Now this again ... 'Non-binding use of the Corona app can actually lead to more infections' - De Daily Standaard

Researcher at Harvard Business School Chiara Farronato warns against using the Corona app, because using it will be without obligation for the time being. That non-committal character would provide a false sense of security, which would make it a reality more infections could lead!

From September 1, the privacybestendige CoronaMelder app for everyone to download. The GGDs in the regions of Twente and Drenthe will start using the app from next week. The app must let users know if they are in the vicinity of someone who has indicated that they have been infected with the corona virus.

The same kind of app works very well in China. According to Farronato, the decisive factor in the success of that app is its mandatory use. Because, she states, when its use is without obligation, the user may feel safe in a situation where it is actually not at all. That in turn can lead to more people becoming infected.

She is also absolutely not frugal in her wording about the effectiveness of such an app:

“To be effective, almost everyone has to use the app. (…) The Dutch app is without obligation, just like corona apps in other European countries. But in practice you see that very few people download the app. Then the app is worthless or even harmful. ”

–
–
–
–

“If few people use it, a corona app creates a false sense of security. In Germany, less than 20 percent of the population uses the app, which is one of the highest percentages in Europe. This means that you may only receive information about a small part of your encounters. But as long as you don’t receive any notifications, you feel safe and you might just meet more people. (…) According to experts, at least 60 percent of the population must use a corona app if it is to effectively help prevent infections. ”

–

The Dutch government that will promote the app through TV and radio spots, advertisements and online campaigns, is, according to her, a “losing battle”. Which, incidentally, does not mean that the app should immediately become mandatory nationally. She argues for the use of this app on a small scale and mentions neighborhoods, schools and companies as suitable locations, but with mandatory use.

Actually, this principle applies to almost all corona measures. We see it at Schiphol with the voluntary tests and the ‘strict advice’ of the RIVM regarding quarantine: roughly half of them do not participate. That is mopping with the tap open.

The only thing that helps is a relatively short period (of about six weeks) with rigorous measures. Now it is, and you will soon also see that with that app, that one half of society keeps a neat distance and stays at home, while the other half continues to actively feed the distribution. At a certain point, that ‘good’ half is fed up with the measures and then the virus still has to choose.

The only solution at such a time is to make it mandatory. Then everyone is of course angry or frustrated because ‘we could have done with it’. More and more people are putting their heels in the sand and in the House of Representatives they continue to say that it is a moral obligation, but one that must continue to come from ourselves because we are ‘not China’. Not that the virus matters, but it does cause us considerable damage.