What is the point of exposing details of the infected people's actions? If they took a subway train, are you going to stop taking that one?

Agree

Disagree

If they took a subway train, are you going to stop taking that one?

And a childish analogy.

If they went to so-n-so karaoke box 21, and you later used karaoke box 21? Internet cafe box, this mister donut or that ramen shop.

So you know whether to self quarantine if you so choose.

invalid CSRF

It is useful for the building of a risk assessment calculator which can help sort out in between behavior people should adopt : being tested, self-quarantine (with automatically provided document for their employer), adopt more careful behavior as non contact with elder/mask/..., and so on.

As this should be provided by government since linked with private data, there is obviously no need to give these information. In the instance, that it is not provided, people will ask for these data to try to make their own risk assessment as they have a life to live and, for most of them if not all or almost, no wish to spread the disease.

As example, if one know that went to a shop whose one clerk turned positive, one can adjust his behavior in the instance of being asymptomatic and if symptoms even mild appear one can quarantine oneself and try to be tested.

If it's not important for the general public to know where seriously infected people have been, then why is it important for Abe, or Trump, or Trudeau etc. to know that a secretary of an aid of a minister they had dinner with has tested positive and as a result they should be tested immediately?

Of course it's important. The best way to slow down the transmission of the virus is for all people to minimize their social contacts, minimize their travel, and maintain high levels of hygiene. If people are more aware of possible hotspots, or possible interactions they might have had in such an area, they can be even more prudent with their actions going forward.

It won't eliminate the risk completely, but it's all about mitigating the risk as much as we can.

It's basic common sense, and being open and honest about exactly what's going on. That way we can all make rational decisions about our own health and safety.

It gives the public the informed choice. Period. Would you inform us if there were a man armed with a knife roaming a specific train station? What about terrorists? So yes, if I was informed that someone with Covoid 19 had yesterday taken my nearest train/station, I wouldn't use it.

Hisamoto,

If the government were to tell me a virus carrier went to a certain live house in Osaka or Kobe at the same concert I went to on the same day, I would be concerned and, possibly, limit my exposure to my work colleagues and stores. Maybe even wear a mask.

But to be told Kobe has a Virus Carrier. And I was in the same place at the same time, I but not given that information, I could very unknowingly spread the virus all over Kobe City Hall and other more important places.

So yes, if I was informed that someone with Covoid 19 had yesterday taken my nearest train/station, I wouldn't use it.

You would have no idea if it was the same physical carriage as the one the infected person took. And using the same station that someone else used a whole day earlier does not seem to be much of a risk.

What would you do if infections were so widespread that it was no longer possible to take any public transport with this outlook?