Paul Romer is a Nobel-winning economist. He advocates for moving toward a regime of wide-scale testing.

We don& #39;t have the capacity to do this *today*.

He argues we could have the capacity to do this within weeks.

It would cost a lot!

Keeping us locked up costs +++more. https://twitter.com/paulmromer/status/1248713245088780288">https://twitter.com/paulmrome...

Speaking for myself here:

-> Our first priority right now is to push down the epidemic. The current shutdown is appropriate.

-> To me, Romer& #39;s idea is applicable to how we should think about the next phase.

-> To prepare for next phase, we need to start building test capacity.

Why should we listen to an economist (like Romer) on this?

--> We should listen to docs on epidemiology (duh)

--> But economists can best evaluate cost of lockdown. Romer makes a clear case that the cost of a massively-large investment in testing <<< cost of long lockdown.

On Vox, @ezraklein reviews several of these & #39;next phase& #39; proposals, including Romer& #39;s.

Klein notes that the technology and capacity for testing is not currently there.

But Romer might counter that& #39;s his point: even *massive* investment is justifiable. https://www.vox.com/2020/4/10/21215494/coronavirus-plans-social-distancing-economy-recession-depression-unemployment">https://www.vox.com/2020/4/10...

I certainly don& #39;t know enough about the technology or the science to say if & #39;mass testing& #39; is the right strategy.

But the conclusion I draw from Romer is that making *huge* investments--way beyond what we have considered--to forestall extended lockdowns can make economic sense.