Miss Bella
Well-Known Member
It sounds like the hospitals are doing what they need to do to handle the surge that is what they are supposed to do. Shutting down the country and putting 40 million people out of work is not what we are supposed to do.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion
- Thread starter Parker in NYC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coronavirus covid covid-19
- Status
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
Wait... does the Florida dashboard tell you if negatives aren’t being reported?
Horizons '83
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
So if there are 100,000 tests, and 12,000 positive, my common sense would tell me that 88,000 would be negative no?
xdan0920
Think for yourselfer
Yes. How can we be going over this again?
Horizons '83
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
When simple math is being ignored, that has to be remedied.
xdan0920
Think for yourselfer
Indeed. That's infallible common sense. However, if TJV diagnostics only reports 100 positive tests to the state, the state only counts 100 tests at a 100% positive rate.
If TJV Diagnostics reported negatives as well, it would look something like this....
1000 tests, 100 positive 900 negative 10% positivity.
Replying to myself just a bit here. It does seem like it is medium to smaller labs that may not have been reporting negative cases (if this is really the case). It seems the larger labs were doing this. So it may or not have a major impact on the state wide numbers.
xdan0920
Think for yourselfer
INDEED!!!!When simple math is being ignored, that has to be remedied.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
I really do apologize, but the dashboard is being a bit fidgety for me - could you point me to the statement or section on unreported negatives?
xdan0920
Think for yourselfer
Major? I guess that would depend on how you define major. is a 3% swing in positivity rate major? I know for a fact if it was a 3% swing upwards, it would be very major. Not sure if the inverse is true.
Actually, I'd like to retract my analysis. Seems like there a multiple different Lee Memorial Hospitals in the state report (and I also forgot to check the date, and the file I thought I downloaded today was a cached version).
I don't understand what you're nitpicking about... when a death report comes in, it gets reported as number of newly reported deaths for that day.
Are you saying that because some of those deaths happened on previous days, there should be no mention of them in a new daily report of deaths?
And let's think about it. Let's say a small town announces on Wednesday that they have just gotten word of the first CV deaths in their small town. And the number is 6 new deaths. Now.. let's say the deaths were 3 on Monday, 2 on Tuesday, and 1 on Wednesday. Do you want only 1 death reported on Wednesday?
Going further, it's now Thursday. And there are 6 more cases: 3 on Tuesday, 2 on Wednesday, and 1 on Thursday. Now, that Wednesday date for which you would want only one a report of 1 death, now actually has 3 deaths for that day.
Moving on to Friday's report: 3 deaths on Wednesday, 2 on Thursday, 1 on Friday. This means Wednesday actually had 6 deaths. But you wanted an official to say on Wednesday that there was only on death... and then never announce the updates for that day?
In the end, a 7-day rolling graph would show that on average, this small town is experiencing 6 deaths per day. But, you only want an announcement of the current day which is going to be way off?
Announcing all the newly reported/discovered deaths that come in on a single day is not some game of goosing the numbers. The graph showing deaths per day (that get updated for those specific days they occurred) and the 7 day rolling average gives an accurate enough indicator of deaths going up, down, same.
kong1802
Well-Known Member
We've already gone through that..
The smaller lab positives at the time accounted for 4k out of the 250k total positives. If we threw out the 4k from the numbers, it doesn't have an impact. Those smaller labs wouldn't have enough negatives to keep the positives and add a theoretical negative number either to make a difference.
The headline looks good, but when you start looking into it...........
xdan0920
Think for yourselfer
Behave as you will.
A lot of writing for someone who completely missed the point. This isn't a lag of days, it's a lag of MONTHS. This week has seen over 3000 deaths from May 2nd and earlier reported. If you want to use that to form a trend line, I mean, be my guest. But be upfront about it.
xdan0920
Think for yourselfer
Spoken like someone with a very limited understanding of math. You don't throw out the 4k. You had in 36k negative. Then redo the math. Get it?
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
Again, if you could just point me to the statement or numbers on the dashboard you’re using to inform your statements, I’d really appreciate it.
Also, you seem to be admitting that the real negative outcome count for today is much higher then the numbers presently reflect, and we won’t know the real numbers for months? Doesn’t that make the situation worse?
baymenxpac
Well-Known Member
what's he's nitpicking about is that we're told all the time, "JUST WAIT! DEATHS LAG!" so we saw a pop last week, and that's supposed to act as confirmation that the FACT states are in crisis. it also helps craft the, "it was the re-opening!" narrative on "CASE SURGING!"
however, if a large portion (upwards of two-thirds) were from months earlier in the pandemic, then it very much changes the 7-day averages. it matters.
we made our initial policy changes on assumptions and modeling. we can't continue to operate on faulty data sets and just get entrenched on what we all assumed in march when he knew nothing, let's not act like we all KNOW the outcomes. we really don't. if the data is going to paint the picture, then it can't be opaque.
EDIT:
maybe this chart will help explain:
- Status