UK Apple-Google COVID-19 app credited for prevention of 600,000 infections

The UK's NHS COVID-19 app has been useful in reducing infections in England and Wales, the government claims, with an estimated 600,000 cases thwarted by the iPhone app.

Launched in September 2020, the NHS COVID-19 app using the Apple-Google API for exposure notifications has been a key tool in fighting the coronavirus, the UK government has claimed. Since its introduction, the app has helped notify the public quickly in cases where they have to isolate themselves.

The app has been downloaded a total of 21.63 million times across iOS and Android, data reveals, and it was the second most-downloaded free app in the App Store in 2020. The high download rate represents 56% of the eligible population in England and Wales with a smartphone.

Since its launch, the app has informed over 1.7 million people to isolate, after the detection of close contact with someone who later tested positive. Approximately 600,000 cases were said to have been prevented due to the app's presence.

The alerts to isolate have also been rapid, with reports of them arriving with affected individuals just 15 minutes after another user enters a positive result into the app.

Research from the Alan Turing Institute and Oxford University indicates that for every 1% increase in app users, the number of coronavirus cases in the population can be reduced by 2.3%.

"The NHS COVID-19 app is an important tool in our pandemic response," said Health and Social Care Secretary Matt Hancock. "We know it has instructed hundreds of thousands of at-risk people to self-isolate since it launched in September - including me - and this analysis shows it has been hugely effective at breaking chains of transmission."

Over 3.1 million test results have been entered into the app so far, with over 800,000 listed as positive. It has also been used to check in to a venue over 103 million times, helping to identify 253 venues as "at risk" of an outbreak.

While the app largely applies to England and Wales, it is also interoperable with counterparts covering Scotland, Northern Ireland, Jersey, and Gibraltar.

The app could have been released by the government sooner, but it had significant teething problems when it was testing a version of the app that didn't use the Apple-Google system. Poor results led to the NHS team to reconsider and to adopt the tech giants' API.

According to WHO figures, the UK had 3.9 million confirmed cases from January 3 until February 9, linked to over 112,000 deaths/

14 Comments

sdw2001 23 Years · 17460 comments

About 3 years ago

I can't put this any more diplomatically: I call bullsh*t.

There is no way to know that the app "prevented" infections. What it did was notify people that they may have been "close" to someone who tested positive. Was that helpful? Possibly. How many of the notified users subsequently tested positive? How does the app define close contact? The other feature relates to checking-in to venues that are ID'd as "high risk." There are so many factors and questions here. What if people who install the app are more prone to embrace a false sense of security, thereby engaging in public more? What if people who test positive are less likely to download the app? Not only can we not say the app "prevented" infections, we can't even prove it's been beneficial. Common sense would dictate that it is. But that's not evidence.

seanj 16 Years · 322 comments

About 3 years ago

sdw2001 said:

I can't put this any more diplomatically: I call bullsh*t.

There is no way to know that the app "prevented" infections. What it did was notify people that they may have been "close" to someone who tested positive. Was that helpful? Possibly. How many of the notified users subsequently tested positive? How does the app define close contact? The other feature relates to checking-in to venues that are ID'd as "high risk." There are so many factors and questions here. What if people who install the app are more prone to embrace a false sense of security, thereby engaging in public more? What if people who test positive are less likely to download the app? Not only can we not say the app "prevented" infections, we can't even prove it's been beneficial. Common sense would dictate that it is. But that's not evidence.

Unbelievable.

Random bloke on internet thinks he knows more than the researchers at Oxford University and the Alan Turing Institute. I know who I’d place my money on being right :D

crowley 15 Years · 10431 comments

About 3 years ago

seanj said:

sdw2001 said:

I can't put this any more diplomatically: I call bullsh*t.

There is no way to know that the app "prevented" infections. What it did was notify people that they may have been "close" to someone who tested positive. Was that helpful? Possibly. How many of the notified users subsequently tested positive? How does the app define close contact? The other feature relates to checking-in to venues that are ID'd as "high risk." There are so many factors and questions here. What if people who install the app are more prone to embrace a false sense of security, thereby engaging in public more? What if people who test positive are less likely to download the app? Not only can we not say the app "prevented" infections, we can't even prove it's been beneficial. Common sense would dictate that it is. But that's not evidence.

Unbelievable.

Random bloke on internet thinks he knows more than the researchers at Oxford University and the Alan Turing Institute. I know who I’d place my money on being right :D

Did no-one tell you? Any given poster on the Apple Insider forums is an expert on healthcare management, media distribution strategy, international taxation, industrial supply chain management, corporate finance, and the best way to improve racial and gender equality. There's a real smart bunch of dweebs lurking in the shadows.

JWSC 7 Years · 1203 comments

About 3 years ago

At our company when an internal improvement project is proposed, in order to get the money to do it we have to justify how much money it will save. And believe me, many have found creative ways to arrive at savings numbers based upon assumption on top of assumption. It all looks legit. Spreadsheets, numbers, selected facts and data. And yet the result is entirely manufactured to arrive at the presumptive conclusion. Beware reports like this.

georgie01 8 Years · 437 comments

About 3 years ago

seanj said:

sdw2001 said:

I can't put this any more diplomatically: I call bullsh*t.

There is no way to know that the app "prevented" infections. What it did was notify people that they may have been "close" to someone who tested positive. Was that helpful? Possibly. How many of the notified users subsequently tested positive? How does the app define close contact? The other feature relates to checking-in to venues that are ID'd as "high risk." There are so many factors and questions here. What if people who install the app are more prone to embrace a false sense of security, thereby engaging in public more? What if people who test positive are less likely to download the app? Not only can we not say the app "prevented" infections, we can't even prove it's been beneficial. Common sense would dictate that it is. But that's not evidence.

Unbelievable.

Random bloke on internet thinks he knows more than the researchers at Oxford University and the Alan Turing Institute. I know who I’d place my money on being right :D

While what you say seems correct in theory, it should be blatantly obvious to anyone who is able to think for themselves that there has been very little public expression of science regarding the coronavirus. Debate is an essential part of science, but despite that there is much conflicting information surrounding the ‘accepted’ perspective (and no concrete information supporting it), nearly all public debate is silenced. Silencing debate is not science.

The reason most debate is silenced is because managing the population is considered more important than being truthful. So we receive a narrative, not science, which we’re told is science in order to make us obedient. But in reality it’s just the latest ‘thing’ to keep us as pacified as possible.

As a result there’s plenty of reason to question any study by any group that conveniently aligns with the narrative. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, just a realist who can think for myself.