Maybe I am just ignorant but the article doesn't list a single reason as to why the automated tracing app hasn't helped much. There is a quote from a person who was involved in the tracing op but no comment from him/her either as to why it hasn't helped much.
This is supposed to be a "technology review". Did the writer bother to ask "WHY NOT"?
PS: Happy to stand corrected if someone else was able to read between the lines and find some reasons.
The main reason is that we were able to control the spread of the virus faster than the need for the app.
At the moment we're going several days at a time with zero new cases.
It makes it a more difficult sell to the general public, when the overall feeling is that we've 'beaten' this.
I get the feeling most of the general public aren't preparing for future outbreaks because, like most places, I think everyone wants to rely on the hope that the worst is over.
Assuming that your argument is correct that it's a little too late to see the benefits of tracing in Iceland, the article's negative connotation to use of the tracing app (or lack thereof) is misleading and discouraging for countries that are still struggling to contain the virus. I find the overall quality of online media, even tech blogs like this one that I used to love, seriously falling being caught up in the age of click bait news cycles.
This is supposed to be a "technology review". Did the writer bother to ask "WHY NOT"?
PS: Happy to stand corrected if someone else was able to read between the lines and find some reasons.