orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
Other LA's are kicking butt too iirc, but obviously being good, efficient or excelling doesn't come into it with our government for some reason.
Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!
- Thread starter bullybeef
- Start date
- Status
Other LA's are kicking butt too iirc, but obviously being good, efficient or excelling doesn't come into it with our government for some reason.
Perhaps of some use (summarized from StatNews):
Are there more cases because there is more testing, OR are there more cases because there is more disease? Epidemiologists can distinguish between the two. What you need to look at is not the absolute number of tests done or the absolute number of cases, but the prevalence of the disease, which is number of positive cases per 1000 tests, and see if this prevalence has changed over time. An increased prevalence means the disease is spreading, independent of the number of tests.
For example, using data from Florida:
On May 13 prevalence was 0.032, which means 32 positive cases per 1000 tests.
On May 13 Florida conducted 15159 tests.
On May 13 Florida had 479 confirmed cases
On July 13 Florida conducted 65567 tests.
On July 13 Florida had 12624 confirmed cases.
One might assume that you get more confirmed cases on July 13 because you did more testing on July 13 versus May 13 (15159 tests versus 65567 tests). But this isn't necessarily correct. We expect that if the disease were not spreading, then the rate of cases per 1000 people would stay the same between May 13 and July 13. That is, the prevalence should remain the same, at 0.032, from May to July. And if this were true, we expect that Florida should have 2098 confirmed cases on July 13, not 12624. This is because we expect the number of cases to be 0.032 x 65567 = 2098 (which is using the May 13 prevalence multiplied by the number of tests conducted on July 13). But instead, we see that the number of confirmed cases is 12624, not 2098, so the disease itself is spreading and this is not simply due to increased testing. More simply, if prevalence remains stable over a period of months, we expect the ratio of number of tests to number of confirmed cases to increase at a constant rate.
In most US states the prevalence is increasing, meaning the disease is spreading and this isn't due to simply more testing. In about 7 states the disease is not spreading, meaning the prevalence remains the same. These states are reporting more confirmed cases because of increased testing; though the rate of increased cases is what is expected from a constant and unchanging prevalence; for example, if the rate of cases/1000 tests is steady over time (for example it is 0.01), this means that we should see 10 cases per 1000, 20 cases per 2000, 30 cases per 3000, 40 cases per 4000, etc., so more testing results in more cases at a rate we expect given the prevalence. But if we find that over a 4 week stretch that we went from 10 cases per 1000, to 40 cases per 2000, to 80 cases per 3000, to 160 cases per 4000 this suggests the prevalence has gone up and this increase cannot be as a result of doing more testing.
Are there more cases because there is more testing, OR are there more cases because there is more disease? Epidemiologists can distinguish between the two. What you need to look at is not the absolute number of tests done or the absolute number of cases, but the prevalence of the disease, which is number of positive cases per 1000 tests, and see if this prevalence has changed over time. An increased prevalence means the disease is spreading, independent of the number of tests.
For example, using data from Florida:
On May 13 prevalence was 0.032, which means 32 positive cases per 1000 tests.
On May 13 Florida conducted 15159 tests.
On May 13 Florida had 479 confirmed cases
On July 13 Florida conducted 65567 tests.
On July 13 Florida had 12624 confirmed cases.
One might assume that you get more confirmed cases on July 13 because you did more testing on July 13 versus May 13 (15159 tests versus 65567 tests). But this isn't necessarily correct. We expect that if the disease were not spreading, then the rate of cases per 1000 people would stay the same between May 13 and July 13. That is, the prevalence should remain the same, at 0.032, from May to July. And if this were true, we expect that Florida should have 2098 confirmed cases on July 13, not 12624. This is because we expect the number of cases to be 0.032 x 65567 = 2098 (which is using the May 13 prevalence multiplied by the number of tests conducted on July 13). But instead, we see that the number of confirmed cases is 12624, not 2098, so the disease itself is spreading and this is not simply due to increased testing. More simply, if prevalence remains stable over a period of months, we expect the ratio of number of tests to number of confirmed cases to increase at a constant rate.
In most US states the prevalence is increasing, meaning the disease is spreading and this isn't due to simply more testing. In about 7 states the disease is not spreading, meaning the prevalence remains the same. These states are reporting more confirmed cases because of increased testing; though the rate of increased cases is what is expected from a constant and unchanging prevalence; for example, if the rate of cases/1000 tests is steady over time (for example it is 0.01), this means that we should see 10 cases per 1000, 20 cases per 2000, 30 cases per 3000, 40 cases per 4000, etc., so more testing results in more cases at a rate we expect given the prevalence. But if we find that over a 4 week stretch that we went from 10 cases per 1000, to 40 cases per 2000, to 80 cases per 3000, to 160 cases per 4000 this suggests the prevalence has gone up and this increase cannot be as a result of doing more testing.
Last edited:
Pictures from the 1918 Pandemic.
Some things never change - Liverpool is still full of bagheads
If you stuck a D&G label on those plastic bags the girls of Liverpool would happily wear them.
- Status