> Shouldn't government officials randomly sample populations rather than testing whomever volunteers? Governments are prioritizing tests for people with sympto

> Shouldn't government officials randomly sample populations rather than testing whomever volunteers? Governments are prioritizing tests for people with symptoms or close encounters with confirmed infected people if they're in a high-risk pool. > How can we know how good or bad the situation is if we don't have decent statistics? We _do_ want to know how good or bad the situation is, don't we? Tests on the ground don't give a fuck about the macro (and I'd argue they probably shouldn't). When you have a micro-crisis (such as a suspected case in a nursing home), it's very hard to argue for random sampling for the greater good of "better data".