I would think that if you do more testing you will naturally find more cases even if there aren't actually more people infected. No?
We need to do more testing but also expect that more positives (raw count) will show up.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Wenche
- Start date
I would think that if you do more testing you will naturally find more cases even if there aren't actually more people infected. No?
We need to do more testing but also expect that more positives (raw count) will show up.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
Did I miss something? Please quote the post you're referring to when making such accusations!
I too wish our president would take this more seriously and encourage responsible behavior. Honestly though I doubt even getting COVID-19 would change his behavior.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Fortunately that's not what I said!
Initially positives should go up, but the measure of success is them coming down. They can't just keep tracking with the number of tests (fixed % or even decreasing % is not ok). Positivity has to decrease more than inversely to the number of tests performed. You keep increasing testing (etc.) until that starts to happen, and then you increase testing (etc.) more. The faster the better.
I would not be surprised if we need more than 3 million tests a day in this country (with the current integrated outbreak size) to get it handled and down to zero cases.
I should add that the federal government incident command should be coordinating from the top to reallocate test resources from state to state, to drive positivity down, as much as possible in all locations, particularly the ones with rapidly expanding outbreaks (resources have higher return if you can squash what would become a large outbreak before it becomes one, rather than doing surveillance on a place that doesn't have high disease levels at the current time). It's possible to test "too much" in some places (when resources are limited), but obviously we need more tests, not just better test distribution. Ideally there should be no practical limitations on getting a test. I'm not even sure why people are still worrying about how much a test costs - it should be all free. (There are significant risks to getting a test, and it's unpleasant, so not just anyone is going to get one, and there's not likely to be much waste.)
Last edited:
Yes that’s an expected trend, but you need to drill down to expected amounts. Let’s say there are 15k infections in the wild. If you do 100 tests you can do them only on people who reported all the symptoms. You might get 50% or even more positive rate.
If you go to 200 tests it’s probably going to be the same rate, you can find another 100 people that are just about as sick.
if you do 30k tests your rate is going to go down. The testing pool gets worse at this scale, many people getting tested will only have vague or even no symptoms (maybe traveled or just curious). Maybe just 5% of the tests will be positive.
if you do 60k tests yes the number goes up, but unlike the jump from 100 to 200, the 30k-60k set of people are less sick or have had less contact with sick people than the first half. So maybe you get 1500 positives from the first 30k same as before and then 750 from the second 30k for an average positive rate of 3.8%.
That’s how you’d expect it to work. Now in the past month CA has gone from 30k to 60k tests a day and yet they are still at ~5% test positivity. Seems to suggest slowly growing in disease burden. Hospitalization is holding steady though so maybe CA is keeping the growing cases isolated to younger demographics. Or maybe everyday they can find a second 30k of people all about as likely to be sick as the first 30k. CA is sitting on the edge of glory or defeat, I think.
Last edited:
Predicting the future case rates is hard but even harder is predicting the financial market implications...
When do the AZ, TX, FL, and potential (slow burn) CA outbreaks currently growing change the macro economic expectations? Hard to say. And when is the change severe enough to overcome accommodative federal reserve policy? Tough question!
I guess the next significant event would most likely be the outbreaks cause a government ordered or just effective ‘shutdown’. The V-shaped narrative would be severely challenged by that. If it is voluntary based on consumer choice I guess you might not know until jobless claims go up for a second, probably smaller, peak. Maybe such an effect is so minor to be in the noise of the fallout of the first unemployment shock. I personally don’t like the upside/downside on valuations right now.
When do the AZ, TX, FL, and potential (slow burn) CA outbreaks currently growing change the macro economic expectations? Hard to say. And when is the change severe enough to overcome accommodative federal reserve policy? Tough question!
I guess the next significant event would most likely be the outbreaks cause a government ordered or just effective ‘shutdown’. The V-shaped narrative would be severely challenged by that. If it is voluntary based on consumer choice I guess you might not know until jobless claims go up for a second, probably smaller, peak. Maybe such an effect is so minor to be in the noise of the fallout of the first unemployment shock. I personally don’t like the upside/downside on valuations right now.
