You know perfectly well what the story was intended to convey -- you intentionally came up with various ways to misinterpret it to claim that it was unclear.
Bullshit. You are incredibly sloppy, and this is far from the first time. Further, you're now trying to make prostitutes look as disreputable as you have scientists.
I'm unclear that I have made scientists look disreputable.
There is a standard form for setting up a scenario, and that is to explicitly give the assumptions up front, followed by the nature of the scenario. If a question comes up in the scenario that isn't answered by the assumptions, it is an unbound variable, and one may freely choose the worst possible case for the variable.
OK.
Person A knows that Person B has many sexual partners. Person A knows that Person B is carrying a serious STD. Person B when asked, refuses to get treatment or even testing to establish that the STD is real.
I say that in AnCap society Person A has no obligation to do anything. It is prudent under the circumstances for Person A to avoid having sex with Person B.
However, if Person A does not want to live among an epidemic which might reduce the economic productivity (and perhaps military readiness etc) of the area, it might be a good idea to do something.
What can be done according to ZAP about this?
I suggest several possibilities.
A. Call for arbitration. It could be argued that people do not have the right to intentionally be reservoirs of epidemic disease. An arbitrator might demand that Person B get tested, and if the tests are positive, to get treatment. On the other hand an arbitrator might say that it is nobody's business but Person B's, that sovereign individuals do have the right to be vectors of epidemic disease if they want to be.
B. Rather than wait for the delays of arbitration, use physical force to require testing, and when the tests are positive, treatment. This handles the public health problem about as rapidly as possible, which is a good thing. But Person A might then be open to lawsuit for initiating physical force. What would an arbitrator say? How much would the positive test results count in Person A's favor? I suspect that the arbitrator's answers might be very favorable if he was one of Person B's occasional sex partners who was exposed to the STD. But in other circumstances being one of Person B's sex partners might lead him to bias in favor of Person B.
C. Rather than do anything directly about Person B's refusal to get treatment, publish the truth. This has the advantage that many of Person B's sex partners who recognise the name or photo (as opposed to not exchanging names and wearing bags over their heads) will get tested themselves. Then they can announce their own status so that their own sex partners will know to get testing. Person B might still sue, and if I was arbitrating I would want a test done. If it's true, then Person A has every right to publish it. After successful treatment Person B can publish the new tests.
Is Ginger, in fact, a prostitute?
I don't care.
Does she advertise this fact (there are some ladies who are quite discreet about it, or UTR - "Under The Radar")?
I don't care.
Are there legal or cultural restrictions to prostitution where this occurred?
I don't care. But do these issues actually affect the proper ZAP approach? Maybe I ought to care. Do prevailing legal and cultural restrictions determine whether something is aggression or not? Are there actions which are not aggression in one culture but are aggression in another? That would complicate the ZAP a bit, wouldn't it?
It would be extremely unlikely that a prostitute would delay treatment and knowingly pass on an STD (unless they were seeking to be infected -- see "bug chaser"); that would hurt business quickly and dramatically.
If we assume that the people in our stories are reasonable, rational, cooperative, and acting consistently in their long-term best interests, then usually there isn't much of a story there. People cooperate and work out their problems without any need for third parties to get involved at all, and it's all peachy-creamy. Stories where there is some AnCap ZAP issue to resolve require that somebody be stupidly unreasonable and that others must find a way to deal with that. Otherwise there is no issue.
"What if a nation-state tries to invade an AnCap society and force them to do stuff?"
"Well, if the foreign army consists of reasonable people they will see that AnCap is so much better that they'll leave the army and join AnCap. And reasonable leaders in the foreign nation will see that they would be better off as private citizens in an AnCap area than leaders of a government, so they'll disband their government and be AnCap too." (This is not actually unreasonable. Just as in some ways modern welfare recipients live better than medieval kings.... If it's true that government takes 80%=90% of everything and wastes it, imagine a society with 5 to 10 times as much capital, and 5 to 10 times as much R&D etc. It might not take long for average citizens to be wealthier than previous national leaders.) But we sure can't expect people to believe arguments that depend on soldiers and politicians being reasonable!
I don't see why you insist on knowing all the details when it's the consequences that are interesting.
As I said, the consequences would probably be for the person posting the information to lose credibility.
A good reason to MYOB. ZAP says not to do aggression to stop epidemics. Arbitrators might reasonably ask why it's any of your business when you aren't getting infected. If you spread true information you can expect to make enemies and lose credibility. Maybe it's better to Mind Your Own Business. It Is Somebody Else's Problem. Epidemics are not the problem of anybody in particular. Let the free market handle them.