Those suggesting that anti-authoritarianism, libertarianism, and suspicion of gov't means the U.S. couldn't possibly mount a national test, trace and isolate program seem not to acknowledge that nearly the whole country has willingly quarantined now for about six weeks. (1/x)
We are already enduring a far more restrictive social, economic, and public health regime than any cooked up by Harvard or AEI. The point of these programs, in fact, is that they allow us to safely reintegrate and reopen—that they are burdensome and less violative than lockdown.
Perhaps there would be relatively more appetite for test, trace and isolate, and more willingness to endure the restrictions that come with it, if such a program had arrived before six weeks of quarantine.
But even after such a period, there is still widespread & bipartisan support for continued shutdown, and only very marginal frustration with the policies we are enduring today—again, considerably less invasive than test, trace, and isolate.
Indeed, most Americans began sheltering in place before such an order went out from political leaders, signaling their own independent willingness to adopt or endure such measures:
It may be the case that, over time, compliance declines, and resentment and frustration grows. I suspect it will across the world, not just in America.
But given how willing Americans have been to shut themselves in for a period of months to protect themselves and their neighbors, I wouldn't overstate American exceptionalism here.
Beyond which, of course, an imperfect test, trace, and isolate program is still extremely useful for suppressing the spread of the disease—even if 20% of Americans violate guidelines, and even if we choose not to meaningfully punish those that do, the effect will be huge. (x/x)
