04-23-2020, 02:34 PM
(04-23-2020, 11:30 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: One of the interesting things I have been seeing with regards to testing, though, is how it can make things look a bit askew. For instance, if you were to look at infection rates in Virginia, my city has been in the top 5 for a while, was first the other day, and now sits second (and this is with the population count including roughly 20k college students that aren't here right now). Now, are we really a hot spot? Our hospital isn't really overwhelmed with things, it's been going relatively smoothly when I talk to doctors I know. So what is up with this? Well, we test a lot. We apparently are testing more than most localities in Virginia, which means we are showing more positives and thus showing a higher rate even though other places may have a higher rate but aren't testing.
The problem is that this has caused a little panic in the community in regards to the infection rate, here. Now, this isn't to say some people haven't been stupid, but the biggest reason for this high rate is our increased testing.
Testing inconsistencies is a result of the test shortages and 50 states competing for limited resources instead of a coordinated effort on the federal level. This results in less than ideal data to make informed decisions regarding the public health and the economy. Ideally, we want to make the best decisions for both, but we’ve barely tested 1% of the population and then trying to make decisions based upon the last week’s worth of data despite at least a week lag time for reporting the new numbers.