What we care most about is prevalence and risk (morbidity/mortality). Testing people as they drive up to a tent indeed teaches us little about prevalence or risk, not to mention asymptomatic shedding and transmission. The errors are so large, we can't plan.
I'm not sure I understand. My point is that we have a reasonable understanding of what the morbidity/mortality is likely to be - it may not be perfect, but it is also not nothing
-
-
We disagree on the uncertainty in those estimates of population morbidity/mortality, transmission & prevalence. Yes, it's not perfect & it's not nothing but as I said in my very first tweet it's "very little." The error bars are wide & they would be less so if we sampled smartly.
-
It's not very little at all. For example, I'd say from the data we have now that the CFRs for 60+ are consistent and likely to be within relatively small margins of error
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.