Explanations 1+5: We are doing a better job treating people who get infected.
Explanations 2+3+6: Different people are getting infected who are less vulnerable.
Explanation 4: We are increasingly covering up deaths.
I did not read everything… but between the 1st and 2 wage, there is ~ x5 time less death but ~ x2 more daily cases currently. Could this be also explained by much more tests being done?
Then the first wage would have been ~x10 time higher than reported in the comparaison and the second wage would currently be still below the first.
Here’s a first-principles normalization—take national tests, and normalize the positives to the total number of tests performed. This assumes linear returns to testing which is wrong, but it produces a curve of the shape of ACTUAL infections (without telling you the true number, just its relative shape over time) that mirrors the death curve shifted by two weeks very closely:
That’s why the third chart each week is positive test rates! And it’s the primary stay I look at. I’d do by region but would require a scraper or new data source.
https://rt.live gives a useful “Adjusted Positive Tests & Implied Infections” curve for each state, similar to the above normalization, adjusting for testing volume. The implied infections adjusts for the delay in infection vs testing.
According to right-wing media I listened to with half-an-ear and thus cannot repeat their methodology, “they” changed the definition of “case” to include something related to contact tracing.
Man, it’s hard to filter out noise in this environment. The Lancet has a paper from April on how China redefined cases to account for asymptomatics and contact tracing, and saw a huge jump in cases. But if the definition of “case” changes and there’s a jump in the number of “cases,” it probably means nobody’s reinterpreting the previous number of cases with the new definition, either to scare people into wearing masks or so as not to confuse the public with changed numbers.
or so as not to confuse the public with changed numbers
If you’re withholding knowledge to avoid confusing people, chances are that your withholding is the primary source of confusion. Just say “new estimates” or “revised estimates” – job done.
I did not read everything… but between the 1st and 2 wage, there is ~ x5 time less death but ~ x2 more daily cases currently. Could this be also explained by much more tests being done?
Then the first wage would have been ~x10 time higher than reported in the comparaison and the second wage would currently be still below the first.
Here’s a first-principles normalization—take national tests, and normalize the positives to the total number of tests performed. This assumes linear returns to testing which is wrong, but it produces a curve of the shape of ACTUAL infections (without telling you the true number, just its relative shape over time) that mirrors the death curve shifted by two weeks very closely:
https://twitter.com/econstatsnerd/status/1276629941384331264
That’s why the third chart each week is positive test rates! And it’s the primary stay I look at. I’d do by region but would require a scraper or new data source.
https://rt.live gives a useful “Adjusted Positive Tests & Implied Infections” curve for each state, similar to the above normalization, adjusting for testing volume. The implied infections adjusts for the delay in infection vs testing.
As an example, here’s for Florida: https://rt.live/us/FL
According to right-wing media I listened to with half-an-ear and thus cannot repeat their methodology, “they” changed the definition of “case” to include something related to contact tracing.
Man, it’s hard to filter out noise in this environment. The Lancet has a paper from April on how China redefined cases to account for asymptomatics and contact tracing, and saw a huge jump in cases. But if the definition of “case” changes and there’s a jump in the number of “cases,” it probably means nobody’s reinterpreting the previous number of cases with the new definition, either to scare people into wearing masks or so as not to confuse the public with changed numbers.
If you’re withholding knowledge to avoid confusing people, chances are that your withholding is the primary source of confusion. Just say “new estimates” or “revised estimates” – job done.