QUESTION: US is testing less than 5k/million while S. Korea, Germany, Greenland, Hong Kong...

[FBaggins]

8. The logic behind the OP is essentially sound

It's reasonable to assume that more data gives you less "noise" in the results. It's also reasonable to look at what other countries have done and consider implementing those things if they appear to have more success. It's hard to establish a causal relationship, but it's at least reasonable.

The contrary position can also be valid of course. I had a doctor tell me (in a low infection area) that people should NOT be racing to get tested unless they might need hospitalization. "What am I going to tell you if you're positive? Stay home and stay away from other people. What am I telling you if you're negative? Stay home and stay away from other people. The only difference is that if you come to get tested, you're surrounding yourself with people who are sick". My desire for more/better data should not trump what could be best for each individual patient.

I suspect that when and how much to test varies with circumstances. Sure... if there was a quick and cheap way to test 300 million people, the virus wouldn't have taken root in the first place... but that wasn't an option. I've been watching my state (currently 3,900/million) and comparing it to NY (15k/million) - but that doesn't mean that they're doing better or even have better data. I quickly realized that half of their tests (now a little lower) were coming in positive, while fewer than 10% of our tests were positive. They might be using identical testing criteria but with different facts on the ground.