I genuinely don’t understand. If we’ve tested 500,000 people in the USA, and 25% are coming back positive (PCR testing) why is it unreasonable to believe that just as many already had the disease, and recovered?
-
-
Because they're not testing a randomized sample of the whole population, you fucking dunce, the shortage of test kits means we only test people we already think might be infected
4 replies 4 retweets 153 likes -
We’ve tested 1/2 million people you nitwit.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NancyARandazzo @arthur_affect and
You don't understand what a sampling bias is at all, do you. Look, those 500k? They're people who are suspected of being contaminated. Either they're showing symptoms, or they've been in contact with people who have.
1 reply 2 retweets 34 likes -
Replying to @TheWeaseKing @NancyARandazzo and
Therefore, they *do not* statistically represent the 330 MILLION people of the country the way a random sample would. That 25% infected? Is of people who are already considered *likely to be infected*.
2 replies 2 retweets 31 likes -
Replying to @TheWeaseKing @arthur_affect and
It doesn’t need reflect the population to in order to demonstrate that we’re not seeing the fatality rate anticipated. If it’s HALF A MILLION and there is no increase in the normal rate of death among that group, it’s enough. Mortality is measured per 100,000
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NancyARandazzo @TheWeaseKing and
What we're seeing right now are deaths of people who were most likely infected 2-3 weeks ago, then tested 1-2 weeks ago. Either the fatality rate is *much higher* than anticipated, or the pool of infected people is *much larger* than the number of known positives.
1 reply 2 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @eaton @NancyARandazzo and
The wide window of asymptomatic spread — the time when someone is infected, infecting others, but showing no symptoms — is what makes it dangerous in an environment where testing has been driven primarily by the emergence of symptoms.
1 reply 0 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @eaton @TheWeaseKing and
I understand this information. Pneumonia is lethal, a top killer in the death rate. “Pneumonia” encompasses bacterial, viral, fungal, x-ray confirmed respiratory failure. What’s wrong with seeing the covid death rate compared to pneumonia?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NancyARandazzo @eaton and
Like, if we had a pie called “pneumonia” and one slice was flu, one slice was bacterial, one slice is covid-19; is the pie itself, the number of respiratory deaths, growing? Do some scientists have access to a live database?
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Why the fuck would you assume there was a fixed size pneumonia pie? Why would such a thing exist? What would put that literally insane notion in your head, that there ever was a divinely enforced pneumonia maximum for any given year
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @NancyARandazzo and
If there is a new source of infections that cause pneumonia, there will be more pneumonia The viruses and bacteria don't all have a big group meeting where they adjust their schedules to make sure they don't step on each other's territory
3 replies 3 retweets 48 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @NancyARandazzo and
no rule that says we can't have two pandemics at once either
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
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.