What am I missing here ???? 82 jump in here and correct me if wrong , please
But what I don't understand is they only want you to get tested IF your think you may have been exposed or show signs of having it -- right ?
So , my understanding is that it's most contagious in the early stages - before you show signs , maybe 4 to 6 days .
So how can the numbers be accrete if ONLY testing the ones that think they have it ?
First of all, I agree that everyone should be getting tested (or as close to everyone as possible), whether or not an individual has noticed or reported any symptoms. We need to maximize the number of people in all areas getting tested. For sure.
However, we can estimate with some accuracy what the infection rate is through statistical testing of the data we do manage to collect. Its not perfect but it can still give us an idea of what's happening. So, basically, we can collect all demographic information possible on the people who have been tested, then subset the data into meaningful groups, and run statistical tests on the data to look for significant patterns and relationships. The results from that can be used to make predictions about the broader population.
That kind of data mining and statistical testing won't clarify any of the "how" or "why" questions surrounding infection but it can at least tell you what its doing in a population.
Now to gather data - you replicate your testing over and over to get a base line - so to speak and then you can follow what your data is saying to what works and what don't , Now if one aren't testing the same as the other - then , to me , its not a true picture - it's called apples to apples and what we have now is apples to lemons . Right ?
Are you referring to different kinds of tests being used? Or that a single test isn't producing the same results?
Example from our local TV station - they told how many tests that had been administered in South Korea , then compare that to how many had been tested in ONLY Indiana ! Hold on here Nelly ! They are comparing a whole country to our state - Anybody could figured that one out ! Bad info !
Well, its not necessarily an invalid comparison. However, without knowing why they were making that comparison, I don't think I can say it was a good, neutral, or bad comparison.
Maybe they were comparing it based on tests per capita, which would be a way to normalize the data and would be valid. Maybe the comparison was based on shared demographics - similar relative size of different age groups, similar population sizes of major cities, similar geographical distribution of population(s). Details like that could make the comparison more robust.
If they were just making a blanket comparison then, no, I'd have to say that's unlikely to be valid, and it certainly isn't helpful to anyone to make those kinds of broad, sweeping statements / comparisons.
I whole heartedly agree. We should be testing as many people as possible and it seems like there are people who understand that and they are working to get us there. Unfortunately, there have been some unnecessary barriers and willfully ignorant leaders further overcomplicating the process. But hopefully that's being sorted out and will improve - it seems like we're getting there!