The past few days have seen the emergence of an effort to build up self-reporting capacity to fill in where provincial governments are choosing to be wilfully blind to COVID caseloads - as well as a response questioning whether people should be willing to provide information to that project.
Now, I certainly wouldn't dispute the point that if governments at any level were putting resources into a reliable source of COVID case tracking data tied into a reliable testing sample, we'd be far better served using that than any voluntary alternative.
Sadly, that option doesn't exist. To the contrary, plenty of provinces are doing everything in their power to push testing (and thus results) into the private and personal realms, while also withholding the information they do have in their possession.
That game-playing with crucial public health information would be dangerous enough as a matter of normal accountability. It's downright suicidal where the same governments going out of their way to close the door on case tracking are the sames ones who have repeatedly launched into a "nothing to see here!" routine even when it was a matter of widespread awareness that cases, hospitalizations and deaths were spiking.
We shouldn't respond to deadly know-nothingism by simply accepting the self-interested decision of negligent leaders that nothing can be known. And the attempted alternative - flawed though it's been so far - serves as an example of what citizens may need to do in order to account for governments abandoning all sorts of fields where action would be in the public interest. (This is a familiar issue given the development of tent cities, harm reduction sites and other stopgap community measures which have emerged to take care of people whose lives apparently aren't seen as worth saving by the people who hold the power of the state.)
From the standpoint of having a means of actually collecting data about a pandemic which governments are all eager to put out of sight and out of mind, we should be applauding - not criticizing - the people putting in the time to assemble one. And from the standpoint of collecting information, it's also worthwhile for people to consider reporting rather than rejecting the possibility of non-state data collection - once we can be satisfied that there isn't undue risk in providing our own information.
In the case of ReportMyRapidTest, it's worth noting that there was some thought as to levels of privacy within its initial design, which makes names and other identifying information optional. And to his credit, since the systemic problems with the initial database were pointed out, Kevin Liu has recognized the need to start putting together appropriate security architecture and privacy governance to ensure that any sensitive information actually provided is properly protected.
From here, the path forward should then be for people with concerns to participate in strengthening the protection the voluntary site is able to offer, ideally to allow it to reach a level of security which makes them comfortable participating as well.
Ideally, the end result will be for our political leaders to get back into the picture based on the recognition that it's an embarrassment for community-minded volunteers to have to develop alternatives to basic government functions. But if they refuse to do so, we're far better off cooperating to redevelop the pillars of civil society, rather than simply taking the word of ideologically-driven politicians that they need to be left in ruins.