Lakewood covid cases

[S209]

It isn't a question of smarter but that with an active outbreak the lines are long and the inconvenience of testing is higher. this filters out more people.

Leaving who? The same people it leaves everywhere else? What’s your source that that would push the rate higher, not lower?

Also, as mentioned, if the rate goes higher with the rate of testing staying constant because “only those with symptoms are testing” that *still* shows that there’s an outbreak. What exactly is your argument?

[shaulyaakov]

It's extremely frustrating to see how many bad faith arguments there are when we all indicators point to the same thing.

More people are sick, more people are testing positive, a greater percentage of people are testing positive, and more people are in the ICU.

Is there a single indicator that shows otherwise?

[shaulyaakov]

It isn't a question of smarter but that with an active outbreak the lines are long and the inconvenience of testing is higher. this filters out more people.

That's the point.

When more tests are being given and more of them are positive, you've got a problem.

If you tested a lot and nobody was getting a positive test - false alarm.

If testing was slowing, resulting in fewer positives - incomplete.

Using both tests and rates, you can triangular around R(t), which is the only number that really matters.

[4yourinfo]

They continue to run out of tests every day (over 1k tested yesterday) and you want people without symptoms to get tested first? The positive rate is also like 20x higher than the rest of NJ, despite doing so much testing. Usually the more people that test the lower the positive rate goes, as testing capacity goes up, more people with no symptoms are tested. A rising positivity rate along with a rising case rate is always very concerning.

My point is the rate of positive is not a metric that should be used to tell people about the uptick - maybe it should be used to show we need more testing in Lakewood? Obviously it's going to go up when we start hoarding the tests for sick people and that number will climb very fast once we start doing that. It's a metric that is not being used honestly.

[S209]

My point is the rate of positive is not a metric that should be used to tell people about the uptick - maybe it should be used to show we need more testing in Lakewood? Obviously it's going to go up when we start hoarding the tests for sick people and that number will climb very fast once we start doing that. It's a metric that is not being used honestly.

Again, you’re missing the point. If the rate is shooting up that *does* indicate an outbreak; it just doesn’t show the exact dimensions of it.

No, it won’t go up if we hoard them for sick people unless there are very many sick people.

[shaulyaakov]

My point is the rate of positive is not a metric that should be used to tell people about the uptick - maybe it should be used to show we need more testing in Lakewood? Obviously it's going to go up when we start hoarding the tests for sick people and that number will climb very fast once we start doing that. It's a metric that is not being used honestly.

If you're running out of tests due to so many symptomatic people testing...

[4yourinfo]

Leaving who? The same people it leaves everywhere else? What’s your source that that would push the rate higher, not lower?

Also, as mentioned, if the rate goes higher with the rate of testing staying constant because “only those with symptoms are testing” that *still* shows that there’s an outbreak. What exactly is your argument?

No one is saying there isn't an outbreak - the problem is the positive rate climbs very fast due to fact your only testing people with symptoms.. also your not testing the same way in other parts of NJ (they are testing anyone) - so you end up with a real scary number compared to rest of NJ.

[PlatinumGuy]

the positive rate climbs very fast due to fact your not testing the same way in other parts of NJ (they are testing anyone)

That's exactly what's alarming about the positivity rate

[aygart]

Leaving who? The same people it leaves everywhere else? What’s your source that that would push the rate higher, not lower?

Also, as mentioned, if the rate goes higher with the rate of testing staying constant because “only those with symptoms are testing” that *still* shows that there’s an outbreak. What exactly is your argument?

It will raise the bar on how concerned someone is that they have it before they get tested.

My only argument is to be accurate and use metrics that are meaningful. Don't undermine your own argument by having all roads lead to your result.

[aygart]

That's the point.

When more tests are being given and more of them are positive, you've got a problem.

If you tested a lot and nobody was getting a positive test - false alarm.

If testing was slowing, resulting in fewer positives - incomplete.

Using both tests and rates, you can triangular around R(t), which is the only number that really matters.

You do not need to convince me that there is a very serious outbreak going on.

[4yourinfo]

Again, you’re missing the point. If the rate is shooting up that *does* indicate an outbreak; it just doesn’t show the exact dimensions of it.

No, it won’t go up if we hoard them for sick people unless there are very many sick people.

Exactly - and that is not being honest with the public - trying to show very high numbers to get people riled up. When the average Joe doesn't understand that the rate starts climbing very fast due to other factors....Just Adding fuel for those that don't want to listen!

[aygart]

I have not seen the R' Chaim Kanievsky letter, but Arutz Sheva had a summary which included this sentence on masks which I bolded:

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/288194

I’m lazy too (:

[NTorch]

Yes, I posted the Arutz Sheva translation on the masks board and then someone had the actual letter.

The translation is accurate and should to rest the question of Daas Torah and masks.

[S209]

Exactly - and that is not being honest with the public - trying to show very high numbers to get people riled up. When the average Joe doesn't understand that the rate starts climbing very fast due to other factors....Just Adding fuel for those that don't want to listen!

No, the positive rate being sky high *is* very alarming. The other factors only take place an a cascade of new cases.. you’re not offering a coherent reason why positivity would increase if the outbreak wasn’t as proportionately large.

Nobody thinks that if 27% of tests are positive, 27% of the population has it. But it means there’s a massive outbreak, because 27% of [a large cohort of] people *testing* are positive!

[PlatinumGuy]

Nobody thinks that if 27% of tests are positive, 27% of the population has it.

You would hope, but Zelenko fell for that...

[4yourinfo]

No, the positive rate being sky high *is* very alarming. The other factors only take place an a cascade of new cases.. you’re not offering a coherent reason why positivity would increase if the outbreak wasn’t as proportionately large.

Nobody thinks that if 27% of tests are positive, 27% of the population has it. But it means there’s a massive outbreak, because 27% of [a large cohort of] people *testing* are positive!

In order for you to compare a number from the rest of NJ to Lakewood you need to be comparing apples to apples in Lakewood they are not testing asymptomatic people and in other places they are - hence your faulty rate

[aygart]

In order for you to compare a number from the rest of NJ to Lakewood you need to be compaing apples to apples in Lakewood they are not testing asymptomatic people and in other places they are - hence your faulty rate

But why not?

[S209]

Just look at the replies to those touting positivity rate.

Yagati velo matzasi

In order for you to compare a number from the rest of NJ to Lakewood you need to be comparing apples to apples in Lakewood they are not testing asymptomatic people and in other places they are - hence your faulty rate

So what should they do differently? How would they accurately gauge it? If only symptomatic people are testing, total cases wouldn’t be accurate, because that won’t show the whole picture, correct?

[dasmo801]

In order for you to compare a number from the rest of NJ to Lakewood you need to be comparing apples to apples in Lakewood they are not testing asymptomatic people and in other places they are - hence your faulty rate

Are there really places where people wake up in the morning feeling fine and say, "you know what today seems like a great day for a COVID test"? I would imagine most people who are getting tested anywhere are either displaying some symptoms or had some exposure.

[etech0]

Are there really places where people wake up in the morning feeling fine and say, "you know what today seems like a great day for a COVID test"? I would imagine most people who are getting tested anywhere are either displaying some symptoms or had some exposure.

Or are planning to visit relatives for YT and said relatives want them to test beforehand