, especially in relation to current incidence values. above all, the user agreement should not allow the "voluntary" data not to be transmitted despite a positive test result, so that the app can continue to be used. statistically speaking, this app is at best a digital placebo, relying on it is highly dangerous to health with the rate of false negatives and should be warned to entirely rely on for legal reasons alone.

there is an error in the system analysis, which is rather built in for ideological-libertarian reasons, that bypasses any interface to "health authorities", although the client is the federal government itself. the federal and municipal organized network of about 400 health authorities have no interface to the app infrastructure, despite the obligation to register a positive test, (there is no validation process based on the root of trust at the local health authority). this task is transferred to the overburdened medical practices with an error-prone QR code system and a test.lab infrastructure, which is also developed to route around the DEMIS backend system, and has not been integrated in any publicly visible API, despite the recommendation of the RKI and the legal situation. The system analysis of the data flows, whose design error was taken over by DB3T, is disregarded in the public debate about data protection and decentralization, while the data sovereignty of the individual health authorities is tacitly replaced by a centralized backend.

as a practical suggestion to not make the CWA a Pyrrhic victory for the 'community' of digital civil society activists, it would be important to identify the problem and then find ways how to fork or update the app. a simple graph which measures the app performance in relation to incidence numbers and tests of the general population.

(translation with the help of deepl)

---

wenn die spezifizität eines corona tests bei ueber 90% liegt, so liegt er bei der corona warn app also bei 2-4%. fuer die nutzerinnen ist dieser zusammenhang bei der risikobewertung alles andere als transparent. (trotz umfangreichem FAQ) es waere sinnvoll wenn diese daten unabhaengig und zeitnah oeffentlich verfuegbar gemacht werden gerade auch im verhaeltnis zu aktuellen inzidenzwerten. vor allem sollte die nutzervereinbarung es nicht erlauben dass trotz positivem testergebnis das "freiwillig" nicht uebermittelt wurde, die app weiterhin genutzt werden kann. statistisch gesehen ist diese app im allerbesten fall ein digitales placebo, sich darauf zu verlassen ist bei der rate an falsch negativen hochgradig gesundheitsgefaehrdend und sollte allein aus juristischen gruenden mit einer warnung versehen werden.

zugrunde liegt ein fehler in der systemanalyse der eher aus ideologisch-libertären gruenden eingebaut ist, das umgehen jeglicher schnittstellen zu "health authorities", obwohl der auftraggeber der bund selbst ist. die foederal und kommunal organisierten ca. 400 gesundheitsaemter haben trotz meldepflicht keinerlei schnittstelle zur app infrastruktur. (es gibt keinen Validierungsprozess, der auf dem 'root of trust' bei der lokalen Gesundheitsbehörde beruht) diese wird trotz der empfehlung des RKI und der gesetzeslage auf die ueberlasteten arztpraxen uebertragen mit einem fehlertraechtigen QR code system und einer test.lab infrastruktur die ebenfalls am DEMIS backend system vorbei entwickelt wird, und bisher auf keinerlei oeffenlich einsehbare weise API-technisch integriert wurde. die systemanalyse der datenfluesse, deren webfehler von DB3T uebernommen wurde wird in der oeffentlichen schein-debatte um datenschutz und dezentralisierung missachtet, waehrend die datenhoheit der einzelnen gesundheitsaemter stillschweigend durch ein zentralisiertes backend ersetzt wird.

als praktischer Vorschlag, die Coronawarnapp nicht zu einem Pyrrhussieg für die "Gemeinschaft" der Aktivisten der digitalen Zivilgesellschaft zu machen, wäre es wichtig, das Problem zu identifizieren und dann Wege zu finden, wie man die App forken oder aktualisieren kann: eine einfache Grafik, die die Leistung der App im Verhältnis zu Inzidenzzahlen und Tests der allgemeinen Bevölkerung misst.

sources:
https://github.com/micb25/dka/blob/master/plots_de/plot_rki_cwa_cases.png
https://twitter.com/rki_de/status/1283731663722340353

[alanrick]

@MikeMcC399 There's a new Spiegel Podcast out today that sings the praises of the independents and startups involved in the app development 👍👏👏👏

Anyone know why the efficiency appears to be decreasing constantly and steadily over the last 3 weeks? It's only gone down by ~20% but the lack of knowledge or interest in the trend is worrying.

[cfritzsche]

Maybe it is simply that the share of young people infected is dropping relative to the old people?

