4 ms·
Still, there's no reason to say that any of these selection criteria result in sample sizes big enough to be statistically relevant against larger populations.
by ssalka 7y ago
Still, there's no reason to say that any of these selection criteria result in sample sizes big enough to be statistically relevant against larger populations. Also, testing "people with travel history to affected areas" does not amount at all to being a representative segment.
Santa Clara's results are basically only useful for Santa Clara. _Maybe_ the Bay Area in addition, but not really any farther.
So, we DO need surveillance testing, on a much wider scale, across the US and globally to be frank.
- maxerickson 7y agoThe poster up thread is claiming that the surveillance testing in Santa Clara lead California to act as if there was community transmission. That's super useful information when most testing is using restrictive criteria like travel to affected areas. They aren't arguing that it was enough, they are pointing at it as an example of what broader testing can help do, if only it existed. So I don't really understand your refutational tone ("Still", "relevant", "only useful", "DO", etc). Is one of us misunderstanding the flow of the thread?
- blaser-waffle 7y agoYou are getting downvoted because you're arguing for global surveillance, which is not a popular topic on this board. And that doesn't include some real fears of actual dictator-ish moves, with COVID as a justification.
- ferzul 7y agoi'm not scared that hungary might use covid-19 as a justification to abandon democracy in exchange for dictatorship. i see they did. an observation is a terrible thing.