Social Distancing at ISU
- Thread starter Dr.bannedman
- Start date
Your last part is wrong per articles and their statements. The number of positive tests as a total are accurate, suck as 50,198 (or whatever the exact number is), it is just the date that the positive occurred is wrong.
I worded that sentence incorrectly, but the fact I was trying to make is the timing of the positive results is the critical part in the informed decision making schools and others are supposed to be using. If the governor put in place ridiculously high thresholds of current positivity rate AND there is a defect that artificially understates the current positivity rates, it's a double dip of incompetence.
I agree that timely info is needed. Hard to make decisions if you don’t have solid data.
It in NO Way means that. Because you have yet still more variables. If the rate of testing goes down then it matters very much who you are testing. What if you're only testing people who end up sick in a hospital. What if every test that comes back positive is counted as a new case even though its just one person getting tested everyday.
The problem is that your sample is not random. And it's different in different areas so that also makes it hard to compare. And none of that takes into account the problems with the tests themselves. The total number of cases is rather meaningless and will only go up, and it absolutely goes up faster with more testing.
The thing is that we've had better data for this new virus than any in history. How did they ever manage? I don't think it's helped much of anything.
[
But of course as testing capacity increases and areas are testing more general population than just the most likely based on symptoms the positivity rate goes down. Some of the rural counties are only testing those that are likely sick. The problem is the extent of testing varies a lot from one area to another, and has changed over time. Until all areas begin fairly extensive general population testing we still don’t have a metric that isn’t heavily driven by testing practices. Deaths and hospitalizations per capita I guess, but it would be really helpful to have a good case metric across regions and time that you could use to make decisions.
But of course as testing capacity increases and areas are testing more general population than just the most likely based on symptoms the positivity rate goes down. Some of the rural counties are only testing those that are likely sick. The problem is the extent of testing varies a lot from one area to another, and has changed over time. Until all areas begin fairly extensive general population testing we still don’t have a metric that isn’t heavily driven by testing practices. Deaths and hospitalizations per capita I guess, but it would be really helpful to have a good case metric across regions and time that you could use to make decisions.
Really? You should take a step back and understand what is really happening. The countries that are actually using the data effectively to make decisions are doing so much better than the countries that are denying reality or using misinformation to cover for their own mistakes. In other words - the countries who are making smart data driven decisions are doing a helluva lot better than those whose leaders are primarily concerned with playing politics.
Oh I understand quite well what's happened. The US is not in that bad of shape. Although we could have been in better shape had politicians and techies not started deciding what medicines should suddenly be banned. We are fine, relax a little.
How likely are people going to even want tested in Red areas vs Blue. We had a testing site that hardly anyone was ever at and they shut it down. Meanwhile in what I assume are more Blue areas people waited hours. That bias alone will skew tons of data.
Which Snake Oil are you hawking?
I never thought I’d see anyone argue against having more and better data to help make effective decisions. But it’s 2020, and here you are doing just that. Sad.
Duh. People get tested because they have symptoms or they have been in contact with someone who has it, or they are required for their job. That has been the case withevery person I know who has been tested.
You think people in Texas aren’t trying to get tested? The facts tell a different story. Don’t you realize there is one huge difference between the tiny town you live in and the City you saw on TV? Population.
It’s not a political thing. Well except for the weirdos like you who can only think In those terms.
You are so stupid it hurts.
Probably has already surpassed the amount of coverage the U of I racism story received.
kcbob79clone
Well-Known Member
I got into a tiff with SoundOff who said WHO13 had covered Hawkeye football racism at least a dozen times, so I summarized the 12 times for them
I have heard from people that should know, that when someone donates blood and the blood tests positive for the antibodies, they are reporting that as a current positive COVID case. While I agree that it is evidence they had the virus, the timing of it is impossible to determine, which, IMO, makes the data trends for daily reporting less useful.
Anyone know firsthand if this is legit? Hard to know what to believe anymore.
This sounds like a good way to track total numbers but could muddy up looking at trends. I know some states are not doing that but it varies so much - Seems like every state is doing it different, and some have bugs in software or process like the recent f up that was causing Iowa to under report state numbers. Given it’s an election season im sure some have been intentional.
