The Testing Multiplier: Fear vs Containment

I study the economic effects of testing during the outbreak of a novel disease. I propose a model where testing permits isolation of the infected and provides agents with information about the prevalence and lethality of the disease. Additional testing reduces the perceived lethality of the disease, but might increase the perceived risk of infection. As a result, more testing could increase the perceived risk of dying from the disease - i.e."stoke fear"- and cause a fall in economic activity, despite improving health outcomes. Two main insights emerge. First, increased testing is beneficial to the economy and pays for itself if performed at a sufficiently large scale, but not necessarily otherwise. Second, heterogeneous risk perceptions across age-groups can have important aggregate consequences. For a SARS-CoV-2 calibration of the model, heterogeneous risk perceptions across young and old individuals mitigate GDP losses by 50% and reduce the death toll by 30% relative to a scenario in which all individuals have the same perceptions of risk.


Introduction
ere is widespread agreement that, during an epidemic outbreak, increased testing can contain the spread of the disease, save lives and improve economic outcomes. 1 In this paper, I explore the economic e ects of testing during the outbreak of a novel disease in an epidemiological model where agents rely on testing data to form their perceptions of risk. Since more testing could result in a higher number of detected cases -and thus increase the perceived risk of infection -it has the potential to "scare" the population and cause a fall in economic activity. Indeed, conditional on the latent size of the epidemic, more testing reveals more infections. However, thanks to the isolation of the infected, it also dynamically reduces the latent size of the epidemic. My results suggest that the perceived risk decreases and the economy improves when a sizeable share of the population is tested daily, but not necessarily otherwise. Interestingly, whenever more testing "stokes fear", the ensuing contraction of economic activity occurs despite improved public health outcomes. e model can be summarized as follows. I abstract from policy interventions such as lockdowns or national mask mandates in order to focus exclusively on testing policies that mimic those adopted by health-care systems around the world. Economic activity is mainly a function of the perceived risk of dying from the epidemic disease, and risk perceptions are constructed using testing data on total cases, active infections and deaths. Additional testing followed by (imperfect) isolation systematically improves health outcomes (i.e. it reduces infections and deaths), but has a nonmonotone e ect on risk perceptions. 2 Economic activity falls whenever additional testing increases the perceived risk of dying, and rises otherwise. e notion of a testing multiplier then naturally arises to summarize the economic e ects of an additional dollar spent by the government on testing activity.
Risk perceptions are introduced in the model as follows. Agents do not know the epidemiological process, and testing data is the only source of information about the risk of dying from the epidemic disease. e risk of dying is given by the product of the probability of dying conditional on infection and the probability of infection. Following the epidemiological literature, I assume that the former is assessed with the case fatality rate, given by total reported deaths divided by total detected cases, while the la er is proportional to detected active cases per capita. Since the disease is unknown, agents do not know its true lethality and are forced to resort to the case fatality rate.
In section 3, I provide robust empirical evidence in favor of my speci cation.
1 When one abstracts from individuals' behavioral responses, testing's role is to selectively isolate the infected, which slows down epidemic transmission and bene ts the economy -see Berger et al. (2020) and Atkeson et al. (2020) among others. When one assumes that testing a ects behavior by resolving individual-level uncertainty, it can have unintended negative consequences if not followed by strictly enforced isolation -see Eichenbaum et al. (2020c). 2 If I assume that agents do not need to rely on testing data to form their perceptions because they can observe the true aggregate state of the epidemic, more testing systematically improves economic outcomes as well, in line with the existing literature.
Real-time risk perceptions in the model can systematically di er from the truth, and depend on the level of testing activity. is is a general insight, and it is useful to think about two wedges between perceptions and reality to see why. e rst wedge captures the fact that the perceived probability of dying conditional on infection might exceed the true one.
is happens because, without large-scale testing, real-world testing policies prioritize testing of individuals with severe symptoms, and infected individuals who are less likely to die are not tested. 3 In principle, this wedge can be eliminated over time with serological surveys and other (natural) experiments, but, in practice, it takes time (or never completely occurs). us, the perceived lethality of the disease heavily depends on the amount of testing performed, especially in the early stages of the outbreak.
e second wedge relates to the probability of infection, and arises because agents struggle to estimate the true number of active infections in real-time. is happens because many infections go undetected without large-scale testing, and because observable epidemiological variables are not enough to correctly estimate them in real-time. For instance, suppose that at some point during the outbreak a certain number of deaths is observed. Without knowledge of the true probability of dying conditional on infection, one is not able to estimate how many infections produced those deaths. A similar reasoning holds for hospitalizations. Even when these probabilities are known, deaths and hospitalizations can only be used by agents to infer the number of past cases, since there are long lags between infection and death or hospitalization. Given that infection risk depends on how many active infections are currently in the population, agents are forced to rely on testing data for a real-time assessment of infection risk.
To further illustrate this point, I consider an alternative speci cation in subsection 6.5 where agents learn over time about the true lethality of the disease, irrespective of testing. ey use this knowledge to correctly estimate the total number of past cases and construct an ascertainment bias factor that they use to scale up newly detected infections. Eventually, agents correctly assess both the lethality of the disease and the total number of cases, but they nonetheless fail to correctly estimate active infections in real-time without large-scale testing. 4 is implies that my results are reproduced with this alternative speci cation as well.
Importantly, whether additional testing actually increases perceived risk is the result of three forces that my epidemiological model is well-equipped to capture. e rst two forces -described in the rst paragraph -relate to the perceived risk of infection: additional testing dynamically reduces the true latent size of the epidemic, but it also unveils a larger share of it. e third force relates to the perceived risk of dying conditional on infection. More testing widens the range of symptoms being tested, thereby mechanically decreasing the case fatality rate. For a novel unknown disease, this reduces its perceived lethality.
Since the epidemic data produced by the health-care system through testing play a key role in the assessment of risk, I make sure that the testing policies in the model can match key features of the data, as I show in subsection 5.2. is explains the choice of an agent-based epidemiological model with a second endemic disease and testing policies that prioritize severe symptoms. Economic considerations are then introduced only in a stylized way. Speci cally, agents in the model mechanically reduce labor supply and enjoyment of leisure when their perceived risk of dying increases. Since contact rates and aggregate output are assumed to be a function of aggregate labor supply and leisure, perceived risk a ects both aggregate economic activity and the spread of the epidemic disease in the population.
e rst main result of the paper is that additional testing is bene cial to the economy and (partially) pays for itself when performed at a large enough scale, but not necessarily otherwise. When a sizeable share of the population is tested every day and infected individuals are (imperfectly) isolated, epidemic containment succeeds and the perceived risk of dying decreases, improving economic outcomes. In this scenario, there is nothing to fear and the multiplier is positive. At a small scale, instead, testing might not succeed at containing the epidemic, but would still detect a larger portion of it. Depending on a large set of parameters and on luck, this could increase the perceived risk of dying and cause a contraction of economic activity. When this happens, fear spreads in the population and the multiplier is negative.
e second main result clari es the aggregate importance of heterogeneous risk perceptions across age-groups. I extend the model to introduce young and old agents, and calibrate it to the U.S. and SARS-CoV-2, which features a steep risk-gradient across age-groups. As an extreme thoughtexperiment, I consider a scenario in which all individuals are assumed to have homogeneous perceptions of risk because the government releases only aggregate testing data -as it is o en the case during epidemic outbreaks. I then compare it to another scenario in which age groups have heterogeneous risk perceptions because they can construct age-speci c case fatality rates from disaggregated testing data. I nd that, relative to the homogeneous case, heterogeneous risk perceptions vastly improve aggregate economic and health outcomes, because old agents -who are the most likely to die -protect themselves more while young agents protect themselves less and return to work. 5 e paper is divided into the following sections. In section 2, I discuss risk perceptions. In section 3, I assess the empirical relevance of my proposed measure of risk. I present the model in section 4, and provide extensive simulations to be er understand its mechanisms in section 5. I de ne the 5 e intuition behind this parallels what is suggested in Acemoglu et al. (2020) with respect to targeted lockdowns.
testing multiplier in section 6, and simulate it for various parameterizations. In section 7, I explore the importance of heterogeneous risk perceptions across age-groups. 6 Furthermore, these papers adopt a compartmental modeling strategy which results in be er tractability by permi ing the aggregation of individuals into epidemiological compartments. I adopt an agent-based framework, which increases complexity but allows me to introduce more realistic testing policies and a more re ned modeling of the epidemic disease. For a discussion of compartmental vs agent-based epidemiological models see Murray (2020)

