@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:
Testing allows us to see where hot spots are and how to effectively control an outbreak. To dismiss testing is to dismiss the severity of the situation.
So, yes, I have thought extensively how this administration has fucked over this country.
Does identifying ' hot spots,' not also identify corresponding 'cold spots,' where people will behave less cautiously under the assumption they are less likely to be exposed to the virus?
In short, if you live in an area that seems to be a relative 'cold spot,' people are going to be less cautious until the virus hits that area, and then it's going to spread more rapidly because people assumed it was a 'cold spot.'
So won't testing actually produce a false sense of security that will engender more risky behavior?
It is like when the introduction of safety devices cause crash rates to increase. Here I found this quote from a book in Google Books that explains this phenomenon:
Quote:
Back when seat belts (or air bags or antilock brakes) were first introduced, any economist could have predicted one of the consequences: The number of car accidents increased. That's because the threat of being killed in an accident is a powerful incentive to drive carefully. But a driver with a seat belt or an air bag faces less of a threat. Because people respond to incentives, drivers are less careful. The result is more accidents.
from The Armchair Economist by Steven E. Landsburg page 4
