3 ms·
I wish they had some confidence intervals on here. The variance between Bay Area counties (or over time) is quite high - it's rather dubious that Alameda County
by usaar333 7y ago
I wish they had some confidence intervals on here. The variance between Bay Area counties (or over time) is quite high - it's rather dubious that Alameda County was at 1.8% while SF was at 0% a week ago.
Indeed, numbers > 1% for symptomatic patients in the Bay Area a week ago are implausible (likely over a magnitude too high) given confirmed case counts since then.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y agoEvery attempt I'm aware of to do a general population survey has indicated that confirmed case counts really are at least an order of magnitude lower than the real spread. I don't think it's a possibility we can reject out of hand - frankly I'm starting to swing to the position that it's been proven true.
- usaar333 7y agoMost general population surveys have suffered from heavy self-selection bias or insufficient specitivity. In the early days, yes, the Bay Area was probably missing 90% of cases. Testing has ramped up though (it's pretty easy to get a test if your symptomatic), so I don't believe we're missing 90% of symptomatic cases [as defined by this survey] at this point (which is part of the reason that new cases/day have remained stable while hospitalization numbers are dropping). Think about it: if people take a survey that says they have covid symptoms, wouldn't they get tested?
- SpicyLemonZest 7y agoI'm just not sure you're applying consistent standards here. Going to a coronavirus test center on medical advice suffers from much stronger self-selection bias and generally unreported specificity.
- thadk 7y agoMany of the numbers have denominators in the underlying data: https://observablehq.com/@thadk/facebook-covid-survey-data-from-map https://observablehq.com/@thadk/facebook-covid-survey-data-f...