Population % rate (1 Viewer)

[Blackshirts_Win_'ships]

This was really dumb. Just wanted to say that, because it really was (is).

The clarification makes a lot of sense, but what a stupid way to write it.

 

[HCFord1]

We're at 7.8% according to the tweet. Don't think we'll get that .4% decrease?

7.8% is the % off current tests that are positive in Lincoln, but the population positivity rate would be significantly lower unless they’re saying that “total population at risk” is just those who have been tested. If that’s how they’re defining it then they’re fucking stupid.

If it’s measuring the effect in a population of a city, then the city’s population should be the denominator. Lincoln has 290k residents, so to get to 7.5% positivity you’d need 21,750 positive tests. Right now they have fewer than 6k.

If they’re measuring risk to the population as just % of current tests which are positive then they’re missing the point in several ways. One, testing is limited and often reserved for those with high risk of exposure. Secondly, that is a variable that can easily be manipulated by methods already mentioned ITT. Is there something I’m missing here that’s already been explained?

 

[Jim14510]

7.8% is the % off current tests that are positive in Lincoln, but the population positivity rate would be significantly lower unless they’re saying that “total population at risk” is just those who have been tested. If that’s how they’re defining it then they’re fucking stupid.

If it’s measuring the effect in a population of a city, then the city’s population should be the denominator. Lincoln has 290k residents, so to get to 7.5% positivity you’d need 21,750 positive tests. Right now they have fewer than 6k.

If they’re measuring risk to the population as just % of current tests which are positive then they’re missing the point in several ways. One, testing is limited and often reserved for those with high risk of exposure. Secondly, that is a variable that can easily be manipulated by methods already mentioned ITT. Is there something I’m missing here that’s already been explained?

Not that I'm aware of. I concur with everything you said.