> Yes, those who test positive should have greater options for self-isolation than they currently do. Nothing along these lines even remotely happened. The bo

> Yes, those who test positive should have greater options for self-isolation than they currently do. Nothing along these lines even remotely happened. The boogey man of 'forcing people to quarantine' can be avoided while still creating incentives and expectations that individuals should opt-into a plan that concentrates risk and concentrates isolation requirements around known risks. A positive test in the West comes with vague advice to quarantine at home. It should've instead come with a pre-paid package providing hotel+food+income-supplement that continued for the quarantine period so long as you don't violate the isolation expectations ... Incentives, not punitive measures, would've sufficed to make it possible, easy, and expected for people to _avoid_ spreading to their co-dwellers/neighbors or anyone they come into contact with by necessity for basic survival needs.