Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

90% of people will comply. Let's say it's only 50% though. Those people are no more or less likely to be infected. So it's 100% perfectly fine not to test everyone if the goal is to determine the number infected overall.

If looking to go beyond, hey let's get testing capacity to the point where those who are sick and desperately want to be tested can be tested, then we can attack the 1984 fantasy.

"But but what if I can't force those to be tested who don't want it" is an absurd and insane concern given that only a tiny minority of people can be tested who desperately want to.

Once we have testing capacity then those who want to force testing should go out and try to force people to be tested and happily accept whatever happens to them.



You are reading a lot of stuff into my comment that is not there.

1. I’m all for more testing, and would gladly be tested. 2. You really don’t think the cohort of people who would refuse testing wouldn’t also be less likely to follow CDC guidelines? This increasing the chance they are infected. 3. All I was trying to say, was that random testing will be confounded by things like people refusing. Perhaps it gets us close enough. Perhaps people who refuse are more likely to be infected. Or maybe less likely, because they are loners who don’t go out thanks to their doomsday prepping or something. I think it is worth being aware of.

You seem to be incredibly confident that the cohort who would refuse testing will have the exact same infection rate as everyone else. Care to share why you are so certain of that?




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: