4 ms·

The thing is, in Japan there is a lot of fluff happening. You can't just get tested unless you meet fairly stringent requirements, or pay for a private clinic.

The thing is, in Japan there is a lot of fluff happening. You can't just get tested unless you meet fairly stringent requirements, or pay for a private clinic. Private clinics aren't required to report numbers, or the government isn't reporting the numbers from private clinics. So if you're living in Japan, you're basically flying blind, it's very hard to ready what's really going on and assess the situation. It's also worth noting that he number of tests performed each day wildly fluctuates between 2000-9000 in Tokyo, so again, it's very hard to read. Weekend testing is far lower than weekday etc. See https://covid19japan.com/ https://covid19japan.com/ for more information. My guess is, Western countries have much more transparent agencies and government watch dogs which help keep things honest, whereas Japan is a grey area when it comes to Government influence over the situation and the perception surrounding it.

mantap 6y ago
Things would be a lot clearer if positivity rate was the reportable number, not absolute number of positive tests. This would also encourage countries to test more rather than less.
- bamboozled 6y ago
  What's the point of a positivity rate in this case though if the testing is so varied. For example, you can't really give an accurate picture if one day 1000 tests are performed and the next day, 9000 ?
  - toyg 6y ago
    Maybe what is wrong is our media-fuelled expectation that we should have perfect day-to-day metrics, rather than 5- or 10-day averages.
    - bamboozled 6y ago
      Well, you can just combine the daily data and extrapolate the results across any time frame you have data points for? Are you suggesting that the media is to blame for something?
      - toyg 6y ago
        It was you who pointed at the day-to-day discrepancies and asked "what's the point then". The point is to have a metric that you can work with in realistic timeframes, e.g. every week or every other week. The day-to-day discrepancy is not a big deal, unless you work in the media and you have to push a daily bulletin to ensure "engagement".
        bamboozled 6y ago
        I think there is a problem with the method though, if you’re selectively testing and changing the number of tests per day, then you’re going to have trouble establishing a useful positivity rate, or am I wrong? There should be some consistency. If the results presented are hourly, daily or weekly, that’s just the resolution of said metric. Maybe you’re arguing there isn’t much point in having higher resolution metrics than weekly but I don’t see how taking more frequent measurements matter, it doesn’t change the outcomes.

mantap 6y ago

Things would be a lot clearer if positivity rate was the reportable number, not absolute number of positive tests. This would also encourage countries to test more rather than less.

bamboozled 6y ago
What's the point of a positivity rate in this case though if the testing is so varied. For example, you can't really give an accurate picture if one day 1000 tests are performed and the next day, 9000 ?
- toyg 6y ago
  Maybe what is wrong is our media-fuelled expectation that we should have perfect day-to-day metrics, rather than 5- or 10-day averages.
  - bamboozled 6y ago
    Well, you can just combine the daily data and extrapolate the results across any time frame you have data points for? Are you suggesting that the media is to blame for something?
    - toyg 6y ago
      It was you who pointed at the day-to-day discrepancies and asked "what's the point then". The point is to have a metric that you can work with in realistic timeframes, e.g. every week or every other week. The day-to-day discrepancy is not a big deal, unless you work in the media and you have to push a daily bulletin to ensure "engagement".
      - bamboozled 6y ago
        I think there is a problem with the method though, if you’re selectively testing and changing the number of tests per day, then you’re going to have trouble establishing a useful positivity rate, or am I wrong? There should be some consistency. If the results presented are hourly, daily or weekly, that’s just the resolution of said metric. Maybe you’re arguing there isn’t much point in having higher resolution metrics than weekly but I don’t see how taking more frequent measurements matter, it doesn’t change the outcomes.