WBUR: Broad Institute: Positive Rate Less Than 1 In 1,000 Among New England College Coronavirus Tests

Ok, for those of you in the back... "state wide [but not random and certainly not everybody in the state nor representative of everybody in the state]" testing rate of 1% vs "every college student" testing rate of 0.1% means NOTHING.... it does not mean that there are fewer per cases per 100,000 in either direction. PLEASE stop comparing positivity test rates that cannot rationally be compared. Look at this a different way: would you compare 2 polls about the importance wearing glasses when one is conducted among people who are going into a LensCrafters in Malden vs people who are going to going to Market Basket in Somerville and come to the conclusion that people in Malden have more eye problems than those in Somerville?

https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2020/08/31/broad-institute-college-students-positive-thousand?fbclid=IwAR0eYZzT-qYE8iGFgox-NBtrgClBHKoS3K83WLLeT5rc4KU8axXvXgdlHzI

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Switching to Wastewater Monitoring Only

Case counts were already somewhat misleading so, if people were actually paying attention to the wastewater and had a target and/or threshold for concern, that would actually be potentially a more reasonable thing to monitor... with that in mind, let's look at some time points to try to find some measures to consider.  Let's start with establishing a few thresholds.   Early on in the pandemic, we said 8 cases per 100,000 people per day was the highest threshold of concern (ie, that was the introduction to the highest risk-rating we had).  Later, we relaxed this a bit because we realized that this would keep us on high alert and never allow us to go back to normal ... sort of like saying that everybody is smoking so the threshold that for risking cancer shouldn't be smoking 3 cigarettes a day but instead should be a pack a day.  Based on this relaxing of concern, let's go ahead and add in 16 cases per 100,000 people per day as a threshold to monitor for, just as we did w
Read more

MA Wastewater Tracking (23-Jan-2024 data)

Image
See that little uptick at the end of each graph? This didn't happen in 2022 but did in 2023. We understood the goal in 2022 (to some degree) but since ... is there some portion of the population who says "covid spread must be down so let's go nuts"? I suspect this is partially colleges reconvening their students on campuses where in 2022 they were still trying to get their students to maintain some precautions and they haven't been since... but I also don't think this is just college campuses.
Read more

Fun with MA COVID-19 Reporting 18-Jun-2020 edition

For those of you who like to see fun with numbers and accounting of Covid cases in Massachusetts (and also to get depressed in the morning)... Yesterday's report included an increase in the overall number of probable and confirmed cases of 266 an increase in the overall number of confirmed cases of 180 a change in the number of confirmed and probable cases that were originally traced to the last 44 days of 171 That means that at least 9 newly found confirmed cases and at least 78 OTHER newly found probable cases FROM BEFORE 44 DAYS AGO were uncovered sometime between 4pm on Tuesday and 4pm on Wednesday. Once we get past 4 days, we only see single-digit increases/decreases in uncovered cases so those numbers seem to be relatively static. We are likely to get to the 7,750 dead mark today and the 8,000 dead mark by early July. Daily hospital admissions has only slightly decreased in the last 44 days but our number of people remaining in the hospital on a given day has decreased from a
Read more