3 ms·
You kinda triggered me here. > That is true, but not enough to change the numbers By definition, if the counting methodology is wrong (in the misleading sense
by efitz 5y ago
You kinda triggered me here.
> That is true, but not enough to change the numbers
By definition, if the counting methodology is wrong (in the misleading sense), then they necessarily DO “change the numbers”
> and certainly not enough to make up for the uncounted cases
The uncounted cases aren’t deaths. Therefore it’s not a question of “making up for” those cases.
In fact, if anything, that makes it worse.
Using a singular value “total number of deaths” is generally misleading when trying to justify public health policy on large populations. A global population of 7-8 billion means that even huge numbers can be insignificant, eg 1 million over 8 billion is only 0.0125%. (Disclaimer: Numbers chose at random; this example does not represent any actual statistic around COVID).
If the cases are being overestimated then it drives the overall impact down.
Numbers and methodology both matter intensely when we’re talking about using the numbers to justify public policy changes.
- listless 5y agoI stated that lazily. If we counted hospitilizations (which I would argue is the number that matters), then they would tell you that those are overcounted because many people go into the hospital with COVID, but that's not what they are there for and many more contract it while there. But the number makes it sound like all those folks are in the hospital BECAUSE of COVID.