[oldalum]

  Citizens can't take appropriate steps to safeguard their health without knowing how many infected people there are and where they are.  

In the current absence of widespread testing, everyone should be assuming the virus is present in their communities and taking appropriate precautions. And a natural effect of identifying specifically where the infections are is that many people in areas where infections have not been identified will not take such precautions, when they should.

I'm not arguing against release of knowledge about the virus and how it is behaving and spreading in the population. I was responding to a post complaining about the lack of specific data about the individuals who have been infected. That's all. I am all for transparency except when the likely harms of releasing information are likely to outweigh the benefits. Releasing specific ages of confirmed patients rather than an age range (e.g., 50-60 years old), the hospitals where they are being treated, the cities, whether they are at home, all may lead to identification or misidentification of the affected people and ensuing adverse consequences. Those consequences must be weighed against the "need to know" specific information, which I would suggest is generally not present for the public. [The sexes were in fact released, as disclosed in the original post (all male), but could also be used in combination with other information to guess identities and locations.]

 Knowing the genome and subtype of each virus isolated, as an example, is a "want to know" for the public, not a need to know. But no reason not to release such knowledge learned about the virus, how it spreads, etc.

[oldalum]

  Citizens can't take appropriate steps to safeguard their health without knowing how many infected people there are and where they are.  

In the current absence of widespread testing, everyone should be assuming the virus is present in their communities and taking appropriate precautions. And a natural effect of identifying specifically where the infections are is that many people in areas where infections have not been identified will not take such precautions, when they should.

I'm not arguing against release of knowledge about the virus and how it is behaving and spreading in the population. I was responding to a post complaining about the lack of specific data about the individuals who have been infected. That's all. I am all for transparency except when the likely harms of releasing information are likely to outweigh the benefits. Releasing specific ages of confirmed patients rather than an age range (e.g., 50-60 years old), the hospitals where they are being treated, the cities, whether they are at home, all may lead to identification or misidentification of the affected people and ensuing adverse consequences. Those consequences must be weighed against the "need to know" specific information, which I would suggest is generally not present for the public. [The sexes were in fact released, as disclosed in the original post (all male), but could also be used in combination with other information to guess identities and locations.]

 Knowing the genome and subtype of each virus isolated, as an example, is a "want to know" for the public, not a need to know. But no reason not to release such knowledge learned about the virus, how it spreads, etc.