Perceptions of Risk
Individuals fear deadly diseases and I argue that the relevant measure of 'fear' of an epidemic disease is the probability of dying from it, as opposed -for example -to the probability of contracting the disease. 8 It is insightful to express the probability of death as follows: where the probability of death ('death risk') is given by the product between the conditional probability of death given infection ('disease lethality') and the probability of infection ('infection risk').
To be precise, the probability of death conditional on infection is labeled 'infection fatality risk' (or IFR) in the epidemiological literature. 9 To see why the probability of dying is the relevant object, consider the following. Imagine rst a widely spread epidemic disease which is completely harmless. is would result in a high infection risk but a null disease lethality, implying a null death risk, and thus no fear of the disease. Consider next a very deadly disease which is impossible to catch. is would imply a null infection risk and a null death risk, and thus no fear of the disease. e main problem during an epidemic outbreak of a novel disease is that key properties of the disease such as the infection fatality risk or the probability of developing severe symptoms are unknown and, without speci c policy interventions, remain unknown. As a result, the probabilities mentioned above are also unknown. is is especially true when the epidemic disease features a sizeable share of paucisymptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, which makes the estimation of the number of total cases, active infections, asymptomatic infections and recovered individuals extremely hard in real-time. Despite the lack of reliable information, however, individuals will still try to perform a real-time assessment of the risk they face, and their behavioral responses will depend on this assessment.
In my theoretical analysis, I assume that individuals do not understand the epidemiological process and that they rely on testing data to form their perceptions of risk. Speci cally, agents look at the case fatality rate to estimate the risk of death conditional on infection: where is the case fatality rate, and and are cumulative cases and deaths reported by the 8 Several epidemiological models with behavioral responses assume that individuals react to the prevalence rate, given by the ratio of cases to the population, a measure of infection risk -see Funk et al. (2010) for a review. In the economics literature, for example, Kaplan et al. (2020) and Atkeson et al. (2020) assume that behavioral responses depend on the number of deaths. 9 For example, see Lipsitch et al. (2015). health-care system. To assess the average infection risk in the population, I assume that individuals follow a standard textbook epidemiological model -such as the SIR model -which posits that the probability of infection is proportional to the number of active infections over the population: where is the transmission coe cient of the disease (which summarizes its contagiousness), is the number of currently active infections detected by the health-care system, and is the alive population. 10 e perceived risk of death -which from now on I will denote with the variablecan then be re-constructed as follows: In the empirical analysis presented in section 3, I show that this proposed measure of perceived risk predicts precisely and robustly economic activity across U.S. states and counties during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak.

