4 ms·
I understand what you're saying but I have to say it sounds a lot like nitpicking. It's highly doubtful that among the 73% infected there is a relevant portion
by rumanator 7y ago
I understand what you're saying but I have to say it sounds a lot like nitpicking. It's highly doubtful that among the 73% infected there is a relevant portion of false positives, and I stress that the key point is the relevância because the vírus spreads like wildfire on mass gatherings and US prisons are designer to keep the prison population gatherings en masse. Thus it doesn't make any diferença if the infection rate is 73% or 53% or 33%, because the nature of the problema makes it unavoidable that the infection rate will go from 0 to 100% in a few days.
- tom_mellior 7y agoI don't understand why you think this is nitpicking. If we test for the wrong thing, we will get garbage data about infection rates, disease severity, and death rates. If we test for the wrong thing, we will make garbage decisions about whom to isolate and how. You can see that the submitter tried to spin this article by adding "0 deaths so far", apparently trying to suggest that "the coronavirus" is not as deadly as we think. But for this determination it's very relevant which coronavirus we are talking about. I don't doubt that 73% of the inmates carry a coronavirus that causes the common cold. But that information doesn't tell us anything about the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Since different coronaviruses have different rates of infectiousness, your conclusion of 100% in a few days is also only just a guess. If you test, you must test properly.