Originally Posted by
tdiddy23
I realize you are being sarcastic, but I think it is easy to see instances in which test use for tourism could be ethical. For example a tourist going to a high end eco-safari lodge, say spending 10kk pp in the local African economy at the expense of two tests. That is easy to justify, the 3rd world economies are going to be devastated by the "cure" that they are putting in place and that money will have a very meaningful impact. A testing program in regions where public health resources are severely limited and the disease is already endemic is not necessarily going to save lives. Now a couple of average joes flying off for a budget all inclusive beach vacation, that is harder to justify
Testing for virus requires you to actually have enough in your system and already reproducing in your respiratory tract? If for example you just got it on travel and got it within a few hours ago in an airplane or airport or catching droplets from some bloke that is asymptomatic the test is meaningless.
Thus, check for fever and onsite test insure people already infected and asymptomatic or symptomatic are identified and quarantined. For those that recently exposed you'd need data to show how long once exposed can you test positive for asymptomatic spreaders, that will take many more months of studies as I highly doubt you'll find many clinical volunteers or situations to tease out the actual situation with the virus.
As you see in places like Taiwan that are forcing 14 day quarantine is the only way, or maybe 3-7 days with test, who knows. Makes it hard for both leisure and business travel.