Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: SheepWhisperer

” based on reported factual data”

BUT There’s no connection between reported cases and actual cases.
An increase in reported cases is NOT an increase in spread.

Likewise a decrease in the growth of reported cases is not evidence of a decrease in spread- just diminishing returns from testing.


573 posted on 03/10/2020 2:19:41 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts (M / F) : Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat/RINO Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies ]


To: mrsmith

In order to fully understand what you’re saying please define all your terms...
Actual case?
Reported case?
Spread?

As I understand it...

Actual cases should be those confirmed by test
Reported cases are not necessarily tested and therefore unknown.

What is known is how it is increasing, based upon tested confirmed cases.

As such,.my chart is tracking confirmed actual cases. Retorted cases are not known, because they’re not confirmed by test, but merely unsubstantiated claims, as yet umpteen by test.

My numbers in the chart are confirmed cases by testing as given to us.

Reported cases...not quantifiable, veritable and unknown. However, without any doubt there are more cases than those confirmed, which have not yet and may never be tested.

So we go with what what we know...confirmed cases proven by test. These are the numbers in the chart.

Unconfirmed, unverified claims are not and should not be counted in case doubling rates.

“Spread” is a loose term, not quantifiable, or verifiable unto you define what you mean by “Spread”...region, people groups, state?

I’m only cataloging doubling rate.

Please share charts you may have to offer.

Here’s a good one in the form of graph, showing data points along the way (confirmed cases each day).
If you have issue with the daily totals please take that up with the CDC, because they’re reporting the numbers here.I I’m merely tracking doubling rate based upon the numbers.

Now if I have interchanged the terms reported and actual/confirmed, then my mistake. From here forward you can take the numbers as confirmed cases.

...reported by the CDC =O)


613 posted on 03/10/2020 2:39:07 PM PDT by SheepWhisperer (My enemy saw me on my knees, head bowed and thought they had won until I rose up and said Amen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 573 | View Replies ]

To: mrsmith

...besides all that...

Yeah...if we get more confirmed cases...well...it spread...to other people.

So there that =o)


617 posted on 03/10/2020 2:40:47 PM PDT by SheepWhisperer (My enemy saw me on my knees, head bowed and thought they had won until I rose up and said Amen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 573 | View Replies ]

To: mrsmith

The first assertion is wrong.
If we rest 1 million extra cases, and they all come out negative (”really negative”, based on a working test), we know it hasn’t spread.
But if 900,000 of them come back positive, then those sure as heck ARE new cases, because they’re really infected.
If you mean, those 900,000 were there anyway...they were, but they were assumed negative until the test.


623 posted on 03/10/2020 2:44:13 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change with out notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 573 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson