3 ms·

> Tangential, but has Florida started accurately reporting their cases, hospitalizations and deaths instead of under-reporting them? Doesn't matter IMO. What m

> Tangential, but has Florida started accurately reporting their cases, hospitalizations and deaths instead of under-reporting them? Doesn't matter IMO. What matters is the change-in-percent. If Florida's "undercount" is 300% higher this week than last week, that's all the evidence we need, as long as the "undercount" remained consistent. The exact number isn't important. Its the change in numbers we can look at and rely upon. If you don't trust the numbers, you can still trust the change-in-numbers. Its not important to get exact numbers. Its more important to remain consistent in your reporting through these crisis. We care about apples-to-apples comparisons within the state, not against different states. A 300% rise is a 300% rise.

heavyset_go 5y ago
I agree that you can glean trends from inaccurately reported data, but I'm asking because I want to know if there is a source that is attempting accurate reporting in Florida, or if Florida is counting things differently than they were a while ago.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Any state with more than 5% positive is underreporting cases however. You need 95% of your cases to be negative if you expect any accuracy in your case%. If you're at 10% positive or 15% positive, then if you double your testing, you double your cases. 10% positive suggests a testing-kit shortage. That's what's going on in my state, we've begun to ration testing-kits. We only give out testing kits to those with symptoms. --------- At some point, your hospital systems favor the individual's health over accurate reporting of statistics. Under such circumstances, it becomes important to use alternative measures for how bad the surge is. Focusing on "% change" is one of the most effective ways of factoring in this issue.
  - smorgusofborg 5y ago
    I don't really get why the positive test rate is not supposed to have gone up significantly with availability of at home tests. Shortages of at home tests would naturally lower it again, but isn't this a useless number now that we don't know how many people used tests they already had at home to skip being in the negative reported results?

heavyset_go 5y ago

I agree that you can glean trends from inaccurately reported data, but I'm asking because I want to know if there is a source that is attempting accurate reporting in Florida, or if Florida is counting things differently than they were a while ago.

dragontamer 5y ago
Any state with more than 5% positive is underreporting cases however. You need 95% of your cases to be negative if you expect any accuracy in your case%. If you're at 10% positive or 15% positive, then if you double your testing, you double your cases. 10% positive suggests a testing-kit shortage. That's what's going on in my state, we've begun to ration testing-kits. We only give out testing kits to those with symptoms. --------- At some point, your hospital systems favor the individual's health over accurate reporting of statistics. Under such circumstances, it becomes important to use alternative measures for how bad the surge is. Focusing on "% change" is one of the most effective ways of factoring in this issue.
- smorgusofborg 5y ago
  I don't really get why the positive test rate is not supposed to have gone up significantly with availability of at home tests. Shortages of at home tests would naturally lower it again, but isn't this a useless number now that we don't know how many people used tests they already had at home to skip being in the negative reported results?