2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic (Vaccination 2021 Edition)

[Silvanus]

So in the media right now, Trump and some Republicans are being mocked for suggesting more testing leads to higher case numbers, as though that's a stupid or controversial thing to say.

Well, it's not just that, no. More tests leading to a higher absolute number of confirmed cases is a truism. But in Pence's leaked call to the Governors, he was encouraging them to use the high level of testing to explain away the size of the US caseload. That's misleading in the extreme, given that the number of confirmed cases relative to the number of tests carried out is still pretty damn high in the US.

It was not merely a statement of fact. It was an intentional attempt to mislead.

 

[Dalisclock]

Well, it's not just that, no. More tests leading to a higher absolute number of confirmed cases is a truism. But in Pence's leaked call to the Governors, he was encouraging them to use the high level of testing to explain away the size of the US caseload. That's misleading in the extreme, given that the number of confirmed cases relative to the number of tests carried out is still pretty damn high in the US.

It was not merely a statement of fact. It was an intentional attempt to mislead.

It didn't help he said "If we stop testing right now, we'd have very few cases". Remember, if you can't see it, it doesn't exist.

And followed it up with this

"So the media likes to say we have the most cases, but we do, by far, the most testing. If we did very little testing, we wouldn't have the most cases. So in a way, by doing all of this testing, we make ourselves look bad,"

I swear the man doesn't even listen to himself talk. The Turing test probably needs to be re-evaluated at this point.

 

[Fieldy409]

Its funny because testing only reveals more results if there are in fact more previously unknown cases. Testing a population with no cases would reveal no infected.

Testing is plentiful in Australia and the vast majority are negatives. I was able to be tested for nothing more than a sore throat when I've had no possible contact. It was almost certainly always going to be negative and it was, but I was urged to be tested by the Premier because they had more tests than people who wanted to be tested.

Are there countries that are under reporting due to a lack of testing equipment? Probably. There are certainly more cases than we know in the world. But I'm sure when a bunch of people start dieing of respiratory illnesses all of a sudden it should be easy to figure out there must be a lot of unknown cases.

 

[tstorm823]

It was not merely a statement of fact. It was an intentional attempt to mislead.

No, it wasn't, that's just a dumb inference people are making. What's misleading is suggesting cases are going up in places where they just aren't. I gave you a pretty indisputable example. That is the lie being told. We spent months complaining we aren't testing enough to catch most infections. Now we're testing more and it's being treated as a trend to freak people out on purpose. Remember when the US was two weeks behind Europe? No apparently we can't compare, because that might give people hope, which apparently is lying now.

If the truth is misleading people, you have an odd understanding of truth.

 

[Silvanus]

No, it wasn't, that's just a dumb inference people are making.

How else do you interpret this?

"I would just encourage you all, as we talk about these things, to make sure and continue to explain to your citizens the magnitude of increase in testing. And that in most of the cases where we are seeing some marginal rise in number, that’s more a result of the extraordinary work you’re doing.”

This is, quite unambiguously, attributing the rise in number to the level of testing.

What's misleading is suggesting cases are going up in places where they just aren't. I gave you a pretty indisputable example. That is the lie being told. We spent months complaining we aren't testing enough to catch most infections. Now we're testing more and it's being treated as a trend to freak people out on purpose. Remember when the US was two weeks behind Europe? No apparently we can't compare, because that might give people hope, which apparently is lying now.

Yes, you gave me a pretty indisputable example, from that county. V.P. Pence was speaking rather more broadly, seeing as he was contacting Governors en masse.

Explaining away the numbers as a result of testing, and ignoring the high number of cases per test, is a recipe for public ignorance. In your own example, you pointed out the distinction and the importance of cases per test-- so I'm unsure why the V.P. using absolute numbers over numbers-per-test on a national scale should escape your ire.

 

[Houseman]

This is, quite unambiguously, attributing the rise in number to the level of testing.

I think there are two different concepts here:
#1 - The true number of cases
#2 - The number of cases that we know about.

Testing more won't raise #1, but it'll raise #2, assuming there are still more cases that are currently undiscovered.

I don't see how it's misleading. It seems like the people who think otherwise are confusing #1 with #2.

 

[Silvanus]

I think there are two different concepts here:
#1 - The true number of cases
#2 - The number of cases that we know about.

Testing more won't raise #1, but it'll raise #2, assuming there are still more cases that are currently undiscovered.

I don't see how it's misleading. It seems like the people who think otherwise are confusing #1 with #2.

Pence's advise to the Governors is relying on exactly that conflation.

The closest approximation that we can realistically get for #1 is the number of positive cases per test, extrapolated over the population. By that metric, the USA has a relatively high true number of cases.

Pence, however, is advising Governors to explain away the numbers purely as #2: advising that the high numbers are purely a result of higher levels of testing, when that isn't the case, and other indicators exist that the true number is high.