Discussion
e proposed speci cation of beliefs implies that, without large-scale testing, perceptions of risk can systematically di er from the true latent risk of dying from the epidemic disease. To be er understand this point, it is useful to decompose the probability of dying into its two components, and think about two wedges between perceptions and reality.
Let's start by considering the wedge between the perceived lethality of the disease and the true one. Since the lethality of a novel disease is unknown, individuals need to assess it in real-time using the information that is available. As explained in Wong et al. (2013) in relation to the 2009 in uenza-A outbreak, testing data -i.e. laboratory-con rmed cases -produced by the health-care system are the most readily available source of information during an outbreak, and can be used by both experts and non-experts to assess the lethality of the emerging infectious disease. In particular, epidemiologists themselves construct a case fatality rate from testing data to assess in real-time the lethality of the disease, and I assume that individuals do that too. 11 is measure, unfortunately, su ers from several shortcomings that are summarized, for example, in Lipsitch et al. (2015). Crucially, whenever the disease features a large share of sub-clinical infections (i.e. that do not require medical a ention) that go undetected with narrow testing policies, 10 In standard textbook epidemiological models, active infections -as opposed to cumulative infections -are what ma ers for transmission because it is assumed that individuals who recover or die are no longer infectious. 11 See Ghani et al. (2005). the denominator of the case fatality rate is under-estimated, and therefore the lethality of the disease is over-estimated. is issue is not easily solved even when combining available testing data with epidemiological theory, because of the identi cation problems outlined, for instance, in Atkeson (2020) and Korolev (2020). Large-scale testing is a way to solve the problem, since individuals with non-severe infections who are less likely to die from the disease are included in the total case count. Another way to solve the problem is to perform a one-o large-scale random experiment, with either a virological test (which detects an active infection) or a serological survey (which detects past infections). e problem is that, for a variety of reasons, this usually takes time to be performed -if it is ever performed. In principle, the wedge between the true lethality of the disease and the perceived one could be eliminated even without large-scale testing. In practice, this either takes time or never occurs, forcing individuals to rely on testing data to assess the lethality of the disease.
Let's now consider the second wedge, the one between the true and the perceived risk of infection. In a nutshell, my argument is that it is hard -if not impossible -to remove this wedge in real-time without large-scale testing. is is due to the fact that the risk of infection depends on the number of currently active infections, which is more di cult to estimate than the total number of past infections. For example, a large-scale serological survey can provide a very accurate estimate of the number of infections in the past, but has li le to say about currently active infections.
Similarly, observable epidemiological variables such as deaths or hospitalizations are not helpful because they contain information about past infections -as opposed to current infections. Indeed, deaths today are the results of infections days or weeks ago. ese considerations suggest that the assessment of infection risk is heavily dependent on testing data, exactly as in the speci cation of beliefs that I propose.
Further support to this argument comes from the recent state-of-the-art work by Chande et al.
(2020). In their paper on the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in the U.S., the authors construct a locationspeci c real-time assessment of infection risk using "recent case reports multiplied by an ascertainment bias informed by serological surveys". In other words, they use testing data on new infections and they scale them up by a factor given by the number of cases detected with serological surveys over the number of cases detected by the health-care system through testing. Since the serological surveys are conducted infrequently, daily variation in the estimated infection risk comes exclusively from testing activity. In subsection 6.5, I propose an alternative speci cation of beliefs that mimic this methodology. Agents eventually estimate correctly both the true lethality of the disease and the true number of total cases, but still fail to estimate the number of active infections in real-time without large-scale testing.
3 Fear and Economic Activity: Evidence from the U.S. I combine weekly data on economic activity with testing data on reported cases and deaths across U.S. states and counties during the rst stages of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic outbreak to investigate the relationship between my proposed measure of perceived death risk and economic activity. My preferred proxies of economic activity are the Dallas FED's Mobility and Engagement Index (MEI) and the Google Workplace Mobility report because of their high-frequency availability. Perceived risk in location during week is given by: Perceived Death Risk (%) Figure 1: Correlation between Perceived Risk and Economic Activity during SARS-CoV-2 in the U.S.
Notes: e plot considers the period from 1 May 2020 to 1 September 2020 in order to leave out most of early lockdowns, business closures and similar interventions. Figure 1 reveals that a higher perceived risk of death is associated with falls in economic activity across U.S. states. However, this is not enough to establish causality for at least two reasons.
First, reverse causality might be at play. Second, there might be omi ed variable bias: a higher 12 Given that the coe cient will be constant across time and space, this assumption will not a ect the standardized estimated coe cients.
perceived death risk calls for lockdowns and similar non-pharmaceutical interventions, which produce a contraction of economic activity.
Reverse causality is unlikely to be an issue. SARS-CoV-2 is a disease characterized by lengthy lags between exposure and development of symptoms and/or hospitalization. Given the relatively narrow testing policies adopted in the U.S. during the rst phase of the pandemic, the vast majority of detected infections were diagnosed a er the appearance of symptoms or even a er hospitalization, implying that a new infection was likely to be recorded by the health-care system with a sizeable delay. is implies that economic activity in a given week is likely to increase perceived death risk only in the future. Furthermore, reverse causality would suggest a positive relationship between economic activity and perceived risk, instead of a negative one. Notes: Clustered standard errors at the state-level in parenthesis. * < 0.10, ** < 0.05, *** < 0.01. Standardized coe cients (%) obtained by scaling variables by their standard deviation. regress economic activity on perceived death risk, and one in which I replace perceived death risk with its two components, namely perceived lethality and perceived infection risk.
e estimates suggest a strong negative relationship between economic activity and perceived death risk, which holds also when the la er is decomposed into its two components. Importantly, the estimated e ect is economically meaningful: perceived death risk explains between 35% and 50% of the fall in economic activity when time xed-e ects are excluded, and roughly 10% of the relative fall in economic activity when time xed-e ects are included. State xed-e ects ensure that unobserved heterogeneity in economic activity across states is properly accounted for. Time xed-e ects control for unobserved national developments common across states and countries, such as national containment guidelines, nation-wide communications from policy-makers and so on. e state-level estimates, however, might still su er from omi ed variable bias since they do not control for state-level developments that occur over time and might correlate with both economic activity and perceived risk.  Notes: Clustered standard errors in parenthesis. * < 0.10, ** < 0.05, *** < 0.01. Standardized coe cients (%) obtained by scaling variables by their standard deviation.  Table 2 reports my regression results at the more granular county-level. is allows me to introduce state-time xed-e ects which absorb state-level developments over time. As the vast majority of lockdowns and containment policies during the rst phase of the epidemic outbreak were en-acted at a state-level, the state-time xed-e ects should be able to solve any omi ed variable bias. 14 e county-level estimates remains negative and statistically signi cant across all speci cations, and the same is true when perceived death risk is decomposed into its two components. e coe cients become smaller as xed-e ects are included, suggesting that the la er are successfully controlling for unobservables. Small coe cients could be due to the importance of local factors to explain local economic activity, but also to the fact that the proposed measure of perceived death risk is only an approximation -and this becomes clearer at a more granular level. 15 . Nonetheless, the negative e ect of perceived risk on economic activity appears clear.

Additional Empirical Results
A question that naturally arises is how the proposed measure of death risk compares to alternative measures that have been adopted in the literature, such as total or weekly cases and deaths. Table 3 provides a tentative answer.  Notes: Clustered standard errors in parenthesis. * < 0.10, ** < 0.05, *** < 0.01. e dependent variable is the FED's Mobility and Engagement Index (MEI). Standardized coe cients (%) obtained by scaling variables by their standard deviation. (2020) construct a dataset of stay-at-home and business closure orders for the rst months of the epidemic outbreak. County-level lockdowns are highly correlated with state-level ones, although not perfectly. Moreover, in late 2020 some states started to implement local lockdowns and stay-at-home orders, at a level as granular as the zip-code. is would invalidate the proposed identi cation for more recent data. 15 For example, di erent individuals will perceive death risk di erently depending on a wide set of covariates, which could systematically di er across counties. e rst four columns use state-level data and suggest that, while cases and deaths exhibit a negative relationship with economic activity, they tend to lose signi cance and become smaller when my measure of perceived risk is included in the regression. e last four columns replicate the exercise at the county-level. Overall, the estimates suggest that the proposed measure of risk remains precise and robust even when detected cases and deaths are controlled for.
Another important question is whether the level of testing itself has any e ects on economic activity. Indeed, one could argue that more testing reduces agents' uncertainty about the accuracy of reported cases and deaths, and that less uncertainty is bene cial to economic activity. In this respect, an indicator which is frequently monitored to assess how much testing is performed relative to the true latent epidemic is the test positivity rate. 16 e results are reported in Table 4. Notes: Clustered standard errors at the state-level. * < 0.10, ** < 0.05, *** < 0.01. Standardized coe cients (%) obtained by scaling variables by their standard deviation. with the previous conjecture. Interestingly, however, when the proposed measure of perceived risk is included in the regression, the estimated e ect of the test positivity rate becomes indistinguishable from zero, and the magnitude of the estimated standardized coe cient is almost an order of magnitude lower than that of the perceived death risk.

