Reply With Quote
I will go out fighting.
Sure am. Lololol. 2 weeks. Then all the people that have recovered will lose immunity and the human race will cease to exist.
Just stay inside until the virus gets you.
I will go out fighting.
How stupid does everyone look now who ran out to buy tons of toilet paper and beef?
Idiots.
Move to Chaz or Chod?
Should they be worried about their toilet paper going bad or something?
I think they'll morph the name to Chode. We'll be free to create a whole new world were everyone is equal and there will be no fighting because we all see ourselves in others. I'm bringing my AR-15.
Sure, that's exactly what I meant. If you got caught up in the stupidity and panic, that's fine. It doesn't make it a sensible act just because you participated.
It's the diverge in positive results from testing over time. ie: A month ago you tested X amount and Y% of them tested positive. Two weeks ago you tested the same X amount and now you get 2Y%, then now you tested the same X amount and you get 3Y% or 4Y%.
Over time, it allows you to calculate what the R value is, and whether the infection rate is going up or down. Whereas you could argue the positive test count increased because you did more testing, the rate of positives over total tests, spread over time time indicates whether infections are increasing or decreasing.
I disagree. What you're saying would be true in a closed study with a controlled group and one reporting scheme. When you look at how it's being done, with dynamic reporting schemes that change based on political pressure to report or not report based on changing criteria, then consider that pockets of people could have easily been infected and just not tested, then suddenly you hit those pockets of infected and/or those even without severe symptoms are now being tested, the formula isn't as cut and dry.
It seems the input has changed so it stands to reason the output would change, and there's no reason to believe (that I've seen) the change would be linear or track testing to positives.
It could still pan out that infections are increasing and increased testing isn't the reason for the stats, but I feel a lot of important considerations where data is being gathered, how it's being gathered and how consistently the schemes are applied between reporting en ies, is being overlooked for the bigger picture of a smoothed trend chart or one tell-all number. This pandemic has caused me to distrust groups and experts I'd not have questioned before, simply because of how they have been revealed to trick numbers based on their political or career needs.
Toilet paper doesn't go bad. Stocking up on like that makes logical sense for the individual even if it's re ed for the whole.
Your disagreement is noted, but the math isn't that complicated. What's perhaps more complicated is to source the numbers to do the actual math (and even then, if multiple people processing said numbers reach the same ballpark, there's little reason for doubt). You don't have to be on a controlled group, the underlying math doesn't really change, because we're talking about basic statistics. You could argue we had relatively bad numbers initially because of the lack of testing (the testing wasn't enough to sample enough meaningful data, which is the main reason I mentioned very early it was dangerous to be lagging on testing) but the opposite, increased testing, is actually a net positive no matter how you look at it, or how people want to spin it.
As far as the politics, I'm much less concerned overall. The reality is that the virus doesn't care about your party affiliation, whether you want hide or pump the numbers, or anybody's feelings. Forging death certificates isn't something you can hide for very long, especially when there's family involved, and they received a diagnosis while the person was still alive. On the other hand, most people don't understand the difference between positive counts vs positive rates, or even basic statistics, so it's certainly easy to lie to them, especially the gullible kind who's looking for confirmation bias over anything else.
Our testing capacity did not suddenly quadruple overnight anyway. We've been testing pretty robustly within the hospital for many weeks now. And with a full, or near full census, we've gone from a grand total of zero positive covid inpatients two weeks ago to now around twenty - many in the 30-40s age range. And that's just at my small facility.
I will fight this virus. I will visit as many venues as I can while in my most infectious state and physically show my parents and friends how brave I am.
I AM, MAN.
ALPHA MAN.
Thanks for helping us get to the other side of this
nm read that graph wrong
It will be interesting to see if death rates even out as the pandemic progresses.
You cannot do this for a mul ude of reasons.
1. R value is a range that takes years to establish.
2. You cant calculate 1 because new daily rates aren't new daily rates. They are backlogged.
3 you cannot calculate because ab tests are mixed in. And backlogged.
4. You can not calculate because positive cases are cou ted positive without a test
**In creased positives can also be identified as an increase through hotspot testing and not reporting negatives. **
Are cases going up. Probably. Is it a concern, should not be.
It's weird how you take some things that are true (1-4) and use them come to a completely wrong conclusion.
There is nothing posted that is wrong.
You can absolutely do that, even when some of 1-4 might be true. Like SnakeBoy said, it only takes either a very stupid or very disingenuous person to list all that and come to the conclusion that you have.
To be fair, that person could be very stupid and very disingenuous.
true, tbh... could also disappear for months on end when embarrassed too.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
