Lakewood covid cases

[4yourinfo]

But why not?

Here we go -
Cause Lakewood has a huge outbreak!! But, are you telling people when you represent "the rate of positive" that once there's an outbreak we only test symptomatic people so the number will be much higher than the rest of NJ? And it's unfair to continue comparing it to the rest of NJ when there's a different protocol who we can test?

[4yourinfo]

Yagati velo matzasiSo 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?

Get more tests and allow everyone to test as in other places, and they we have an accurate comparison.

[yuneeq]

Here we go -
Cause Lakewood has a huge outbreak!! But, are you telling people when you represent "the rate of positive" that once there's an outbreak we only test symptomatic people so the number will be much higher than the rest of NJ? And it's unfair to continue comparing it to the rest of NJ when there's a different protocol who we can test?

Everyone was able to get tested everywhere including Lakewood. But because of the massive outbreak, they ran out of tests even after increasing the test count, so they needed to limit the tests to symptomatic patients in some testing locations. 27% positive rate along with tests running out means there's so many more cases going around that aren't able to be tested. The positive rate is meant to provide insight along with other data, and it's doing a very good job of that right now.

[Lurker]

@4yourinfo There are 3 types of people who test: healthcare workers, people who have reason the believe they may have gotten sick, and people who need to prove they didn't get sick (for whatever reason). The positivity rate is not a metric that tells you how many people are sick. It's a flag that tells you when the infection's prevalence in a certain area is rising, falling, or staying steady. When the positivity rate starts to climb, that means there is an increase of infected people among the 3 groups who test. Under any circumstances, a rise in rates is alarming. When the rate doubles, triples, or spikes even higher, that is an indicator of an outbreak in that area. It's not an absolute confirmation, as there may be mitigating factors, but it's an alarm. When that rate stays high for a number of days, it is an indication that a serious outbreak has begun in that area. The only reason it is used as a metric amongst the government types is because it is their only way of knowing when the virus is coming or going.

[S209]

Here we go -
Cause Lakewood has a huge outbreak!! But, are you telling people when you represent "the rate of positive" that once there's an outbreak we only test symptomatic people so the number will be much higher than the rest of NJ? And it's unfair to continue comparing it to the rest of NJ when there's a different protocol who we can test?

There isn’t a different protocol- there are more people with the virus!!

What do you think percent positive is supposed to help gauge?

Get more tests and allow everyone to test as in other places, and they we have an accurate comparison.

They are getting more tests. But it’s a perfectly accurate comparison. You know where they don’t need more tests? Everywhere but Lakewood.

[etech0]

Why not compare the percent of positives / population?

[S209]

Why not compare the percent of positives / population?

What do you mean? How would that help @4yourinfo ?

[etech0]

What do you mean? How would that help @4yourinfo ?

idk if it would, but wouldn't that counteract some of the factors/issues of which people are testing?

[S209]

idk if it would, but wouldn't that counteract some of the factors/issues of which people are testing?

You mean to take the positive rate number as the numerator and population as the denominator?

[Afrages6]

Nobody is testing for fun. People get tested if they have symptoms. The positivity rate is a key metric as is estimates how much of the population is getting covid vs. a common cold. It's a huge reach to say that Lakewood and BP are being "smarter" than everyone and only testing people who were symptomatic.

To your other point, both metrics (number of new cases and positivity rate) tell part of the story. Taken together, they offer a good window into the state of things. If the number of cases is increasing, AND the rate of positives are BOTH increasing, that's a clear sign of an outbreak.

This is simply wrong. New York encourages everyone to get a test and the governor has taken pride in the fact that they pulled people off the street and got them tested.

[aygart]

What do you mean? How would that help @4yourinfo ?

Why is anything about how it helps or doesn't help an argument instead of how it helps or doesn't help us get to the truth?

[shaulyaakov]

I think the pushback is using the exact number in the positivity rate to make decisions.

I agree - it's value is  directional by nature. In this case, it's clear what the data is saying. This should be open and shut. We're not arguing about 1% and 1.5% here. The state wide number vs. the Lakewood numbers aren't even close.

[Lurker]

This is simply wrong. New York encourages everyone to get a test and the governor has taken pride in the fact that they pulled people off the street and got them tested.

I've seen stories about that for antibodies, but not for infections. Any links?

[4yourinfo]

What do you think percent positive is supposed to help gauge?
They are getting more tests. But it’s a perfectly accurate comparison. You know where they don’t need more tests? Everywhere but Lakewood.

Huh? Your right - there's a reason why it's going up..but there are other factors in the equation not comparing apples to apples.

[aygart]

I think the pushback is using the exact number in the positivity rate to make decisions.

I agree - it's value is  directional by nature. In this case, it's clear what the data is saying. This should be open and shut. We're not arguing about 1% and 1.5% here. The state wide number vs. the Lakewood numbers aren't even close.

Exactly. Why use the inaccurate number when you can use cases/population to have an accurate one? All that does is undermine the truth

[S209]

Why is anything about how it helps or doesn't help an argument instead of how it helps or doesn't help us get to the truth?

I meant how it helps his question. Wouldn’t that get us closer to the truth?

[etech0]

You mean to take the positive rate number as the numerator and population as the denominator?

yes

[S209]

Exactly. Why use the inaccurate number when you can use cases/population to have an accurate one? All that does is undermine the truth

How is cases/population more accurate if less people are testing? Wouldn’t that cause a significant underestimate? As always, *both* numbers should be considered.

[S209]

yes

Because essentially that would be telling us that 27% of Lakewood is currently infected. It serves to exacerbate his existing conundrum.

[etech0]

How is cases/population more accurate if less people are testing? Wouldn’t that cause a significant underestimate? As always, *both* numbers should be considered.

The only way to get 100% accuracy would be to test every single person.
This would be more accurate in that it counteracts the issue of asymptomatic individuals being declined the right to test.