A Stochastic Epidemiological Model with Fear
is section presents a stochastic epidemiological model with symptoms-based testing policies and reduced-form behavioral responses driven by fear of the epidemic disease. 17 e model is agent-based, i.e. each agent is modeled individually, and features two diseases: a novel emerging epidemic disease and an endemic confounding disease. e role of the confounding disease is literally to confound the diagnosis of the epidemic disease, since individuals exhibiting symptoms might be infected with either disease.
Testing policies in the model mimic real-world ones which prioritize testing of severe symptomatic individuals, and play two important roles. First, detected active infections are put into (imperfect) isolation, allowing the government to slow down epidemic transmission. Second, testing provides agents with information about the latent epidemic disease. Because the true epidemic is unobservable, agents base their behavior on the data produced by the health-care system through testing.
More precisely, they use reported cases, active infections, and deaths to construct a measure of death risk which embodies the familiar notion of fear: a higher perceived risk of death stokes fear and prompts a reduction in labor supply, causing a fall in economic activity -consistently with the empirical part of the paper. Agents' behavior is introduced in a reduced-form manner: labor supply and leisure respond to the perceived risk of death according to a xed elasticity parameter which can be estimated in the data.
e level of testing activity in the model is partially, but not fully, under the control of the government. Indeed, I assume that all severe symptomatic individuals are always tested by the health-care system, which implies that the government is le with the possibility to test non-severe symptomatic individuals, i.e. those with mild symptoms or no symptoms at all. is is also referred to as "screening" of the population for infections.
e overall e ect of increased testing on perceived risk, and thus on economic activity, is nonmonotone. More testing results in be er epidemic containment -thanks to the targeted isolation of the infected and to stronger behavioral responses -but it also uncovers a larger portion of the true latent epidemic. Furthermore, it reduces the perceived lethality of the disease. e ultimate goal of the model is to analyze these forces and to understand which one prevails.

Aggregate Epidemic Dynamics
Time is discrete, each time period is interpreted as a day, and the population will be studied over an horizon . Consider a homogeneous population of ex-ante identical individuals with initial size 0 , and suppose that no individual is added to the population (e.g. no births, no immigration). ere are two diseases circulating in the population: the epidemic disease and a confounding disease. e la er is an endemic disease which circulates in the population irrespective of the epidemic disease and is named 'confounding' because it confounds the diagnosis of the epidemic diseases due to the fact that infected individuals share similar symptoms across the two diseases. I assume the following: E1: For each disease, individuals who recover obtain immunity.
E2: Each individual can catch only one of the two diseases.
Assumption E1 is o en adopted in epidemiological models -since most epidemic diseases feature at least a temporary immunity -and simpli es the problem from a modeling perspective. Assumption E2 is a simpli cation that allows to abstract from what happens when an agent catches both diseases.
From now on, latent variables will be denoted with an asterisk and observable ones without. At Given that the confounding disease is an endemic disease, I will model new aggregate cases each day as an exogenous stationary process: where realizations are rounded to the nearest integer. Notice that is the share of the population that on average contracts the confounding disease over the time horizon . So for instance, if = 90 and = 0.20, then on average twenty percent of the initial population contracts the infection over a 90 day period. Moreoever, is the coe cient of variation of new daily infections.
Turning to the epidemic disease, I assume that the event that a susceptible individual catches the epidemic disease follows a bernoulli random variable: where * is the true latent infection risk and will be de ned shortly. Assuming that individual infection events are independent, and aggregating across individuals one gets new daily aggregate where * is the (latent) number of susceptible individuals. Importantly, the true latent infection risk in the model will be assumed to be the following:

Probability of Meeting an Infected
where is the exogenous transmission coe cient, which is the product of the transmission risk upon contact with an infected and the average number of pre-epidemic contacts; is the contact rate, which is normalized to one absent the epidemic; * is the true latent number of active infections; is the number of detected active infections by the health-care system; is a parameter summarizing the degree of enforcement of the isolation policy adopted by the health care system; and is population. 18 Notice that, throughout the paper, variables in capital le ers will denote aggregate time-series and are recovered as follows: where denotes a generic time-series variable and ( ) denotes the individual-level counterpart.
While isolation of infected individuals directly a ects the probability of meeting an infected, behavioral responses directly a ect the endogeneous contact rate: here is the (exogenous) share of contacts due to work (as opposed to leisure),¯is average labor supply across agents, and¯is average leisure. More precisely: 18 Notice that when = 1 each detected active infection is put into full isolation and when = 0 none is. Imperfect isolation obtains when ∈ (0, 1).
Implicitly, the idea is that labor supply, leisure and interactions across agents are all sides of the same coin. A fall in labor supply and/or leisure therefore reduces interactions among agents, which in turn reduces the true infection risk. e next section turns to individuals and describes how agents' behavior works in the model.

Individuals
Individuals supply labor for production, enjoy leisure and can be infected by either disease. I rst describe the reduced-form behavior of labor supply and leisure, and then turn to the evolution of each disease conditional on infection.

Work and Leisure
Individuals achieve a daily production ( ) by supplying labor: where captures the daily average productivity of an individual, and ( ) denotes the individual's labor supply. I assume that labor supply depends on health status, fear of the epidemic, and whether the individual is subject to mandatory isolation. In a reduced-form way, I posit that: if has no or mild symptoms and not isolated (1 − ) · 0 if has no or mild symptoms and isolated 0 if is dead or has severe symptoms where 0 is labor for a healthy individual in normal times (i.e. absent the epidemic), is the perceived risk of death from the epidemic disease, and is the (approximate) elasticity of labor supply with respect to the perceived risk of death. e equation above basically says that dead individuals and those with severe symptoms cannot work, while what those alive do depends on whether they have been tested. An individual with no or mild symptoms that has not been tested, will not be isolated and will not know whether he is infected with the epidemic disease. As a result, she will be assumed to be capable of working, but will protect herself from the epidemic disease.
Individuals who have tested positively are put under (imperfect) isolation. Given that they are currently infected, they have no reason to 'protect' themselves from the epidemic disease, and their labor supply will depend exclusively on the strictness of the isolation policy. 19 However, once the isolation is over and they are no longer infected, they keep 'protecting' themselves because they are not sure as to whether past infections guarantee immunity from the epidemic disease. where I assume for simplicity that individuals use the true transmission coe cient when forming their perceptions. e reduced-form behavior of leisure is symmetric to that of labor supply: if has no or mild symptoms and not isolated (1 − ) · 0 if has no or mild symptoms and isolated 0 if is dead or has severe symptoms Together, labor supply and leisure determine the level of interactions between agents. Conditional on infection, the epidemic disease evolves as follows: rst, the individual enters a pre-symptomatic period (a.k.a. incubation period), during which they are infected (and can infect others), but do not manifest any symptoms. What happens next is the result of two random events.

