It looks at how you can proportionally allocate resources under the assumption that you're not going to examine everyone deeply. Can you explain why the cost of a false negative affects the allocation of limited resources, under its assumptions?
I don't care about false negatives, per se - only whether or not things get blown up. It seems to be optimizing for the wrong thing - minimizing samples, rather than minimizing total cost of malfeasance and its countermeasures. In the real world, resources available for countermeasures are not fixed, but are a function of the perceived cost of terrorism.
