You're correct and have edited my post to reflect that.Thanks for posting this - you might review your original post because it doesn't say what you intended I think?
You're correct and have edited my post to reflect that.Thanks for posting this - you might review your original post because it doesn't say what you intended I think?
My sister in law and her partner have the virus.
Now, when we test those who really need to be tested, the percentage of these people who have the virus is c. 5% (i.e. 250/5,000)?
Now, when we test those who really need to be tested, the percentage of these people who have the virus is c. 5% (i.e. 250/5,000)?
I'm also struggling with the "rate of increase in new cases (as a % of total cases) is decreasing" line. Isn't this just math given a fixed number of tests and a relatively consisted number of positives of those tested?
Presumably we are testing only the most likely suspects?
For me it has come to the stage that the only figures that matter are the number of deaths and the ICU capacity.
The scientist confirmed last night that we are only testing 1,500 per day for the last week.
How many daThis gives a rough measure of how successful the containment measures are.
Imagine we had 100,000 infected people and 1,000 new cases per day. That would be a 1% rate of infection which would probably be less than the rate of recovery.
If we have 1,000 cases with 500 new cases, it means that it's spreading very fast.
But if we are testing only 5,000 a day, then the numbers would not be that reliable.
Presumably we are testing only the most likely suspects?
Brendan
Last night's HSE report live .One of the scientists or doctors said we are testing up to 1700 per day . I don't know where everyone is getting 5000 out ofWhat? Is this for real? Seriously?
Three days ago, Anne O'Connor, COO of the HSE, said that we are currently testing 5,000 cases per day. Two weeks ago, Harris said that we needed to ramp up testing to 15,000 per day. Where is the 1,500 coming from and why is the figure so low?
I do think number of folks in ICU/spare capacity in ICU is the main indicator to watch, as this is the thing that will directly affects mortality rate.
But again, the problem, is that this number is a trailing indicator, and less useful to make policy decisions on (people only turn up in ICU a week or more after being infected).
Numbers from testing, even if not perfectly representative, are better than no numbers. As it allows us to at model at least some of the likely ICU needs.
backlog also in labs.
In fact , they with a delay between the ordering of the test and taking the swab, they could have recovered.
The intention was and still is to test as many suspected cases as possible.
But like every other country we encountered a supply problem, which caused the change in case definition.
This will be widened as supplies become more available.