 

[tstorm823]

How else do you interpret this?
This is, quite unambiguously, attributing the rise in number to the level of testing.

Which is something you personally described as a truism. It's true.

And I also don't think you're even giving Mike Pence credit for the words he's saying. You're talking about high absolute numbers. He isn't in that quote, he's talking about relative numbers. Where you see some increases in rate, it's often the result of increased testing. The absolute numbers are immensely less important than the trends. At a time when people are panicking about the possibility of a second wave that may or may not ever exist, the actual high or low values are less important than the direction of the trend. He didn't say "we test so much so we have a huge number of cases", he said "the magnitude of increase in testing" results in marginal increases in cases. That's not a statement on how many cases there are overall, but a statement on how changing methods shape the trendlines in misleading ways that need to be explained.

 

[Silvanus]

Which is something you personally described as a truism. It's true.

Read it again. More testing leads to a higher absolute number of confirmed cases; that's the truism. That's not the same as attributing the rise in number to the level of testing. The latter ignores that other factors are also driving that number, and that the rate of positive-cases-per-test is also high.

 

[tstorm823]

Read it again. More testing leads to a higher absolute number of confirmed cases; that's the truism. That's not the same as attributing the rise in number to the level of testing. The latter ignores that other factors are also driving that number, and that the rate of positive-cases-per-test is also high.

It doesn't matter if it's high or low, it matters if it's higher or lower than it was a week ago or a month ago. You're not even addressing the concept that actually matters.

 

[Silvanus]

It doesn't matter if it's high or low, it matters if it's higher or lower than it was a week ago or a month ago. You're not even addressing the concept that actually matters.

Because we're not discussing the trajectory of the pandemic. We're discussing Pence's advice to the Governors. He didn't say "the numbers are high, but they're heading in the right direction"; he insinuated the numbers were only so high because of the level of testing.

 

[tstorm823]

Because we're not discussing the trajectory of the pandemic. We're discussing Pence's advice to the Governors. He didn't say "the numbers are high, but they're heading in the right direction"; he insinuated the numbers were only so high because of the level of testing.

Read it again.

"I would just encourage you all, as we talk about these things, to make sure and continue to explain to your citizens the magnitude of increase in testing. And that in most of the cases where we are seeing some marginal rise in number, that’s more a result of the extraordinary work you’re doing.”

That quote is explicitly only about the direction things are heading. It has nothing to do with the absolute amounts.

 

[Houseman]

Because we're not discussing the trajectory of the pandemic. We're discussing Pence's advice to the Governors. He didn't say "the numbers are high, but they're heading in the right direction"; he insinuated the numbers were only so high because of the level of testing.

I think you're just reading too much into it.

Do you think it's misleading to say "the rise in confirmed cases can be explained by the increase in testing?"
Yes or no.

 

[Silvanus]

"I would just encourage you all, as we talk about these things, to make sure and continue to explain to your citizens the magnitude of increase in testing. And that in most of the cases where we are seeing some marginal rise in number, that’s more a result of the extraordinary work you’re doing.”

That quote is explicitly only about the direction things are heading. It has nothing to do with the absolute amounts.

It is indeed about the direction things are headed. It ascribes the increase in numbers to the increase in testing, thus implying that the trajectory isn't necessarily going up. Which ignores the high positivity rate.

I think you're just reading too much into it.

Do you think it's misleading to say "the rise in confirmed cases can be explained by the increase in testing?"
Yes or no.

No, that wouldn't be misleading. Though for absolute clarity I would add the words "absolute" before "confirmed", and "partially" before "explained"-- and amend a disclaimer that the absolute number is not a good indicator for the severity of the pandemic.

 

[tstorm823]

It is indeed about the direction things are headed. It ascribes the increase in numbers to the increase in testing, thus implying that the trajectory isn't necessarily going up. Which ignores the high positivity rate.

The trajectory isn't going up. High positivity rate isn't relevant, unless you have evidence that the positivity rate is increasing over time.

 

[Houseman]

No, that wouldn't be misleading

There you go. That's what I see that quote as saying. That's why I disagree.

A written statement by the WHO or the CDC should be scrutinized and criticized until it adds all those qualifiers and disclaimers you mentioned, but I can understand why someone making a phone call wouldn't go to such lengths.

 

[Kwak]

The trajectory isn't going up. High positivity rate isn't relevant, unless you have evidence that the positivity rate is increasing over time.

 

[Silvanus]

A written statement by the WHO or the CDC should be scrutinized and criticized until it adds all those qualifiers and disclaimers you mentioned, but I can understand why someone making a phone call wouldn't go to such lengths.

Sure, if the phone call wasn't the V.P. advising state Governors on how to allay concerns. And to my mind, the addition of the word "confirmed" hugely changes the meaning of the statement.

The trajectory isn't going up. High positivity rate isn't relevant, unless you have evidence that the positivity rate is increasing over time.

