So they are openly saying they are counting tests twice?

[Coldwinds]

This is why people question. Not because of disbelief of a virus but they don’t trust the data.

If you test positive it should only be ever counted as one test in one set period.

WTF are they playing at? How much money have these guys had?

@CuriousaboutSamphire

I'm saying don't count a positive test as a case if a negative test directly follows it? That person won't be isolating so imo they're not a case. Your opinion? OK! Call the WHO!

You don't have to start being horrible about it just because I disagree that it's a case. I'm not being horrible I'm frustrated. You don't understand. You have an opinion. You are not listening to the opinion of others. You are dismissing the combined decisions of data analysts the world over.

Jesus Christ. Indeed!

Obviously it's my opinion but why do you personally think someone who has tested negative and is therefore not isolating is a case?

You ARE being horrible, you're being dismissive condescending snipey and down right fucking rude.

I DO understand I simply disagree.

I am listening to your opinion but I don't agree with it.

I'm sorry but they've flip flopped on so many things. They've made decisions and then gone back on them!! They've dismissed their own brilliant fucking data analysis a million times over so yes I don't fucking agree.

Sorry, I know it looks like I am having a pop but this is a common error.

Surely that proves that it's not all as horrific as you might think? If we have thousands more cases than we know about but still deaths are low that's a good thing no? Honestly? That isn't the point. Misinformation doesn't help increase understanding of a new disease. Simplistic analysis won't be of any use now ir in the future.

I still disagree that someone who has tested negative after testing positive should be counted as a case. The data isn't just a number. It is used in many varied ways. It may well be amended at a future date. The base data has to be as accurate as possible so they know what it is they are amending. The reasons behind any amendments will be because of a new understanding of the epidemiology.

The data set is not just for basic counting of how many, when! It is far, far more complex than that.

@CuriousaboutSamphire

Sorry, I know it looks like I am having a pop but this is a common error.

Surely that proves that it's not all as horrific as you might think? If we have thousands more cases than we know about but still deaths are low that's a good thing no? Honestly? That isn't the point. Misinformation doesn't help increase understanding of a new disease. Simplistic analysis won't be of any use now ir in the future.

I still disagree that someone who has tested negative after testing positive should be counted as a case. The data isn't just a number. It is used in many varied ways. It may well be amended at a future date. The base data has to be as accurate as possible so they know what it is they are amending. The reasons behind any amendments will be because of a new understanding of the epidemiology.

The data set is not just for basic counting of how many, when! It is far, far more complex than that.

No, it doesn't look like you're having a pop, you ARE having a pop.

Misinformation doesn't help but how they will ever use this data for anything useful when they keep changing the rules I will never know. The reality is you'll never know the real numbers because for 80% of people there are no symptoms.

Please stop talking to me like I am fucking thick. I understand, I just don't agree with it.

You ARE being horrible, you're being dismissive condescending snipey and down right fucking rude. Oh, I agree. In my frustration I am often rude, sometime snarky. But not horrible.

I'm sorry but they've flip flopped on so many things. They've made decisions and then gone back on them!! They've dismissed their own brilliant fucking data analysis a million times over so yes I don't fucking agree. Please, don't apologise! That you think they have flip flopped, dismissed data analysis is another misunderstanding on your part. As I tried to explain above!

Covid is new. Analysis around it is also new. It has to change as more information is reviewed and new insights gained. None of the previosus analysis is wrong or useless. Just a step towards greater understanding. Like the disease, the specific science looking at it also a new, ever evolving thing!

To much cross posting (in both ways).

I'll leave you to it. That wall has seen enough of my forehead!

@CuriousaboutSamphire

You ARE being horrible, you're being dismissive condescending snipey and down right fucking rude. Oh, I agree. In my frustration I am often rude, sometime snarky. But not horrible.

I'm sorry but they've flip flopped on so many things. They've made decisions and then gone back on them!! They've dismissed their own brilliant fucking data analysis a million times over so yes I don't fucking agree. Please, don't apologise! That you think they have flip flopped, dismissed data analysis is another misunderstanding on your part. As I tried to explain above!

Covid is new. Analysis around it is also new. It has to change as more information is reviewed and new insights gained. None of the previosus analysis is wrong or useless. Just a step towards greater understanding. Like the disease, the specific science looking at it also a new, ever evolving thing!

Stop fucking speaking to me like I don't understand. You have no fucking idea what I do and do not understand. I'm giving you my opinion. This is not an issue in cross posting this is an issue with your attitude and yes you are being horrible

TrustTheGeneGenie

Have you seen the rate that the deaths within 28 days are currently increasing at? also please note that those are deaths within 28 days, we locally had someone who has died from heart issues caused by covid but he is way outside those 28 days so isn't included in those figures.

While I say the figures counted are lower than the real number we are not talking an excessive multiple that we were back in April. The other thing to bear in mind is that the number of people who will test positive once then test negative in the same reporting week are a miniscule number.

@Justforphoto

TrustTheGeneGenie

Have you seen the rate that the deaths within 28 days are currently increasing at? also please note that those are deaths within 28 days, we locally had someone who has died from heart issues caused by covid but he is way outside those 28 days so isn't included in those figures.

While I say the figures counted are lower than the real number we are not talking an excessive multiple that we were back in April. The other thing to bear in mind is that the number of people who will test positive once then test negative in the same reporting week are a miniscule number.

Yes I have...... I know who they count and don't count. I'm not here for an argument.

Just goes to show that in general, a little knowledge is a bad thing. I'll stick to believing the people tasked with analysing the data rather than MN for information.