I second most of the critique above, and I think this is dangerously misleading.
@frauenfelder, would you consider placing at least a note of caveat on the quotes? I see you did not provide a link. If you do, please urge people not to jump onto those conclusions.
I am by no means an expert on epidemiology or virology, but as a scientist (biologist) I do understand a bit of what virologists and epidemiologists continue to explain during the pandemic.
The author surely picked up some of the dismay about the very centralised and difficult testing efforts in the US. His intention is surely good, but he is no expert, and his simile with soft drinks is silly at best. His spin, however, is outright bullshit. And his conclusion is by far to condensed to be right:
As long as labs provide tests that do what a test is supposed to do, let them worry about the details.
Sorry, that’s just bullshitting for page views.
The problem is much, much more nuanced.
Have a go here, for example. Published a month ago, in Nature, no less:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01068-3
One (!) money quote:
One problem is that US hospitals use a range of software platforms for electronic health records. Many also have strict administrative procedures for setting up accounts with labs, exchanging samples and handling billing, adds Pride. For this reason, several hospitals chose to stick with the commercial labs they’re already working with, say researchers.
Less than a week later, in PNAS:
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/04/15/2006240117
Again, just one (!) money quote:
Now, [in California] laboratory personnel “who demonstrate molecular biology polymerase chain reaction (PCR) experience” can legally run COVID-19 tests if they are supervised by a licensed physician or PhD with related lab experience, according to the proclamation (5). […] Even without special legal allowances, molecular biologists are finding ways to pick up pipettes to aid coronavirus testing.
[Edited very slightly for clarity.]
Seriously, the US did quite a lot to catch up. While their jump-start after the first problems isn’t without problems, the bullshit simile with soda is just confusing everything and everyone. It is contributing to public outrage in a very misplaced way. Paul Romer might be a lauded economist, but he sure as hell has no idea about virology, lab work, and life science in general.
My opinion: this is not the time to listen to economists, and giving them a platform, when discussing how to do things in other specialised fields under pressure.
Just FTR: we have our very own economists spreading extremely dangerous bullshit in Germany. Romer is not as bad, but if you ask me: don’t give him your attention. Please.