Epidemic Disease
e rst random event determines what type of symptoms the individual will display. I will assume three types of symptoms: severe symptoms, mild symptoms and no symptoms. e second random event determines the terminal outcome of the disease, i.e. whether the individual recovers or dies.
Let's now introduce a more formal modeling of the disease. For a generic individual who has been infected by the epidemic disease at a generic time˜, we have that o model the type of symptoms developed and the terminal outcome for a generic individual , I will introduce two random variables: symptoms * ( ) describing the type of symptoms developed, and death * ( ) to denote the terminal outcome of the disease. eir joint probability distribution is given by: Notice that is the unconditional infection fatality risk, i.e. the probability that an individual who contracts the epidemic disease dies, while , and denote the conditional infection fatality risks, i.e. the probability that an individual who contracts the epidemic disease and exhibits a certain type of symptoms dies. e timing of these random events is random itself. In particular, for each individual , the random variable * ( ) represents the length of the incubation period or, equivalently, the number of days the individual spends in the pre-symptomatic state;˜ * ( ) represents the number of days between the onset of symptoms and the terminal outcome death;˜ * ( ) represents the number of days between the onset of symptoms and the terminal outcome recovery. I will assume that these lags do not depend on the type of symptoms developed, nor on the terminal outcome, and that they are distributed as Poisson random variables: 20 20 Standard stochastic SIR-type models assume that these timings are exponentially distributed, as this assumption allows the aggregation of individuals into compartments, resulting in a noticeable simpli cation of the problem thanks to the memorylessness property of the exponential random variables. See Feng (2007)  I opt for a shi ed-Poisson distribution of * ( ) so that it takes at least one period -i.e. one daybetween infection and the terminal outcome. e number of days between infection and terminal outcomes are therefore given by: Analytically, the dynamic evolution of the disease for a generic individual can be expressed as follows:

Confounding Disease
Since the confounding disease is not the main object of investigation, its characterization will be simpli ed as much as possible. I will assume no incubation period and two types of symptoms: severe symptoms and mild symptoms. 21 Importantly, symptoms induced by the confounding disease are similar to those arising from the epidemic disease, so that the former literally acts as a confounder in the diagnostic process of the la er. Similarly to the epidemic disease, two random 21 Notice that the confounding disease can also be thought of as two di erent diseases which di er in the type of symptoms they induce. For instance, the mild-symptom state can be thought of as seasonal u, and the severesymptom state can be thought of as pneumonia.
events determine the type of symptoms and the nal outcome: e timing of the terminal outcome is described by * ( ), which represents the number of periods between infection and death, and by * ( ), which represents the number of periods between infection and recovery. For simplicity, I will assume that these lags are degenerate and independent of the type of symptoms. I will also assume that the terminal outcome is independent of the type of symptoms. Figure 3 provides a visual summary of the evolution of the disease upon infection.

Infection
Severe Symptoms ( ) More formally, the evolution of the confounding disease at the individual level is given by:

e Government
e government plays two roles in the model. First, it performs testing activity through the healthcare system. Second, it collects revenues and engages in health-care spending.

Symptoms-Based Testing Policies
I assume that the health-care system in the model adopts symptoms-based testing policies that mimic real-world ones. As the World Health Organization puts it, "the decision to test should be based on clinical and epidemiological factors and linked to an assessment of the likelihood of infection", and there are few be er indicators of infections than symptoms, especially at the early stages of an epidemic outbreak when the characteristics of the disease are still unknown. 22 ese considerations are introduced into the model by assuming that testing activity is prioritized based on the severity of symptoms displayed by individuals: severe symptomatic individuals are always tested rst, then individuals with mild symptoms, and nally asymptomatic ones.
As opposed to standard compartmental epidemiological models, which assume that a (constant) share of some compartment is tested each period, the proposed framework allows for the specication of a daily testing capacity in terms of the number of tests to be performed. is implies, for example, that a certain testing capacity permits testing of a large share of symptomatic individuals at the beginning of the epidemic, but of a very small share during its peak. Importantly, I am going to assume the following: T1: ere is always enough daily testing capacity to test severe symptomatic individuals.
Assumption T1 is motivated by two considerations. First, it re ects testing priority of individuals exhibiting severe symptoms, which is justi ed by the need to determine the underlying disease in order to decide appropriate medical treatment. Second, it re ects the fact that individuals with severe symptoms are more likely to show up at the hospital, be hospitalized, and tested.
What the government can therefore choose is whether to perform additional tests on individuals who do not display severe symptoms (NS stands for 'Non-Severe'). Consistently with the idea of symptoms-based policies, these additional tests are administered to mild symptomatic individuals rst, and to asymptomatic individuals only if there is any remaining testing capacity. 23

Implementation of Testing Policies
Depending on the technical characteristics of the existing testing technology and on the properties of the epidemic disease, one can make slightly di erent assumptions about how testing activity is actually implemented in the model. I will assume the following: T2: Individuals who have tested positively are not tested again.
T3: Tests detect only active infections, with a false negativity rate .
T4: e outcome of the test is known with a xed delay , and an individual is not tested again until the outcome of the previous test is known.
Assumption T2 is justi ed when immunity is obtained a er recovery from the infection. 24 Assumption T3 implies that a test (imprecisely) detects the infection during the incubation period and irrespective of the type of symptoms while infection is active, but not a er death or recovery.
e delay in assumption T4 could re ect both technological and organizational constraints that create a xed lag between the time a test is administered and the time its outcome is known.
e health-care system's testing policy is implemented using set theory. First, by assumption T1, all severe symptomatic individuals that need to get tested are tested. e set of severe symptomatic individuals tested at time is given by and consists of the individuals displaying severe symptoms (Σ ), minus those that have been diagnosed with the disease in the past (C −1 ), minus those whose test result is still pending (T ).
When the government mandates additional testing capacity (i.e. > 0), the health-care system expands testing to mild symptomatic individuals. e set of individuals that it would like to test is given by where Σ is the set of individuals displaying mild symptoms. A random subset T ⊆ G of size equal to = |T | = min{ , |G |} is tested.
A er individuals with mild symptoms are tested, the health-care system starts testing asymptomatic individuals if there is additional testing capacity, i.e. − > 0. e set of individuals that it would like to test is given by where P is the set of alive individuals. A random subset T ⊆ G is tested, and its size is equal e set of all individuals tested at a generic time is given by T = T ∪ T ∪ T and the total number of tests performed is given by = |T |. Tests can turn out to be either positive 24 It also implicitly assumes that the health care system has a way to detect recovery that does not require the use of an additional test, or that there is another testing capacity dedicated for this purpose.
or negative, i.e. T = T + ∪ T − , and positive tests are given by: 25 where ∈ I * ∩ T also belongs to T + with probability 1 − , where is the false negativity rate of the testing technology. Because of the delay in test results, positive cases are known only with a delay: At time , the list of pending test results is given by Finally, given the list of detected cases C , one can recover any detected set Z as follows: 26 where Z * is its latent counterpart. Reported epidemic time-series are then given by = |Z |. In other words, once an individual enters the list of positive cases, her health-status is perfectly known by the health-care system.

e Government's Budget
Government expenditure is thus given by: where is the cost of each test performed, is the number of tests performed, is the cost of treating a severe infection, and |Σ | is the number of individuals displaying severe symptoms. 27 e government also collects revenues by taxing economic activity: where is a uniform tax rate and is daily GDP, which is obtained aggregating individuals' daily production. For simplicity, I assume that the government can run budget de cits or surpluses which are freely rolled over. 25 I implicitly assume that all tests administered share the same technological characteristics. is can be easily relaxed, for example, by assuming that severe symptomatic individuals receive a di erent type of test from the rest of the population, as done in Atkeson et al. (2020). 26 To be clear, what I refer to as 'detected' cases are laboratory-con rmed cases and are not indirect estimates obtained in other ways. 27 I implicitly assume that individuals with severe symptoms from any disease require costly medical treatment.

