Yes, there are many technical issues and problems associated with current testing methods and techniques. Those should not detract from considering the suggested policy.
What if a test could be authenticated without divulging personally identifying info? The technology exists today but is not yet implemented in the health care industry.
What if you always could rely on a test result to be true and accurate?
What if, as I clearly stated in my post, providing test result status WAS NOT connected to a provider's decision to offer or not offer bare service or a client's decision to accept or reject an offer of bare service?
What if the costs to obtain, share and review another's results was widely available at negligible cost?
What if all the objections based on bad-actors or other barriers could be cleared away? Would achieving 100% trustable tested status be inherently good or bad? That is the real question. The rest is about how to eliminate or significantly mitigate risk of "cheating" or flaws from the process and system.
If we can agree on a policy of 100% testing as a worthy objective, we can then work across the industry on how to achieve it.
Am I an idealist? Probably. But most positive changes in the word came about from an ideal on how to make the word better. Do you want to lead, or just think of why good ideas won't work? I choose to think about how to make good ideas work, thank you.
Life is good
The Cat