06-26-2020, 02:48 PM
There's a bigger problem with paying people with the virus: giving people a financial incentive to get the virus could result in more cases. If I'm young and healthy and broke, and I see that I can get $2000 a week to get the equivalent of a mild cold, what's to stop me from getting infected on purpose? Sure, I'd have to get tested and be isolated, but I could be spreading the virus before I get a positive test result. This seems really short-sighted.
As for testing, the number of tests being taken is going up all over. In Arizona, they're overrunning their ability to do the tests in labs now now. But there is something to be said for an intervention that massively increases the number of tests. I can't find it now but I've seen epidemiologists discussing ubiquitous testing (like everyone in a city being tested twice a week) as a way to rapidly get the virus under control. Find the cases, isolate them, voila. If some sort of financial reward for the testing alone--not just the positive results--got us to this goal, I'd be fine with that.
As for testing, the number of tests being taken is going up all over. In Arizona, they're overrunning their ability to do the tests in labs now now. But there is something to be said for an intervention that massively increases the number of tests. I can't find it now but I've seen epidemiologists discussing ubiquitous testing (like everyone in a city being tested twice a week) as a way to rapidly get the virus under control. Find the cases, isolate them, voila. If some sort of financial reward for the testing alone--not just the positive results--got us to this goal, I'd be fine with that.