JW S

NYC is closing schools because the C***d ** infection rate bounced over 3%

You've heard Trump say the reason the rate is growing is because more people are getting tested.......

The RIGHT will criticize NY for closing schools and the LEFT criticize Trump for his statement......

Let's look at this WITHOUT Partisan opinions
............

The infection percentage is based on the number of people who get tested.... There are three methods used (see the attachment)


Now, if your neighbor feels great, if your mother feels great, if your daughter feels great, if people in your church feel great, .....
Are these people going to get tested?
I say NO!

If you have a stopped up sinus, if you feel sluggish, if you coughed this morning, if you have a slight fever but no other real symptoms, are you going to jump in your car and rush down, stand in line with other sick people to be tested? I say No! .... Drive up in your car and wait to get tested?.... I say No!

If though, you have multiple symptoms of C***d **, are you going to be tested? I say Yes!

Soooo, back to the % rates....... For the sake of argument, let's say 75% of the people getting tested feel they have a HIGH % of being positive, but only 3% of those same people actually test positive, then what's the big fuss? That's really a small % of the population..... just 2.25 people out of the 100 who for what ever reason got tested.

Let's bump the numbers from 100 to 1,000 people (to include 900 healthy people the 100 people interact with - 9 people each) and the infection rate becomes 0.225%.

If NYC wants to shut down the schools, wouldn't a better Test Method be to test 100% of every child, teacher, and staff from a number of randomly selected schools to see what a True infection rate is?

And back to Trump.... Doesn't it make sense now... The more tests administered will trigger a higher %rate?

Please see the store original before commenting ........

And for UHH Sake, keep this thread civil!

(Download)

GeorgeH Loc: Jonesboro, GA

A worthy post. But I fear that a civil discussion in The Sewer is extremely unlikely.....

Rose42

That sounds reasonable. We also have to factor in that the test isn't all that reliable. So where does that leave us? How can we assess the true infection rate?

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

We also have to factor in that many employers require weekly testing of employees, others require a test of all employees if one becomes infected. I personally had to test before a medical procedure. It is proper to say the numbers are up because testing is up. Many cases are positive with no symptoms, my brother in law is currently in the hospital with CV19 and is doing well, the rest of his family tested positive with no symptoms, those 6 positives still count as cases.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Cuomo = Non-self awareness, monumental egotism, hatred, bullying, vindictiveness, politically motivated jealousy of Trump, blatant stupidity and hypocritic non-science...

GeorgeH Loc: Jonesboro, GA

Ummm.....In many ways that is a good description of Mr Trump. Just a little editing and, voila!

Mr Trump = Non-self awareness, monumental egotism, hatred, bullying, vindictiveness, politically motivated jealousy of (fill in the name of a successful Democratic governor), blatant stupidity and hypocritic non-science..

Tex-s

The numberphiles have repeatedly noted that evaluation on a single axis is virtually pointless. For instance, this post notes that not everyone with symptoms gets tested and not everyone with C***d gets 'symptoms'. Just these two variables make both the "total cases" and "percent positive test" numbers utterly incomplete metrics, even taken together. The same issue arises when attempting to compare data across regions or nations, as the emphasis on testing, accessibility to testing, and prevalence of asymptomatic infections skews data even before adjusting for other variables like population density, prevalence of commuter traffic, volume of public t***sport, food delivery and pr********n, and worst of all, v***l mutation across time and geography.

The long and short of it, to me at least, is that in the absence of a 100% effective v*****e, and in the absence of 100% compliance with taking said v*****e, people will be getting sick. No amount of caution will stop some folks from contracting the disease, and no one can stop it. Also, to my thinking, anyone who is only counting infections, percentages, and deaths is a charlatan. True public policy has to include fare more axes of evaluation.

Financial (individual), economic (systemic), educational, mental health, family health, health maintenance (dialysis or diabetes for example), sanitation, infrastructure, public defense, and all other concerns in society should also be evaluated before jumping to radical lock-down status. Sadly, though, general death statistics suggest that roughly the same number of older citizens WITHOUT C***d have died alone and without familial contact as have died with. (Do take note, I said 'with' as opposed to 'from'. Just in my tiny community, two older gentlemen on hospice care for terminal cancer were accidentally infected by their travelling caregiver and passed away 36 hours sooner than they might have otherwise and health authorities tried to call it death FROM C***d....) How is it sane policy to assure twice as many elderly folks die alone? How is it the federal advisors have been kept in service when they admit to NOT evaluating any of the peripheral effects of lock-down policy? How do we have a seeming majority of citizens willing to have government overseers mandate life to supposedly free citizens? Even well-intentioned policy can (and IS) terrible precedent.

JW S

Thank you to all of you who put such good thought and time into your replies.

For some odd reason, I was never notified by UHH of a single response.... I only signed on at this late hour out of curiosity if my post was even still there.

I'll most likely read of all these responses again but my general thought is we all agree that the metrics in place tell us very little.