Oh, sorry I missed this being opened here. I thought it was going to be in the Coffee House.
Whether public identification and tracking of individuals with a communicable disease has happened recently in the U.S.
I'm not sure. That's not what I said so I'm not exactly inclined to do leg work on that.
The pros and cons of any such proposed identification/quarantine.
Okay, but again that wasn't my position (outside of initial quarantine possibilities, which I said was no longer feasible).
At an outset of a deadly contagious disease, it is extremely useful to quarantine subjects to prevent the spread of further contagion. I think the numbers at this point prevent such devices, unless we make it "home quarantining", similar to what we do for lice or chicken pox, though of course at this point we also know casual contact or proximity is not the danger.
About the only reason for a "quarantine" of sorts now, would be for those who knowingly continue to infect others, or for a centralized healthcare and research facility focused on the disease.
No one has to be publicly "outed" for that, except those infecting others.
Given the substantial privacy issues raised by the collection, transmission, and retention of such information, I contend that any such program violates an individual's right to medical privacy. Furthermore, I contend that collection of individual data and tracking of individuals is wholly unnecessary.
What substantial privacy issues? This goes to the very point I was making. That is a civil rights bogeyman which has cast a very real shadow over useful medical science.
There is a virus which is extremely deadly to humans. Thankfully it is at this point only transmitted by fluid contact. However given its "hidden" symptoms, people are capable of transmitting the virus for a long time before they are made aware of their infection, and once they do know, can still remain active sexually without raising suspicion of their partners... or others who come into contact with their fluids.
(As a nod to Jar's point) This is not just a venereal disease, and that's yet another layer of politicking... sexualizing something that isn't a sexual issue. It is a virus and as it continues to enjoy a "free" life, it will change and could become much more deadly, and communicable.
Epidemiology, if "defanged" to the point of generalized numbers, cannot stop the spread. It will always be working a backward and defensive angle. Let's all wear rubbers and pray that it will end soon, would be just as good.
Once a person is identified as infected, the trail of the virus should be kept secure. Where did it come from, and where has it gone from that point? What's more, those infected are helped by earlier recognition of their infection status.
Along these lines I believe it is important to be implementing proactive policies to get people tested. Indeed some orgs like the WHO counter proactive policies due to "civil rights" concerns. It is not a person's fault if they are infected, and it is not a crime. But infection is deadly and its continued spread should not be treated as something to hope will stop. It must be found. Those that are identified, will now be able to get the help they desperately need, and will be able to curb activities which may spread it further.
What harm would come from proactive testing procedures, and solidly maintained records of those who are infected? They do not have to be public lists. But they could be used by doctors so that individuals are not "lost" and in some specific cases (where people are knowingly spreading the disease) by authorities.
Epidemiological tracking is currently done at the community level and has proven effective in managing outbreaks here in the U.S.
I haven't argued that records could not be kept at the community level. Though they could be transferred as needed.
I would love to see your proof that epidemiology has been useful in managing outbreaks of anything, without those who are infected being identified... and some "isolation" procedures enacted based on the type of infection vector.
Right now our lack of adequate identification procedures leaves HIV infection incidents and rates to be guesswork on the part of medicine. Given that we have adequate tests, that is a ridiculous situation.
Its like back in the times of the black death, having been able to detect where animals and fleas infected with the disease, and then saying well we'll test around where people want to be tested, and then throw away the actual data when we find it.
I do want to know why you don't want to discuss people with TB? What about those with bird flu? How about ebola?
h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
™ Version 4.2
