Can someone help me understand the “justification” that “COVID-19 cases are (only) going up because we’re doing more testing”.
In my simple mind it’s kind of like you saying you made 50 free throws to my 46 so you think you’re a better shooter...but then I point out the fact you took 150 shots and I took 60...
In the beginning of this, when tests were at a premium, you only got tested if you presented symptoms.
Before: 10-20 out of every 1000 children tested positive
Today, if a person shows symptoms, we test everyone around them.
Now: 50-60 out of every 1000 children are testing positive
For example:
SPRINGFIELD, Ohio (WKEF/ WRGT) -- The Clark County Combined Health District says 200 employees at the Dole Plant in Springfield have tested positive for COVID-19. One employee tells Dayton 24/7 Now he isn’t surprised that number is growing. “I kind of figured that the numbers would jump after...
dayton247now.com
They rolled in and did ~800 tests, found ~200 cases
There may or may not be more cases now, but we have a more accurate picture. The per capita or per 1000 numbers are increasing because we are testing more, but it doesn't necessarily mean there are more cases than there have ever been. It also doesn't mean that there are not.
In your analogy, you have to take another 90 shots.
It's also difficult to formulate a statistical sample for testing. You can't say "Well, we tested 1000 people, and came up with 10 cases", because we don't know the extent of their possible exposure (i.e. they've been locked in their house for 3 months)
In your analogy, you were shooting free throws on pop-a-shot.
So... we have to test a lot, and we have to repeatedly test to get an accurate account of spread. To control it, we have to take those positive cases and isolate them.
It looks like we are going to go with the
Swedish model instead.