Jump to content
idlerboat

Corona virus statistics and reality

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, erice said:

show some gumption prissy!

give yourself the timeout you say you need

and know you deserve!

revoke your own internet privileges! 

and stop relying on the spear-tackle 

warburton.gif&f=1&nofb=1

you've said yourself it's illegal

 

Home footage of your first date with Sale how cute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be good if the thread drift ( by everyone) stopped now, I thought thousands of people dying was serious..

If you wish to further reveal parts of your personality, personal political preferences or point scoring..

Start your own thread...

Better..go to SA.   This site deserves better .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Priscilla II said:

You’re just plain simple toxic.

Bitching moaning negative non constructive corrosive crikey you can’t string a cohesive sentence together without reaching into a bare mental cupboard for anything but a large dish heavy with self invented bias and delusion.

What you have is a clinical condition that runs counter stream to the sea creatures that frequent this forum.

Take Erice for a walk maybe his giggle will turn you on.

 

Isn't that exactly what you're doing. How about focusing on the topic.

Your aggressive personal "hate" posts just show you have lost your mind and your arguement.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germany joins the random testing regime . . 

From the FT - 

They will test . .  "a representative study of the broader population.

In determining infection rates, experts currently use models based on data that can quickly become obsolete or incomplete, and they have long argued that spot checks and randomised tests are a better approach." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Germany joins the random testing regime . . 

From the FT - 

They will test . .  "a representative study of the broader population.

In determining infection rates, experts currently use models based on data that can quickly become obsolete or incomplete, and they have long argued that spot checks and randomised tests are a better approach." 

Yes, If you are not doing random testing you are not getting  true optics on the whole community. Therefore you may look good initially as rates drop and your curve flattens but then when you drop back to level 2 boom! ... The unknown infected just spread the disease and you are back at level 4....  With another hit on the economy to the tune of 100s of billions.

 

This, I fear, is where NZ is going.

It not what you know but what you don't that gets you in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prediction, Cindy, in her reactionary mode, will suddenly realise that other countries are doing random testing and want a piece of the action and announce random testing.

Probably within the next 48hour.

She will also say... We are leading the world on this as part if the/her media promotion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Ed has said previously it is largely pointless in comparign countries. For no other reason than the testing regimes are all quite different. 

I also don't place much credibility in studing the number of cases as an absolute number in anycase.  As NZS stresses, one of the influences on number of positive tests, is the number of tests taken.  It won't be linear but it will increase (eg. in NZ's case if you carried out no tests then the number of +'ves would, by definition be zero.  If you did 100 tests you'd get a number of positives (probably quite a high percentage becasue they would be targetted). If you tested 4000 you would geat a greater number).  So the metric you are measuring is not controlled.

You "might" be able improve the data quality by removing those +'ves fromn people who were defined (somehow) as "asymtopic"

This is why I prefer to normalise the +'ve data set by the number of tests.  I've asked people I know (who in turn know other people, etc.) to try and get the MoH to generate another data set that relates the +'ve test (confirmed or probable) to the date the test was taken - we'll see.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...