Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

edhopper

(33,575 posts) Fri Mar 20, 2020, 09:32 PM Mar 2020

"Of those tested"

That is why we have no idea of the real numbers.

2 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"Of those tested" (Original Post) edhopper Mar 2020 OP

Of those tested Turbineguy Mar 2020 #1

The only way to know the infection rate is to do random sampling - not those presenting erronis Mar 2020 #2

Turbineguy

(37,322 posts)

1. Of those tested

Reply to edhopper (Original post)

Fri Mar 20, 2020, 09:38 PM

Mar 2020

90-93% are negative. A lot more people think they are sick than actually are.

But there are likely a lot of people who have it but are not getting a test.

And you're right, we really don't know the exact number. But maybe we can use the numbers we have. I look for a decline in the infection rate. I look for an increase in the recoveries.

erronis

(15,241 posts)

2. The only way to know the infection rate is to do random sampling - not those presenting

Reply to edhopper (Original post)

Fri Mar 20, 2020, 10:22 PM

Mar 2020

with symptoms.

10,000 random tests throughout the US of a very diverse population.

Need to include transients, homeless, well-to-do, all classes, all ages, rural, urban.

Repeat in 5, 10, 15 days.

That would be a minimum.

Instead we're getting selective testing; mainly rich/famous people and dumpsters.

Reply to this discussion