4 ms·
For any test that is not given randomly or universally, there is a selection bias. A test given based on severity of symptoms bias heavily against patients with
by fspeech 6y ago
For any test that is not given randomly or universally, there is a selection bias. A test given based on severity of symptoms bias heavily against patients with light symptoms, presumably younger people. But to get from 7% (hospitalized to confirmed) to 1 in 500 is a factor of 35. BTW the city of Canton (Guangzhou) just tested all their high school seniors in preparation for school reopenning and found zero positive case so far. And they did find cases among other groups.
I don't think anyone enjoys lockdown. At a minimum we need sufficient testing, sufficient ppes, sufficient surge capacity and training for standard supportive care. We are still quite a ways from that. Even if death is unavoidable people deserve to have reasonably good care.
- mlyle 6y ago> But to get from 7% (hospitalized to confirmed) to 1 in 500 is a factor of 35. This is broadly in the range implied by a number of measures across the entire population. 20x for randomized population sampling (Iceland), 20-80x from serology studies, etc. In this analysis, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.18.20070821v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.18.20070821v... 35x is actually the exact factor that cases are estimated to be under-reported by in California. :P > I don't think anyone enjoys lockdown. At a minimum we need sufficient testing, sufficient ppes, sufficient surge capacity and training for standard supportive care. Here in the SF Bay Area, ICU usage peaked 3 weeks ago, and controls have been tightening. We're well below seasonal norms for ICU usage at this point. Surely the original controls that caused the original trend down in disease would be good enough now, and could even be loosened slightly further to have more parity with other jurisdictions that are successful.