Thread by @stevesi

Throwing this out there because, well, wondering what I'm missing. 🤔

Testing for C19 IgA is an immediate goal for many policy makers.🎯

If we move to testing to verify people for employment then we're creating an opening for monitoring any community disease (for starters). 1/6

2/ During the 80's and rise of HIV/AIDS, of course the opposite took place. There was a strong desire to have people test but doing so required extremely strict rules on dissemination of information for fear of discrimination.

Why? Testing positive implied sexual orientation.

3/ Once these laws/regulations exist it is not hard to see them expanded to other diseases. In some places there are already minimal requirements (eg TB test at many camps/schools). That still seems like community good.

But once a mechanism is in place we know it can/will grow.

4/ But what happens when a community spread disease comes along that is selective in who is infected. Maybe it is a behavior or maybe it is genetic or maybe just economic? Then your status for those antibodies is also an indication of that trait, which may or may not be visible.

5/ Of course many groups have more protection now than the 80s, but that is legal protection where the burden will fall to the victim to pursue justice. If whatever trait one had that led to a disease is not visible, pursuing justice makes it visible. The victim is victimized.

6/ We want to get back to work—back to a new normal. The Patriot Act, TSA, DHS, and so on were all super well-intentioned tools to regain control of our transportation infrastructure after 9/11. Side effects weren't entirely obvious.

Is this a new normal too? What do we do? //

PS/ And definitely worried about perverse incentives causing people to want to get infected simply to get the seal of approval to resume the most normal daily routine possible. Plus the negative reward for those that simply complied and stayed in and what happens next epidemic.