This Vox article on testing is really good. The NYT has an update on testing today as well. And you can see state-by-state testing updates at covidtracking.com.

I wonder what is the percentage of testing is, that constitutes adequate surveillance?  anyone know?

I’ve seen numbers ranging from 150k/day to 22 million/day (in that Vox piece, from Paul Romer — by far the highest I’ve seen).My thought would be that it depends dramatically on the situation — if we’ve managed to get fully past this first outbreak and we’re just stamping out small local outbreaks with testing & tracing, the number could be pretty low. If it’s still everywhere and we’re trying to open things back up, we would need an enormous number.

Other stuff I’ve read in the past few days that may or may not be of interest (none of them are urgent):

• James Heathers describes why we can’t rush into treatments like hydroxychloroquine without thorough testing first, by looking at the history of bone marrow transplants as an example of how that can go badly wrong.
• UnHerd argues that things are actually going fairly well in Sweden (with much less lockdown).
• UnHerd tries to consider how long lockdown can last politically (somewhat UK-centric but applies well to the US too).
• Rolling Stone thinks that the main reason the current situation is so exhausting is that our day-to-day decisions carry way more moral weight than usual.
• SlateStarCodex investigates who did a good or bad job predicting this situation, and why.