Shouldn't the CPAC carrier make himself/herself public?

[kentuck]

So those that he/she had come into contact with could better prepare for their quarantine and treatment?

Why would they want to keep their identity unknown?

Why are Republicans so hesitant to identify this person? Who are they trying to protect?

We could assume that many others at the CPAC Convention would also like to know who they may have come into contact with that was carrying the coronavirus?

When they are lying in their beds very seriously ill, will they still deny that they have a virus?

[LisaM]

1. Medical privacy laws.

I am really curious, but it's up to the individual to identify himself.

Supposedly it's a VIP.

[C_U_L8R]

2. "Who? Me?"

[dalton99a]

3. "The unidentified individual is from New Jersey"

[TwilightZone]

4. Absolutely not.

That would make them a target, and with the current level of panic in some quarters, that would not be a good idea. There are also privacy laws involved.

The GOP seems to know who the person is since they've been informing attendees that they may have been exposed. I don't think it does anyone any good to publicly out the initial victim.

[RockRaven]

5. According to some MSNBC person I heard (dunno who it was), Gaetz was ID'd as exposed

only because people were poring through photos/video of the event and found a pic with him and the patient. Apparently the patient recounted as best he could everyone he met/contacted. But Gaetz was not included in that list.

As much as patient confidentiality is important, and as much as I loathe CPAC and anyone who would attend it, I think that potentially-exposed people and their subsequent contacts have rights and interests which must be factored in. And given that that turd Gaetz demonstrates the list of correctly ID'd contacts is certainly incomplete, something should be done to address the rights and interests of the unknowingly exposed.

I don't know the correct solution. Maybe people who were at CPAC should be allowed to view a photo of the patient (under some confidentiality agreement with penalties for breaching) to see if they recognize interacting with him? I dunno. But patient confidentiality is not the be-all and end-all when one is talking about a highly virulent or highly contagious or highly pathogenic airborne pathogen.

[Ms. Toad]

6. Given that Trump's hero, Kim Jong Un purportedly shot the first N. Korean victim,

Probably not a good idea.

https://www.ibtimes.sg/north-koreas-first-confirmed-coronavirus-covid-19-patient-shot-dead-report-40042

[global1]

7. I Would Think That Anyone That Attended CPAC Would Want To Know Who This Person Is.....

I don't think I would rely on that person to remember everyone who he/she may have come in contact with.

For example: a journalist might have asked this person a question - if I were a journalist and I knew that someone at the meeting was a carrier of the virus - I would really want to know who that was - so I could sleep at night knowing that I didn't come in contact with them,

Also, I thought that in a Public Health pandemic like this is - that maybe the HiPAA laws would be waived because of the potential for the spread of the virus and because lives are at stake.

[PJMcK]

8. Republicans will keep the person's identity a secret

But they want to out the Ukrainian whistleblower.

Curious.

[genxlib]

9. No one should out him

But I agree that it would be appropriate for him to come forward on his own.

Privacy is important but I wouldn’t risk other people’s lives for it.