Understanding the Mechanism
To build intuition, I will rst simulate the model under a coronavirus-like parameterization to analyze the dynamic behavior of both economic and epidemiological variables. 28 I will then validate the testing policies in the model using Northern Italy as a case study.   Figure 4: Epidemic Dynamics for a Coronavirus-Type Epidemic Disease 29 All the simulations in the paper report 68% con dence bands. A larger population size reduces variance of outcomes, but increases the computational costs. Notice that, unlike standard epidemiological models, even when the population size increases to in nity, uncertainty remains due to the testing activity. individuals. Agents exhibiting symptoms can be infected by the epidemic disease or by the confounding disease, and it is not possible to tell them apart without testing. e test positivity rate takes the shape of an inverted parabola, as it peaks when true active infections peak, but it is low in the initial and nal stages of the outbreak.

Validating Testing Policies: e Case of Northern Italy
In this section, I compare the dynamic evolution of key testing variables in the model with their empirical counterparts, using the Italian regions of Lombardy and Veneto during the rst SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in early 2020 as a case study. ese two regions were the rst two territories who experienced the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic outbreak in the West. ey border each other, have a similar GDP per capita, similar infrastructures, are both highly populated, and were both among the most hit regions during the epidemic outbreak in Spring 2020.
A key di erence between the two regions, however, lies in their testing policies. At the beginning of the outbreak, Lombardy followed the Italian government's testing guideline, which in turn followed the WHO's initial instructions to limit testing to severe symptomatic individuals. Veneto's approach, instead, was shaped by Professor Andrea Crisanti and consisted in implementing a wider testing policy right away. As Science Magazine reports: "Crisanti persuaded the regional government of Veneto to test anyone with even the mildest of symptoms, and to trace and test their contacts as well", while "[g]uidelines from the World Health Organization and Italy's National Institute of Health said to test only patients with symptoms". 32 Testing data from the two regions therefore provide a useful case study to validate the testing policies in the model. Speci cally, I parallel testing data from Lombardy to those generated under the baseline parameterization, where the health-care system tests only severe symptomatic individuals. Testing data from Veneto, instead, are paralleled to those generated from the baseline parameterization with the twist that both severe and mild symptomatic individuals are tested daily.
e results are presented in Figure 7. e top row of the gure reports the number of total tests performed over time, scaled by population, and serves as a sanity check. A higher level of percapita testing in Veneto con rms the narrative that the region enacted a wider testing policy than Lombardy, and the model is able to reproduce the same fact. e middle row looks at the case fatality rate. Under a wider testing policy, the case fatality rate decreases since individuals with a lower probability of dying are included in the case count. is is generated by the model and con rmed in the data. 32 See h ps://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/how-italy-s-father-swabs-fought-coronavirus for the full article.  Furthermore, the model is also able to replicate the dynamic evolution of the test positivity rate observed in the data. 33 33 Standard epidemiological models struggle to generate the dynamic behavior of the test positivity rate observed in the data. In fact, with symptoms-based testing, standard models would generate a constant positivity rate equal to one (assuming that the testing technology is precise). e ability of the proposed model to match the data is due to the presence of a stationary confounding disease. e la er makes detection of epidemic infections hard when there are few of them, resulting in a low test positivity rate. But when epidemic infections peak, the test positivity rate rises.

e Testing Multiplier
Given that the ultimate goal of this paper is to understand the impact of increased testing on economic activity, I conveniently introduce the notion of the 'testing multiplier' which summarizes the average e ect on economic activity of an additional dollar spent on testing.

De nitions
Let's assume that the government mandates a constant daily capacity¯for testing of mild symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. 34 Let's de ne cumulative output over the course of one- year since the epidemic outbreak for a generic testing policy¯as follows: where is daily GDP. Let's also de ne the direct cumulative cost of this testing policy: where is the total number of tests performed at time . Notice that both Y (¯) and E (¯) are random variables, since the evolution of the epidemic is random. It is then possible to de ne the testing multiplier for output: which is an average multiplier because it summarizes the e ect on GDP of an additional dollar spent on testing relative to the case where there is no additional spending on testing mandated by the government. Also, notice that the multiplier is a random variable itself.
Similarly, one can also de ne the testing multiplier for the budget surplus: where B (¯) represents the cumulative budget-surplus over the course of roughly one-year: where is daily de cit. Similarly to the GDP-Multiplier, the Surplus-Multiplier summarizes the e ect on the budget of an additional dollar spent on testing. When the Surplus-Multiplier is positive, an additional dollar spent on testing not only does not add to the de cit, but it even improves it. In the model, this could (and does) happen because testing expenditure reduces the fall in tax revenues and curbs the rise in costly medical treatments. When the Surplus-Multiplier is zero, an additional dollar spent on testing leaves public nances untouched, meaning that testing expenditure fully repays itself. When the Surplus-Multiplier is negative, but less than 1 in absolute value, an additional dollar spent on testing adds to the de cit, but less than one-for one, implying that testing partially repays itself. ones. In any case, it is always greater than minus one, meaning that testing at least partly pays for itself at all testing levels. Similarly to the multiplier for output, luck plays an important role at low testing levels.

e Multiplier is Positive for the Baseline Parameterization…
While the testing multiplier is a great summary of the e ects of increased testing on the economy, it is not immediate to understand the channels through which it operates. Figure 9 helps clarify what happens by illustrating the dynamic evolution of the disease under three arbitrary testing 35 Given the highly non-linear nature of the testing multiplier, I report it on a non-linear scale. e x-axis is on a 2 scale, while the y-axis on a square-root scale. levels: low (in red), medium (in orange), and high (in green). Under the low testing level, the overall perceived risk of death is highest, which results in lower labor supply, thus higher GDP loss and de cit increase. By expanding testing more and more, the government slows down epidemic transmission thanks to isolation of the infected and behavioral responses. is, in turn, reduces agents' perceived risk, thereby mitigating the fall in GDP and curbing the rising de cit.  What happens to the perceived infection risk is more complicated. Whenever the government decides to expand testing, the overall number of true latent infections fall, but the share that is detected rises. Which of these two forces prevail is not obvious. In Figure 10, for example, the perceived infection risk rises when ones moves from low to medium testing, but falls when one moves from medium to high testing.   Table 6. All other parameters of the model stay untouched.
Disease B is 'unstoppable' because its transmission coe cient is so high that moderate levels of testing and isolation might not be enough to slow down its spread. Disease C is 'less-lethal' because its infection fatality risk for individuals who develop severe symptoms is lower than in the baseline. is implies that there is li le room to reduce the perceived lethality of the disease with additional testing. Finally, disease D is 'never-ending' because the length of infection is longer than in the baseline. is implies that an infected individual remains contagious for more days, increasing the probability of infection for others.   Figure 11 shows the GDP-multiplier across these alternative diseases, while the results for the Surplus-Multiplier can be found in Appendix D.  Across all diseases, the GDP-multiplier is on average positive when a sizeable share of the population is tested every day, but not necessarily otherwise. e multiplier becomes negative when additional testing increases the perceived risk of death, leading to a fall in economic activity. e main reason why this happens is that, at a small scale, additional testing fails to contain the epidemic and results in a higher number of detected cases, increasing the perceived risk of infection.

