There have been quite a few articles on the benefits. For example the central model would allow the NHS to quickly spot a spike in cases in Town X - a pretty important benefit.

The independent Covid Symptom Study app from Kings College, already on 3 million UK phones since March, took three days to write and largely would do that if it was more publicised by the government.

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.

> a centralized model based on confirmed cases rather than suspected ones was more in line with capacity [of testing and contact tracers]

Seems a pretty clearly spelt out to me.

I'm... not sure what that means?

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]

No, you have still misunderstood. The NHS model collects more data than the google/apple one. The idea was that that additional data would allow limited testing capacity to be used more efficiently. For example, false positives for outbreaks would easier to detect, as well as wider trends.

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.