I was considering the downside of roadside testing
Call me a devil's advocate, but I'm not sure I see the point of extensive CV testing.
If I get checked, and I'm clean, that's great! But what about tomorrow when I accidentally touch that door handle at Speedway while my nose was itching? I'd have to go back to the line if I planned on sleeping that night. They would likely set a limit somehow, but again, that makes the idea pointless and add a layer of bureaucracy for ID screening.
Now if I come up dirty, what do I do then? There's no cure, so my only advantage is to delete my browsing history and wait, I guess. I can't go to the hospital with no life threatening symptoms. I'd have to wait until they show up and I'd be tested then in the ER. I considered too the numbers of volunteers and medical staff called away from the hospitals, rest homes, and clinics to man (or woman) the stations.
I can think of two things that could come from it, but I have to weigh it against the cons.
The first is political. Having the actual numbers of those infected would probably be a huuge albatross around DJT's neck. Forget his economic concerns when so many lives are in peril. No more talk about "opening up the country" too soon, but there are other avenues to stop him. At least it would make him appear less able to handle a problem before the election.
The second is community spread. Certainly if responsible citizens find out they're infected, they'll do more than social distancing. I know I'd probably lock myself in the closet and start writing that will. Considering the logistics, expense, and panic caused by quick testing it might be more effective to prevent contact by the infected and clear alike until it subsides. I never thought those words I learned in the fifth grade would be handy again. "Duck (passersby) and Cover (your face)".
= new reply since forum marked as read