[mrs1959]

My daughter (21) recovered from the virus 2 week ago. When the health institute called her, noone was asking about informing others via the app, noone was even asking whether she installed the app. She didnt receive a QR code as her doctor (Hausarzt) only called her by phone that her test was positive. I told her to call the hotline for getting a TAN - she was not aware of this hotline - but thats how she feeded the app.

Guess? How many would follow this complex, process path?

How much easier would it be if we enrich the process (not the technology!) by the doctors, the health care institutes (Gesundheitsamt) etc, if they would only ask about adding the result to the app and informing others that way? And for sure the process is voluntarily still.

[MikeMcC399]

@cfritzsche

Maybe it is simply that the share of young people infected is dropping relative to the old people?

I'm not sure it's that clear. See Figure 2 on page 4 of:
https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Situationsberichte/Nov_2020/2020-11-24-en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

[alanrick]

You mean "Demographic distribution of cases" in the Tuesday reports?
And you're assuming older people don't use the app?
But I'd assume the non-app users are the over-90 category (and even those I know personally in that category do use a Corona app ) so IMHO plausible, but I'm not convinced.

What's going to be interesting is to see if there's a kink upwards in a few days when the new reminder function kicks in. I'd wager a 6-pack 🍺 there won't - simply cos I'm a sucker for betting on predictions and predict the other factors (isolation-fatigue, OEGD/10C checkbox, lab-connections) are more significant😎

[cfritzsche]

Ok you are right. Relative increase is highest in 90+ but the young people also still increase.

Maybe it's also negative reporting around gaps in the app. I wish officials and physicians would be more positive about it and include it in their normal Workflows.

[pitsch]

The Number of potentially shareable positive results is directly dependent on the number of reported cumulative cases (today 1,006,394) of the population. (83,122,889) in relation to the number of the installed apps (23.2 Mio)
Assuming a random selection*) of app users from the population, we should expect a ratio of about 3,582 which would lead to 280.889 sharable positive results.

The number given by RKI is 152.200 verified positive tests, which leaves quite a gap of 128.689 unreported positive test results. the percentage of shared results (83.314) would then be rather 29.66% of shared and 70,34% of non shared results.

Since the limited effiancy of QR codes and Teletans as well as various other factors, the number of shared diagnostic keys is just an internal measurement and does not represent what should be achievable representing positive PCR tests reported to health authorities and RKI, it is just what the system under whatever circumstances was able to output.

https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/WarnApp/Archiv_Kennzahlen/Kennzahlen_27112020.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

*)
age distribution of infections is rather "in favor" of app users. age groups known to have less app usage are less infected.
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/478220a4c454480e823b17327b2bf1d4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Germany_population_pyramid_2019-12-31.png

while intensity of smart phone usage does not directly translate into the acceptance of this particular app in certain age groups, probably google play store knows more...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1133174/smartphone-users-by-age-germany/

[pitsch]

DEMIS centralizes the reporting data with ACL rules, which could contain data protection problems. CWA gets lousy with TeleTans and QR codes in order to route around the health authority following an air gap strategy. for the lack of efficiancy, doctors and health personal are not to be blamed, neither PR campaigns or the quality of lengthy FAQs. what is needed is a redesign of the backend dataflows, a compromise where the reported infection data stays with the municipal GAs (containerized SORMAS) and only anonymized extracts of it go to DEMIS for scientific use, as well as using cryptographic hashs to not reveal personal data to the app infrastrucutre side but only use it to verify diagnostic keys. single elements in the backend could be repurposed, like the verification server. the encapsulation of the health department is a counterproductive design decision, as well as making it optional to not produce false positives by default. besides the call centers store mobile phone numbers, are not authorized and trained as well as health authorities, and probably have to record phone calls. lab test data goes via a sidechannel directly to app users without getting synched with the recommendations of the doctor and the decisions of the health authorities and in general work is beeing done double and triple times because of the distrust in already stored personal health data of the positive tests based on the infektionsschutzgsetz. a better strategy would be to keep data sovereignity at the communal level and build an infrastructure which relies on due diligence in terms of providing performance data, chains of trust, a scarcity principle and positive network effects based on real world use value.

https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/IfSG/DEMIS/DEMIS_node.html
http://materials.dagstuhl.de/files/16/16353/16353.OlgaStreibel.Slides.pdf
https://edoc.rki.de/bitstream/handle/176904/2007/20teFClzrKjE.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
https://github.com/corona-warn-app/cwa-documentation/blob/master/solution_architecture.md

[cfritzsche]

That's all under the assumption that users would tolerate a communal centralization of data. Which is clearly a gamble. https://www.google.de/amp/s/amp.n-tv.de/panorama/Deutschland-bei-Corona-App-tief-gespalten-article22118613.html

And it doesn't need any software changes to make sure users get their QR code when tested and anyone interacting with positively tested individuals asks them to upload their results.