Death rate of covid-19 among people who work (not elderly or disabled) is low.
"As of May 20, officials have publicly linked at least 15,300 COVID-19 infections to 192 U.S. meatpacking plants, according to tracking by the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting. At least 63 workers have died" Less than half of one percent. I believe this is why cases in America are up but deaths are down. Higher percentage of physically able people catching the virus now that bars and nightclubs are open in some states. Elder care facilities getting more attention from the state governments helping to lower deaths. IFR should continue to drop this summer.
Cheap chicken, beef came at a cost. How American meat plants bred coronavirus hot spots.
"As of May 20, officials have publicly linked at least 15,300 COVID-19 infections to 192 U.S. meatpacking plants, according to tracking by the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting. At least 63 workers have died" Less than half of one percent. I believe this is why cases in America are up but deaths are down. Higher percentage of physically able people catching the virus now that bars and nightclubs are open in some states. Elder care facilities getting more attention from the state governments helping to lower deaths. IFR should continue to drop this summer.
Cheap chicken, beef came at a cost. How American meat plants bred coronavirus hot spots.
Americans are the White Males of the world.
Espouse stupid shitake confidently.
Exhibit reckless behavior.
Like to mansplain about "Freedom" to the rest of the world.
Yet despite it all they still manage to end up on top because they are born on third base.
No we did not hit a triple.
Thank you for proving my point, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this thread has gone completely off the rails.
I half expect to see more explicit "Critical Theory" or Postmodernism explanations of pandemics next. Where's the popcorn...?
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I agree it is partly that, but it's also because we found more of the cases 2-3 weeks ago than we found 3-5 weeks ago.
In addition, these populations would have been very well tested so you're getting a bunch of the asymptomatic and mild infections, so you can't compare this CFR to the ~5.5% CFR, even if you were to reduce the age brackets you were looking at, to just look at the working class CFR. The generic CFR for the working class bracket for cases to date nationwide will likely be higher than 0.5%. Due to the testing coverage in meat-packing plants.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
Just ignore the rants. Some people just need to vent.
I think if you look objectively the majority of posts are not “off the rails.”
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
HG Wells
Martian Embassy
Wonder when the market will pay attention to these rising numbers ?
Especially airlines and hotels.
Especially airlines and hotels.
Some people will stop doing things they perceive as dangerous. That’s whether the government orders or recommends it or not. But quite a large number of people already viewed these sorts of leisure activities as dangerous. So with new cases are you getting significant new people to cancel?
Not clear we are at that level yet. If we continue to see growth at the current rate, seems inevitable to me. Market prices change when expected future $ changes. They don’t change on case levels until that changes the expected $
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Personally I think the market is in for an unpleasant surprise, but I’ve been wrong since about April.
Can’t fight the Fed I suppose!
Still, seems more likely than not to end in tears. However, if you’re in it for the long haul, probably best to just load up and sit tight.
I’m still hoping beyond hope that somehow there will be enough testing to squelch these latest outbreaks. Maybe the market is too?
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
How is that so different than those who refuse to wear masks and social distance despite the risk of sickening or killing others?
I notice that has never been mentioned in your posts
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
If "they" is someone in China then yes. Never the federal government of China.
Contrast to the US where the White House Sociopath is the main purveyor of lies and conspiracy garbage.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Yes.
BUT
1. It would be distinctly unusual if the percentage of positives did not decrease
2. It would not affect hospitalizations or deaths
Also, the recent data appears to show a decrease in mean age of the new infections so e.g the hospitalization rate is not only a lagging indicator of infections, it is also gaining a negative bias due to the lesser severity of infection that is seen in younger people.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Dr. J
Active Member
Probably, but this is: Counties can require stores to require masks of customers and employees. One is a right, the other is an obligation.
Similar threads
