Not trying to show bravado or anything, just pointing out that I and probably others feel this way; I would fight tooth and nail against pervasive, mandatory "test and release" policies on humans (and the necessary concomitant growth of the surveillance state). The second-order social and political effects of such a policy would be disastrous - orders of magnitude worse, in the long run, than the population-level health effects of this virus. People anticipating these effects would probably be prone to civil disobedience, making the logistical nightmare even worse than what you would get with a fully passive and compliant population.
This position truly baffles me. I can understand people who have reservations about tracking everyone with phone apps to do more effective contact tracing. But objecting to widespread, low-cost testing for virus infection as an extension of the surveillance state? I don't even know how to argue against that because it simply doesn't make any sense to me. Right now the population is clamoring for more widespread and effective testing. Why would people rebel against it? You think people would prefer to remain locked down, or to sacrifice 0.5-1%^ of the population, than be regularly tested for infection? Why?
I think it's the mandatory part that's rankling centimeter, and I see their point. Once you give powers to the state in an emergency situation it's really hard to roll them back. See the PATRIOT act for example.
Is there a way to effectively get universal compliance without implicitly granting permanent new powers to violate civil liberties?
I suspect relying on people to test themselves daily without mandating it would do a reasonable job, but I have no idea if it would be enough.
I'm not sure new state powers would be required. The state already can (and does and should) compel people who are known to be infected to be quarantined, or at least self-isolated. As far as testing, companies can already require employees to be tested as a requirement to work. A lot of companies already do drug testing of employees, something I actually don't agree with in most cases, but it's already a norm. In normal times they likely won't have sufficient incentive to do virus testing though, and so probably wouldn't given the cost.
But during an outbreak, the ability to roll that kind of thing out, especially in workplaces with vulnerable populations (like senior care homes and hospitals) or necessarily close working conditions (like restaurant kitchens or some factories) could certainly be a game-changer. And that just seems entirely reasonable to me. There's a outbreak happening, so in order to enter [place where transmission would likely occur] you have to be tested first. If found to be infected, you must isolate. Otherwise, you'd be knowingly exposing others, which already isn't something considered acceptable.
So to me this simply looks like an effective use of existing powers in this situation. I'm not sure how it would slide down a slippery slope. The government decides to keep doing virus screening? I mean, I doubt they would incur the cost, but if they do, good! Maybe as Paul mentioned, we could significantly knock down cold and flu as well. If people are worried about infringing on the rights of people with viruses to live normally, I would ask what about the rights of others not to be infected by them? That besides the fact that if these measures are effective very few people will be getting sick in the first place.
When is the pandemic over? When does the pervasive testing stop? The argument can - and will - be made that "unless we keep testing until the end of the human race, you will all die tomorrow of a horrible virus-ridden death."
I don't particulary mind doing pervasive testing for awhile. I would desperately not want to live in a world where I could not feed my family unless I give into it.
> When is the pandemic over? When does the pervasive testing stop?
When we stop seeing non-trivial numbers of test results. The idea that governments want to spend billions on mandatory virus testing outside every building until the end of the human race out of some Orwellian enjoyment of inconveniencing people is not supported by evidence. Even China isn't doing this.
Back in the real world, even the SARS vaccination research programmes, which cost relatively little and inconvenienced nobody, were shut down when SARS stopped circulating and the even keeping a few scientists employed as part of a pandemic task force looking out for the future was a step too far for the US govt.
