The slippery slope argument is generally regarded as a logical fallacy because the argument can be applied to anything. You should at least offer an explanation of why believe the slippery slope is a risk in this case. What interest would the U.S. have in requiring Flu or HIV tests for travel? The reasons for requiring a covid test are obvious unless you're a person that believes covid is equivalent to the flu.
> The slippery slope argument is generally regarded as a logical fallacy because the argument can be applied to anything.
Can you expand on this? I've seen the claim several times, but given the fact that (in general, not referring to covid) it is possible to point to historical examples of how things progress from A->B->C, and then you can identify a sequence of A->B currently, it becomes almost silly not to conclude the goal is C. So why is demonstrating history repeating itself a fallacy?
Granted I've placed a number of conditions there. Maybe that's what you mean. I'm just curious what the general argument is.
> What interest would the U.S. have in requiring Flu or HIV tests for travel?
Humans unfortunately have a bias for "doing something" rather than nothing, even if the two actions are equivalent in consequence (which favors doing nothing - less energy).
Scream loud enough and we'll create problems where there weren't any. I mean that's basically what network news does all day every day. Then we'll respond to those problems, and create more problems. Etc. "It worked for covid, why aren't we doing it for the flu?" Even if the argument isn't valid, it sounds good, and politicians like things that sound good even if they don't do anything, creating problems and great expense for people for little to no actual gain.