Technological Determinants of the Testing Multiplier
Intuitively, the testing multiplier depends on the characteristics of the testing and isolation technology. Under the baseline parameterization, when the testing technology is more precise (i.e. it has a lower false negative rate), cheaper, and more timely (i.e. the lag between the day the test is administered and the day of the result is lower), the multiplier is higher. e multiplier is also higher when isolation of the infected is more rigorously enforced. 38 Figure 13 reports the results for the GDP-Multiplier, while the results for the Surplus-Multiplier can be found in Figure

GDP-Multiplier
Result Delay (d) It is important to realize that these sensitivity results are relative to a scenario in which the multiplier is always positive. In scenarios where the multiplier takes negative values, the e ect of be er technology can actually be detrimental to economic activity -at least until testing reaches a scale large enough that the multiplier becomes positive. To see this, think for example about the cost of each test kit. Around a testing level where the multiplier is negative, an additional dollar spent on testing will produce higher harm to economic activity when the testing technology is cheaper, because the same dollar with translate in more testing being performed. Once again, this highlights the complex non-linearities involved in the analysis.

An Alternative Speci cation of Beliefs
e insight that additional testing has the potential to increase risk perceptions is more general than it may appear. To show this, I twist the original speci cation of beliefs in the following way.
Agents are assumed to learn about the true lethality of the disease over time as follows: Perceived Lethality = (1 − ) · + · where = , where is the time horizon considered. e perceived lethality of the disease is therefore an average between the case fatality rate and the true infection fatality risk, where the weight of the la er linearly increases over time. 39 Agents then use the total number of deaths from the epidemic disease to construct an estimate of the total number of cases: e key property of this speci cation is that, irrespective of testing, agents correctly learn over time the total number of infections. Yet, they still fail to learn the number of active infections in real-time, exactly as in the original speci cation. Figure 14 illustrates this point for the baseline parameterization when a sizeable share (namely 8%) of the non-severe population is tested daily:

Age-Heterogeneity and Risk Perceptions
In this section, I explore the aggregate e ects of heterogeneous risk perceptions across age groups.
To this end, I divide the population into two groups: the young and the old. I then calibrate the model to the U.S. and SARS-CoV-2, which features sharp age-heterogeneity in the infection fatality risk. In turn, this implies that the two groups are subject to a di erent risk of dying from the epidemic disease.
I consider two extreme scenarios. In the rst, the government releases only testing data that are aggregated across age-groups -as it o en happens during epidemic outbreaks. Because of this, I assume that the two groups share the same perceptions of risk. In the second scenario, the government provides them with disaggregated testing data, i.e. group-speci c data on cases, deaths and so on. For simplicity, I assume that agents still share the same perceived infection risk, but they are now able to construct age-speci c case fatality rates. As a result, risk perceptions are now di erent across the two age groups.
While the assumption that heterogeneous individuals could share the same risk perceptions is certainly a stretch, it provides a useful thought-experiment to assess the importance of heterogeneous perceptions. Referring to the U.S. response to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in 2020, Jay Bha acharya, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University, points out that "[…] a major public health message that we failed at is describing the […] age-gradient in the risk. Older people think that they are at lower risk than they actually are, and younger people think they are at higher risk than they actually are. I think that is an enormous public health mistake". 40 is section proceeds as follows. First, I extend the model to introduce age-heterogeneity. en, I calibrate it to the U.S. and SARS-CoV-2 and analyze the economic and health outcomes under heterogeneous vs homogeneous risk perceptions across age groups.

Heterogeneous-Agent Framework
is section generalizes the homogeneous population model by introducing ex-ante heterogeneous groups. e generalized model nests the homogeneous case when = 1 or when the various groups are parameterized to be identical. In what follows, I will assume = 2 and that initial population is comprised by two groups, young and old: where is the share of young agents in the initial period. In any time period, new true latent epidemic infections for each group are given by: where * is the number of susceptible individuals in group , and * is the latent infection risk for group . e two groups interact with each other and these interactions will determine the group-speci c infection risk as follows: 41 which assumes that the infection risk depends on the transmission coe cient (which is assumed to be homogeneous across groups), on the number of interactions within and between groups, and the probability of meeting an infected individual within each group. Pre-epidemic contact rates between groups are given by: where the rows of the matrix sum to 1, and each entry represents the share of contacts that a group entertains with another. Importantly, as the epidemic unfolds, behavioral responses make the matrix of contact rates become endogenous as follows: where is the contact rate between group and ,¯is average labor supply in group , and is average leisure in group ,¯is average labor supply in the population, and¯is average leisure in the population. e underlying assumption is that interactions within a group depend on labor supply and leisure of that group, while between-group interactions are a populationweighted average of labor supply and leisure. As a result, the model features a reduced-form 41 is speci cation is similar in spirit to Acemoglu et al. (2020), and to what is used in the epidemiological literature with heterogeneous age groups. See for example Mistry et al. (2020). infection externality between groups. 42 Labor supply for a generic individual in group is given by:

is alive, without symptoms and not isolated
(1 − ) · 0 if is alive, with no/mild symptoms and isolated 0 if is dead or has severe symptoms from any disease where the crucial di erence is that is the perceived risk of death for group . Leisure is symmetrically given. Daily production is given by: where is the productivity of an individual belonging to group . As a result of these assumptions, the contribution of each group to GDP will depend on its size, average labor supply and productivity.
To illustrate the importance of risk perceptions across groups, I will consider two scenarios. In the rst scenario, the government releases only aggregate testing data and the perceived death risk is given by:

