 In the context of COVID-19, North American policy makers were presented with members of the public who concealed their infected status and chose to travel on airplanes, congregate and not wear masks. In the heyday of the HIV/AIDS crisis in North America, policymakers similarly struggled to find ethically sound approaches to infectious disease control in the face of imperfect compliance with recommended best practices. Controversy arose in the 1990s over anonymous testing. Anonymous HIV/AIDS testing is now routinely performed but was once controversial among ethicists. Anonymity was defended on the ground that it encouraged testing by individuals wishing to control when, whether and to whom to disclose their HIV/AIDS status (Fairchild et al. 2007a). On the other hand, it was recognized that behavioral surveillance is a potentially useful component of aggressively protecting public health (Fairchild et al. 2007b; Gallagher et al. 2007; Burr 1999); in some situations, anonymous testing could make tracking patterns of infection more difficult. It was suggested that anonymous testing allowed infected persons to engage in dangerous, morally irresponsible sexual behavior without accountability. Proponents of anonymous testing replied that policy-makers and ethicists should not assume that men and women who learn they are HIV positive on the basis of anonymous tests would egoistically conceal their status from sexual partners. A few individuals will knowingly impose serious risks on others, but newly informed positive test-takers may responsibly notify past and future partners, refrain from risky behaviors, and seek medical care. The ethical issues surrounding HIV/AIDS have changed now that the condition is less stigmatizing and, in developed countries, is a treatable chronic condition rather than a death sentence. 