Let's see. To take the States specified by the Washington Post as supposedly having the "worst week" in June: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Kentucky, New Mexico, North Carolina, Mississippi, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Utah.

Alaska stands at 0.8 yesterday, and 0.8 at the start of the month. [NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE]
Arizona at 12.4 yesterday, & 8.8 at the start of the month. [INCREASE]
Arkansas at 6.2 yesterday, & 5.2 at the start of the month. [INCREASE]
California at 5.2 yesterday, & 5.6 at the start of the month. [DECREASE]
Florida at 6.0 yesterday, & 5.3 at the start of the month. [INCREASE]
Kentucky at 4.1 yesterday, & 4.6 at the start of the month. [DECREASE]
New Mexico at 3.4 yesterday, & 3.5 at the start of the month. [DECREASE- MARGINAL]
North Carolina at 6.9 yesterday, & 6.8 at the start of the month. [INCREASE- MARGINAL]
Mississippi at 8.4 yesterday, & 8.5 at the start of the month. [DECREASE- MARGINAL]
Oregon at 2.9 yesterday, & 3.0 at the start of the month. [DECREASE- MARGINAL]
South Carolina at 7.9 yesterday, & 5.8 at the start of the month. [INCREASE]
Tennessee at 5.1 yesterday, & 5.1 at the start of the month. [NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE]
Texas stands at 7.2 yesterday, & 6.6 at the start of the month. [INCREASE]
Utah at 5.7 yesterday, & 4.5 at the start of the month. [INCREASE]

So, quite a few increased positivity rates, some of which are pretty dramatic (Arizona & S. Carolina).

It's worth noting that the positivity rate for the US as a whole is going down. It stood at 8.37 yesterday, and 10.3 at the start of the month. But Pence's advice was to State Governors.

SNIP

As bad as they are, those metrics -- daily new cases, total active cases, and total overall cases -- do not do a good job of illustrating the trajectory, which is our current sticking point. Daily new cases is useful for that, but only if combined with testing numbers, which brings us to the positivity rate I've been talking about.

 

[tstorm823]

Let's see. To take the States specified by the Washington Post as supposedly having the "worst week" in June: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Kentucky, New Mexico, North Carolina, Mississippi, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Utah.

And for my last trick, we now look at the trends for every state in the country. The list of states having their worst week now are exceptionally flat curves, except Arizona that's a big spike right now. The states that got hit hard before are all way, way down. The only two states that don't fit the single epidemic curve nicely are Florida and Louisiana, but those are exceptions because they had Mardi Gras and Spring Break events early on that had localized spikes that don't match the rest of the states they're in.

That's the most important thing right now: people are afraid of the "second wave". They're worried that if we open back up after the rate of cases drops back down, the pandemic will just surge back in. That isn't happening. The places that are still rising at this moment are doing so because they were kept down so low they never got beyond the slow increase. And the places that are surging aren't marginally increasing. So to get back to Pence's statement, "most of the cases we are seeing some marginal rise in the number"... your places that are actually increasing greatly, South Carolina, California, Arizona aren't marginal increases. The statement doesn't apply to those.

America Is Reopening. But have we flattened the curve?

See New Case Trends in all 50 States

coronavirus.jhu.edu

 

[Silvanus]

And for my last trick, we now look at the trends for every state in the country. The list of states having their worst week now are exceptionally flat curves, except Arizona that's a big spike right now. The states that got hit hard before are all way, way down. The only two states that don't fit the single epidemic curve nicely are Florida and Louisiana, but those are exceptions because they had Mardi Gras and Spring Break events early on that had localized spikes that don't match the rest of the states they're in.

That's the most important thing right now: people are afraid of the "second wave". They're worried that if we open back up after the rate of cases drops back down, the pandemic will just surge back in. That isn't happening. The places that are still rising at this moment are doing so because they were kept down so low they never got beyond the slow increase.

Firstly, we weren't discussing the probability of a second wave. We were discussing, specifically, whether the increase is explicable as a product of increased testing. That question remains whether we're in the first or second wave, or whether loosening restrictions is a good idea or not.

And on that point, about whether it's a good idea to loosen restrictions, I'm going to be taking advice from scientists and epidemiologists. Y'know, the people with expertise in the subject. For what it's worth, the W.H.O. recommends against considering loosening restrictions until positivity has been below 5 for 14+ days; researchers and experts seem pretty unanimous in arguing for extreme caution and that a second wave remains very much on the cards.

And the places that are surging aren't marginally increasing. So to get back to Pence's statement, "most of the cases we are seeing some marginal rise in the number"... your places that are actually increasing greatly, South Carolina, California, Arizona aren't marginal increases. The statement doesn't apply to those.

Oh, that is a good trick, I wasn't disappointed. The worst numbers don't count, because he used that term "marginal"! (while on a call issuing advice to "all" Governors, including those worst impacted).