3 ms·
It's a metric of interest, but it's uninteresting if we can't measure it properly. To get a good estimate we'd have to randomly test the population, instead of
by carlmr 6y ago
It's a metric of interest, but it's uninteresting if we can't measure it properly.
To get a good estimate we'd have to randomly test the population, instead of measuring people with symptoms. Since a lot of people are asymptomatic or don't get a test since they don't feel too sick. Picking people at random would give us a good overview of active cases.
In March in Germany they were reporting a doubling of cases on TV every day, but they failed to mention that they had administered almost twice the tests as well. So basically the number we were measuring was the number of tests we could administer, which was naturally rising as testing capacities expanded, not the number of Corona cases.
Deaths just seem way more reliable a measure.
- rossdavidh 6y agoWell you are correct about the reliability factor. In theory, we could have randomly tested, but for reasons that escape me this was done almost nowhere. Deaths is more reliable. However, the metric that is actually at least attempting to measure the underlying reality of interest, here, is not deaths, but cases, that's my only point. But I totally concede that in some cases deaths may be the less bad metric for cases, than confirmed cases.
- Gwypaas 6y agoSweden actually does it. It's PCR tests to track the number and change in ongoing infections in the whole population. 0.9% end of April 0.3% end of May Zero of the tested were infected end of August End of September is being published next week https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/nyheter-och-press/nyhetsarkiv/2020/september/nya-resultat-fran-undersokning-av-forekomsten-av-covid-19-i-sverige/ https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/nyheter-och-press/nyhets...
- ynfnehf 6y agoOn Tuesday, at the press conference, they said that it was 0 in September as well. The more detailed report is published next week.