Maciej includes that quote. He also proposes organizing the program with significant protections and limitations. I know it's very likely politically infeasible to competently create such a program, but I ask you: with these protections and limitations in place, and if there is evidence that this program would save many lives (in addition to getting the economy back online more quickly), would you still be opposed to it?
I'd still be opposed to it on principle because no matter what protections and limitations are in place initially, if they're put in place by a centralized (aka corruptible) organization, they can just as easily be replaced or removed. Even if there is evidence that such a program would save many lives (and arguably such evidence is starting to come about) it still remains to be seen whether those lives saved even out versus the amount of lives that would be upended in the future because the "privacy line" has been redrawn. All change is incremental, and we don't know what an incremental change away from privacy as a basic right to be respected no matter what could lead to as a next step.
It's entirely possible that even with all these considerations, a democratic society still chooses to implement such a program. In such a situation I still think it's necessary for someone like me to stick to privacy as a principle even if only for the sake of philosophical discussion and keep parroting: "We're on a slippery slope!"
