Coronavirus cases are likely artificially low in some states thanks to flawed testing

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Mapping coronavirus numbers across the USA reveals stark variations in reported cases between counties separated by state lines.

Take Minnehaha County in South Dakota, where more than 2,100 positive cases have made it a hot spot for the novel coronavirus. Just east, across the border into Minnesota, Rock and Pipestone counties report only a handful of cases.

Along Louisiana’s western border, De Soto and Caddo parishes report hundreds of COVID-19 patients. Yet numbers suggest the virus has barely crossed into counties over the Texas line.

A USA TODAY Network analysis of COVID-19 case counts found similar disparities along Pennsylvania’s northeast border with New York, at the corner connecting Wyoming and Utah and where Mississippi meets Louisiana. The analysis underscores the reality that flaws with testing and accurate case reporting has resulted in unreliable data that can give the false impression that certain areas are less affected by the virus.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/health-news/coronavirus-cases-are-likely-artificially-low-in-some-states-thanks-to-flawed-testing/ar-BB13Amd3?li=BBnb7Kz

[mr_lebowski]

1. And how do they know for certain?

Just curious ...



What they're calling 'reality' seems more like a guess ...

"The analysis underscores the reality that flaws with testing and accurate case reporting has resulted in unreliable data that can give the false impression that certain areas are less affected by the virus"

[Igel]

2. Because they've been testing mostly the sick, but then ramped up testing.

As they increased testing, they were still testing mostly the sick. In other words, lots of symptomatic people weren't being tested.

As they continue to increase testing, if the prevalence of COVID stays constant you'd get the positive/total ratio decreasing. It's the ratio you look for.

All kinds of experts constantly said that the case count wasn't a useful number and said nothing very useful--it didn't help treatment and it didn't help contact tracing. What's left is psychological, people like knowing the name of the thing. "What do I have, doctor?" when met with "I don't know, so I'll treat the symptoms" doesn't help people feel any better. But "What do I have, doctor?" met with "You have glopet disease, so I'll treat the symptoms" gets a sigh of relief. Or even if they think they know what glopid disease is, caused by the gram-imaginary Glopetus inphectiensis, they'll still say, "OMG, it's fatal ... But it's better to know."

[Tipperary]

3. Of course they are.

Not to mention a complete lack of testing.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

4. Add to that, the deliberate deceptions to appease the Grotesque Orange Pustule.