[pitsch]

the current architecture will split the app infrastructure for the verification of positive tests from DEMIS and actually leads to high error rates. the priority should be GDPR compliance and data scarcity. no question about that.
but it doesnt need an architecture where positive tests dont come through, which is costly (call center etc.), and highly inefficiant because it starts with the wrong premises, that what is already happening in a lawful way, has to be ignored and cannot be trusted: the registration of positive test results at the local, communcal health authority.
all it needs is a verification process which is seamless and fully GDPR compliant.
there are known cryptographic and well documented mechanisms for such use cases, similar to OAUTH or OpenID.

there is nothing wrong with the BLE meshwork architecture of the "exposure notification" framework, only in terms of trustfulness that it is not open source and cloud servers are run by apple/google in an intransparent way.

it comes down to trust, if you do not trust the health infrastructure, you're likely in the camp of corona deniers anyway, and therefore evade the law, avoiding registration of infections, as well as vaccinations.
the corona warn app actually trusts google/apple more than the state institutions, which basically pay for it.

what is needed is a functional and audited "identity firewall" between the app infrastructure and the registration infrastructure, but diagnostic certificates should be verified against the existing lawfully registered cases, instead of building a inefficiant "air gap" infrastructure leading to an extremely high rate of false negatives (and extra work for labs, doctors and users) which defeats the purpose of the risk assessment if you properly analyse the data.

there is little public critical attention for the DEMIS backend, which most probably will be still officially released during this pandemic, some of its design principles could be already implemented by coronawarnapp instead of errecting a competing workflow and infrastructure which is not fully legitimized merely by data protection since there are alternatives with similar results in terms of trustfulness and privacy.

the communal "federation" of registered positive tests at your local health authority is defined by law already, if you go to a doctor for a test, he is obliged and payed to do the registration process for you (while labs should only get anonymized samples to begin with) the simple idea is that no positive test goes unregistered for the reason of epidemic overview. https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/IfSG/ifsg_node.html

QR codes and Teletans are only needed for the verification if there would be no trustful and privacy preserving API access to verify a result against the already registered test data. if the coronawarnapp would speed up registration (repurpose lab servers) the RKI would be able to report earlier and with less artifacts. there are only two possible roadmaps, merge with DEMIS development and rapidly implement some rudimentary elements of it, or establish a counter infrastructure leading to more feature creep, more FAQs, increased workload for health personel and users with a resulting error rate of false negatives which defeats the purpose of reliable risk assessment.

[ndegendogo]

And it doesn't need any software changes to make sure users get their QR code when tested

@cfritzsche Not everybody has a QR code. I got none. I live in Bavaria, we have local test centers with self-registration for the test (at least that was the procedure last month, not sure if this has changed meanwhile). Got my result via email within 14 hours. Fast and easy. Only not integrated with the cwa infrastructure.

[heinezen]

Hello everyone,

I've changed the title of this issue so that it is easier to find via the search. There is also an english version of the title now. I don't know if we should keep the percentage value in the title, so I removed it for now. Let us know what you think aboout the change.

Regards,
CH

---

Corona-Warn-App Open Source Team

[MikeMcC399]

@heinezen

Let us know what you think aboout the change.

Good idea to change the title to make it more generalized. Perhaps you could correct the spelling of Dicussion => Discussion?

[alanrick]

10 days have passed since 1.7 was released.
The RKI had declared the goal of improving the positive reporting with a reminder feature. This improvement should be visible almost immediately since it only depends on how quickly users update the app and we can assume a significant number updating in the first 2 days.

The RKI shows a reporting ratio deterioration since then of 1% (from 55% to 54% ). However, Michael's dashboard does indeed show that the downward trend has been blunted, even though is nowhere near an improvement over what the value was a few weeks ago..

It is high time the roadmap was made transparent so that efficiency improvement is significant, or at the very least previous roadmap decisions can be understood and confidence isn't lost.

Caveats: The Android Release took a few days to reach the play store, but even for these users the trend should show already. I assumed about 30% of users update within 2 days of a release, helped by automatic updates. Research points this way, and a sanity-check with my friends confirms this.

[alanrick]

This Nature study is about incentivizing the CWA interesting. Many of the reluctant CWA users in the sample of 2000 were frequent venue visitors so I’d be keen to see a similar study to investigate the incentive of #338 (venue checkin) instead of cash.

https://rdcu.be/cehx8