Originally Posted by Blue Dawg
So true.
|
|
|
|
|
Used to bullseye Womp Rats back on Tatooine...took more than an air rifle to kill them suckers.
Back here on Earth we used to kill "railroad rats," sometimes called "German rats," they were 2/3 the size of a possum. Killed with a Crossman .17 pellet rifle.
In other news, still in 60 of 64 parishes but other totals are up, including the positive test rate which hit 14%.
REMEMBER: the positive test rate is biased upward because the symptomatic are being tested.
I'm an asshole! What's your excuse?
Same is true with the flu.
Untrue...flu numbers are based on modelling and estimates. We aren't estimating the COVID numbers...they are the raw numbers.
I'm an asshole! What's your excuse?
In this case we are talking about the testing numbers though right. 14% of the people tested are testing positive. I'm not sure how that compares to the flu, but I'm not sure what point is being made here. Yes the flu numbers are not based solely on positive tests. They are based on estimates which are roughly double the number of positive tests.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden...-estimates.htm
“Laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalization rates are obtained from the Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), a collaboration between CDC, the Emerging Infections Program Network, and selected state and local health departments in 13 geographically distributed areas in the United States that conduct population-based surveillance. The network includes hospitals that serve roughly 9% of the U.S. population. The reported numbers of hospitalizations are used to calculate hospitalization rates and the rates are adjusted to correct for under-detection of influenza. This adjustment is done by using the percent of persons hospitalized with respiratory illness who were tested for influenza and the average sensitivity of influenza tests used in the participating FluSurv-NET hospitals.”
The “underdetection” of the model accounts for the sensitivity of the test. It doesn’t say they try to account for those that are asymptomatic. If you don’t have symptoms, what are you doing getting tested?
This is not entirely correct or at least not a correct response to Carteks statement. The hospitalization rates are adjusted based on the sensitivity of the test and the total number of cases are estimated based on the number of hospitalizations. You are correct in stating the flu numbers do not include asymptomatic cases ( I was wrong about this). They are only estimating symptomatic cases, but they are estimating far more than actually test positive. I would say your snippit actually hurts your point. Cartek is correct that they are based on estimates while the Covid numbers are not.
Yep, I think the results are skewed because 1) people who are showing symptoms and/or know they have been exposed are being tested, and 2) most of the tests are being conducted in the heaviest hit regions of the state. But, I believe this has been the case from the beginning so it should be pretty much apples to apples...only, now with the quick test being offered in those drive-throughs, more "average" people are seeking the test. As more of those results come in, we should see the positive test rate trend downward. Let's hope it does....
I don’t disagree that they are based on estimates, but it is an extrapolation based on a data set that is directly tied to testing in a subset, and that subset of testing isn’t accounting for people that aren’t symptomatic.
While COVID is only based on test results (though we can use models ton predict how bad it will get), it actually includes some that are asymptomatic - people that were exposed to known COVID patients even if they themselves never were symptomatic.
You routinely undermine your credibility because you are unable to admit even the slightest error in your thought.
I'm an asshole! What's your excuse?
I love admitting my errors. What was it?
Covid numbers are a biased sample. They are restricting the testing to only those that check all the boxes. Only those that the stats say are likely to die from it. The numbers are mostly junk due to multiple issues. The models based on a biased sample are junk as well....My kid studied the scientific method in school this year... he is a fifth grader. Scientific experiments are based on all things being equal (control the variables, except for the one you are studying). Real life isn’t a laboratory.
Only number that isn’t biased are deaths, except for China number.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