A SARS-CoV-2 Calibration
I calibrate the model to the U.S. and SARS-CoV-2, and the parameters are reported in Table 7. Several parameters are omi ed since they are the same as in the baseline parameterization of Table 5.  Daily productivity is chosen as follows. I start from daily GDP per-capita in the U.S. and allocate it to each group taking into account that young individuals comprise roughly 84% of the population and that their employment rate is roughly 5 times higher than that of the old. Contact rates for the U.S. are aggregated from the dataset produced by Prem et al. (2017), which I rst correct for non-reciprocity using the pairwise correction suggested by Arregui et al. (2018). 43 Finally, the elasticities to the perceived risk of dying are set equal to the value estimated in the empirical part of the paper. 44 Let's consider the case in which the government does not engage in any additional testing of mild and asymptomatic individuals. Figure 15 reports the dynamic evolution of total true latent cases and deaths, GDP and public de cit when the government provides aggregate testing data (in blue) and when it provides disaggregated testing data (in orange). e gure suggests that heterogeneous risk perceptions across the two age groups result in higher total cases, but lower deaths, output losses and budget de cits.  Moreover, I do not pick the estimate from a speci cation with time xed-e ects, as that would capture a relative elasticity, which is not the object of interest.
the young and the old share the same perceived death risk, young agents over-estimate their true risk, while old agents under-estimate theirs. is happens because the 'aggregate' case fatality rate estimates the average conditional infection fatality risk across the two groups, which makes the disease appear more lethal than it actually is to the young, and less lethal to the old. is results in less total true cases, since the young (who constitute the largest share of the population) 'protect' themselves a lot, but more deaths, since the old (whose true risk of dying is higher) do not 'protect' themselves enough. When the government releases disaggregated testing data, instead, each group develops a more accurate understanding of the disease. As a result, young agents fear the epidemic disease less and reduce their activity less, which results in more cases and deaths among them. e opposite happens with the old, who now fear the disease more. Figure 17 shows what happens to contact rates and production across the two groups. the same perceptions of risk, heterogeneous risk perceptions across young and old individuals reduce GDP losses and budget de cits as much as 50%, and the total deaths count as much as 30%.
Importantly, the insight that -relative to homogeneous risk perceptions -heterogeneous perceptions improve both aggregate economic and health outcomes is not a general property of the model.
In fact, the overall e ect of di erent risk perceptions across age-groups on aggregate economic and public health outcomes will depend on the population structure, the productivity of the various groups, the pa ern of interactions among them, and the characteristics of the disease. In Appendix E, I illustrate how heterogeneous risk perceptions improve health but not economic outcomes for a disease that is more lethal for the young. Finally, Figure 18 presents the testing multiplier for the SARS-CoV-2 calibration. In both scenarios, testing appears on average bene cial to the economy and (partially) repays for itself. Interestingly, the multiplier is higher with homogeneous risk perceptions, and this happens partly because the 'informational' contribution of additional testing activity is higher in this case.

Conclusions
In this paper, I have proposed a stochastic epidemiological model with realistic testing policies where agents adjust their behavior in response to a measure of perceived risk that is constructed using testing data produced by the health-care system. I have then used the model to perform counterfactual policy experiments aimed at understanding the economic e ects of extending testing to paucisymptomatic and asymptomatic individuals during the outbreak of a novel epidemic disease.
My ndings suggest that more testing is bene cial to the economy and pays for itself when per-formed at a large enough scale, but not necessarily otherwise. Furthermore, they suggest that in a se ing with ex-ante heterogeneous agents, heterogeneous perceptions of risk across age-groups can sizeably a ect aggregate economic and public health outcomes. e analysis performed is not aimed at describing any actual epidemic, and its only purpose is to provide insights on the economic e ects of testing. It also su ers from several limitations. First, the key ingredient in the analysis is the way agents process information, which in turn determines their behavioral responses. e speci cation proposed in the model is stylized, and takes a strong stance on the source and the type of information exploited by individuals to form their risk perceptions. As such, it should only be seen as a rst a empt and more work is needed to understand the details of individual behavior.
Second, the analysis abstract from many sources of heterogeneity that could potentially play a role in determining the e ects of testing. For example, spatial heterogeneity creates room for geographically-targeted large-scale testing. is could permit epidemic containment without testing a sizeable share of the overall population every day.
Finally, the importance of heterogeneous risk perceptions across age-groups might create incentives for the government to engage in strategic release of information, which might be internalized by the agents in the population, opening up the possibility of a complicated strategic interaction between the government and the agents in the model. is, in turn, might make the information provision by the government more or less relevant for aggregate outcomes.

B Recovering the Deterministic SIR Model
It is possible to recover standard textbook epidemiological models by imposing speci c restrictions to the model. In this section, I will consider the homogeneous population version of the model and show how to recover the deterministic SIR model. To this end: • Eliminate the confounding disease by se ing = = 0 • Eliminate severe and mild symptomatic states by se ing = = 0 • Eliminate the incubation period by se ing ( ) = 0 • Eliminate non-severe testing by se ing = 0 • Eliminate behavioral responses by se ing = = 0 • Eliminate any death risk by se ing = = = = 0 • Assume an exponential form for the time from infection to recovery, i.e. ( ) ∼ ( ) • Set population size to in nity, i.e. 0 → +∞ e resulting aggregate epidemic dynamics will be given by: where = 1 . en, de ne = 0 for a generic variable , and conveniently drop the asterisk denoting latent variables. Divide both sides of each equation by 0 to get:   Stronger behavioral responses generate a larger fall in labor supply and enjoynment of leisure for the same perceived risk of dying. is translates into a greater reduction of the interactions between agents, and, in turn, into a smaller nal epidemic size. At the same time, lower labor supply causes a sharper contraction of economic activity. Furthermore, stronger behavioral responses " a en the curve" and lengthen the horizon over which the epidemic disease naturally disappears, as shown in the bo om-right panel.    Figure D.7: Economic and Health Outcomes for SARS-CoV-2 Across Testing Levels E A Pseudo-Spanish-SARS-CoV-2 Parameterization e simulations for SARS-CoV-2 suggest that heterogeneous risk perceptions improve both economic and public health aggregate outcomes, and this happens because high-risk agents 'protect' themselves more and low-risk agents -who contribute the most to economic activity -'protect' themselves less and return to work. Consider now a disease such that the individuals at high risk are those that contribute the most to economic activity. Interestingly, the so-called 'Spanish Flu' of 1918-1919 is considered to be characterized precisely by this property. Figure E.8 below reports standardized mortality risks across age-groups for the Spanish Flu, as estimated by Cilek et al. (2018).  Given the scarcity of reliable information, calibrating the model to the Spanish Flu would be a daunting task beyond the scope of this paper. I will therefore perform the simplest thought-experiment one could think about: taking the calibration for SARS-CoV-2 and swapping the infection fatality risks across the two groups. More precisely:

D Additional Simulation Results
= 0.248 = 0.005 All the other parameters stay untouched. Figure E.9 reports economic and health outcomes under this calibration.  Heterogeneous risk perceptions still result in less overall deaths, but the economic loss is now slightly higher.
is happens because young agents, who generate the vast majority of GDP and are not at high risk, reduce their labor supply more when provided with disaggregated data. is, in turn, produces a larger fall in GDP relative to the scenario in which the government provides aggregate data. Figure E.10 con rms this intuition across all testing levels, whereas Figure E.11 displays the testing multiplier.  It is interesting to notice how powerful the behavioral responses of the young are in slowing down epidemic transmission. Because the young population comprises most of the population, the case fatality rate is very high with both aggregate and disaggregated testing data. As a result, in an a empt to 'protect' themselves, the young produce a catastrophic collapse of economic activity and sizeably increase the time necessary for the population to acquire herd immunity. 46 46 Because of this, I am forced to increase the time horizon considered from 350 to 900.