[mulmen]

Off the top of my head:

Micro:

A positive test is reported to the FDA. DHS gets this information. It is determined the individual "exposed others to Coronavirus". A "common sense" remedy is applied like, say, prohibiting the individual from boarding airplanes.

Individual is now on a possibly secret "no fly list" with terrorist connotations.

Macro:

Minority groups are skeptical of the government because of historic abuse. They tend to take fewer tests. Majority groups trust the government because of being treated well historically. They tend to take more tests.

More cases are found in majority groups per capita because they took more tests per capita. Data shows more cases in majority areas. More resources are sent to majority areas. Minority areas are neglected and do not receive the resources they need. This perpetuates the experience of mistreatment and discourages future cooperation.

The chilling effect is real, and concern is reasonable on the part of individuals. Who wants to defend a group of bioterrorists anyway?

[reissbaker]

> With terrorist connotations.

That went from a reasonable thing that might happen — you're temporarily prevented from boarding a plane while you are bearing a highly contagious, deadly illness that can spread to whoever you breath on — to... Now you're labeled a terrorist because you got sick? That seems like a pretty large leap. Especially since millions of Americans have already tested positive for COVID using the existing infrastructure (that reports to health authorities already) and none of this has happened. Why do you think having at-home tests will suddenly result in labeling every positive case a terrorist?

> Who wants to defend a group of bioterrorists anyway?

I feel like the main stretch of imagination here that I find difficult to believe is that everyone who contracts COVID (which will likely be millions more Americans) will be labeled a terrorist, because they took the test at home instead of at a doctor's office or testing site. The existing testing infrastructure that has tested millions upon millions of Americans, and found millions of positive cases, already reports to health authorities: why would having a more convenient test that does the same thing result in dystopian madness?

[mulmen]

> That went from a reasonable thing that might happen — you're temporarily prevented from boarding a plane while you are bearing a highly contagious, deadly illness that can spread to whoever you breath on — to... Now you're labeled a terrorist because you got sick?

To be clear, I am not talking about temporarily preventing sick people from boarding planes. I'm talking about DHS drawing their own conclusions from FDA/medical data. The scare quotes on "common sense" were meant to point this out. Preventing infectious people from boarding a plane is reasonable. That means FDA may very well share data with DHS and feel perfectly fine about it. But how does DHS achieve this? Do they diligently maintain a list of diagnosed individuals and scrub names when those people are healthy? Or do they re-purpose an existing mechanism that has the desired immediate effect?

The "no fly list" also contains terrorism suspects. These lists existed before Covid and contain names of people who have never been suspected of wrongdoing but just share a name with someone who is, or not, who knows. These individuals still live with the consequences of being suspected terrorists.

This is the terrorist connotation I speak of. It is not a stretch. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List#Notable_cases.

> Why do you think having at-home tests will suddenly result in labeling every positive case a terrorist?

I didn't say this.

> I feel like the main stretch of imagination here that I find difficult to believe is that everyone who contracts COVID (which will likely be millions more Americans) will be labeled a terrorist,because they took the test at home instead of at a doctor's office or testing site.

I didn't say everyone. In fact my hypothetical constructs a situation where minorities are disproportionately placed on the lists. The macro outcomes lead to micro outcomes which lead to further macro outcomes. This is systemic bias.

Regarding the difference between home and on-site tests: is the home test data protected the same way as other tests? How many people have not been tested because they are afraid of a situation like my hypothetical?

Can LEO get a search warrant for your home, find the testing device and retrieve the results? What if they search your phone?

[reissbaker]

We don't know anything about the home test data. We don't even know if sharing it will be mandatory. If it were mandatory, I find it a little unlikely that it'll be treated massively differently than the existing COVID test data that is shared from current test sites such that DHS will start labeling people as terrorists for testing positive or that law enforcement will start kicking down people's doors if their test doesn't report back (I mean, imagine if the WiFi went out, or they ran out of data on their data plan?). Given how the lockdowns have been policed on private citizens — that is to say, extremely lightly if at all — I find it a bit far-fetched that at-home COVID tests are what will push us over the brink into fascist dystopia.

[mulmen]

What you find far fetched is in fact commonplace in America in 2020. It is important that we acknowledge this and fight it. The people need to be able to trust the government in situations like this. Today, rightfully, some people do not.

[asah]

It certainly seems like a person oughta be able to opt-out... the data they need is all statistical anyway.