Discussion:
So-called "probable" cases, let's count them twice
(too old to reply)
Willy Nilly
2020-04-06 23:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Stuff explains today that a "probable" COVID-19 case is someone who
shows symptoms but the test comes back negative or is not taken. The
article further enlightens us that although all NZ media present
today's case count as 1106 "confirmed and probable" cases, the actual
confirmed ones are just 911 cases.

Apparently only the 911 is reported to WHO which is interested only in
confirmed cases and not so-called "probable" cases, but the NZ media
gives us public only the combined count -- why is that?

Skipped over in the article is a bigger problem -- the chance, nay,
likelihood, that they are now double-counting cases. First, count
them when they are "probable", and then count them again when they go
to "confirmed". You think they won't? Happens all the time in data
of this kind. It's probably why WHO accepts only "confirmed" counts.

Think any journalist will raise this issue of double counting? Of
course not. We dull-witted plebs will take what we are given.
Willy Nilly
2020-05-08 03:28:06 UTC
Permalink
And there they go, "2 new confirmed cases" today of which one was
previously a "probable" case, so only one actually added to the total
case load. But the takeaway is "2 new cases".

On Tuesday there were zero new cases but one "probable" case was
redesignated as "not a case", so the total case load was decreased by
1. So did they announce it as "negative 1 new cases"? Of course not!

OK, these are small things. but they should have said "one new case"
today, not "two new confirmed cases", because otherwise they give the
total of new confirmed plus new probable as the announced figure. Why
can't they show simple integrity?

You watch, when "recovered" cases test positive again, they'll call
them "new cases". Wait for it.
Post by Willy Nilly
Stuff explains today that a "probable" COVID-19 case is someone who
shows symptoms but the test comes back negative or is not taken. The
article further enlightens us that although all NZ media present
today's case count as 1106 "confirmed and probable" cases, the actual
confirmed ones are just 911 cases.
Apparently only the 911 is reported to WHO which is interested only in
confirmed cases and not so-called "probable" cases, but the NZ media
gives us public only the combined count -- why is that?
Skipped over in the article is a bigger problem -- the chance, nay,
likelihood, that they are now double-counting cases. First, count
them when they are "probable", and then count them again when they go
to "confirmed". You think they won't? Happens all the time in data
of this kind. It's probably why WHO accepts only "confirmed" counts.
Think any journalist will raise this issue of double counting? Of
course not. We dull-witted plebs will take what we are given.
JohnO
2020-05-08 04:48:23 UTC
Permalink
I don't think they are double counting. A probable can stay as probable, become confirmed or become a non-case. But the *total* stays the same in the former cases and reduces in the latter case.

They may not have announced a negative daily total the other day, but they *did* reduce the total cases number by one from the previous day.

Similarly, when they said 2 cases today, one confirmed and a prior probable that became confirmed, the total cases only went up by one.
Rich80105
2020-05-08 06:30:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Willy Nilly
And there they go, "2 new confirmed cases" today of which one was
previously a "probable" case, so only one actually added to the total
case load. But the takeaway is "2 new cases".
On Tuesday there were zero new cases but one "probable" case was
redesignated as "not a case", so the total case load was decreased by
1. So did they announce it as "negative 1 new cases"? Of course not!
OK, these are small things. but they should have said "one new case"
today, not "two new confirmed cases", because otherwise they give the
total of new confirmed plus new probable as the announced figure. Why
can't they show simple integrity?
You watch, when "recovered" cases test positive again, they'll call
them "new cases". Wait for it.
You are correct - at one time there was a presumption that once a
person had Covid-19 they wuld then be immune, but that turrns out not
ot be the whole story, so while we hope they will be rare, sucghh a
case should rightly be regarded as a "new case" - justthe same as if
you had influenza and then a year later caught it again, you could
reasonably count youself as being among those wit the disease both
times.
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Willy Nilly
Stuff explains today that a "probable" COVID-19 case is someone who
shows symptoms but the test comes back negative or is not taken. The
article further enlightens us that although all NZ media present
today's case count as 1106 "confirmed and probable" cases, the actual
confirmed ones are just 911 cases.
Apparently only the 911 is reported to WHO which is interested only in
confirmed cases and not so-called "probable" cases, but the NZ media
gives us public only the combined count -- why is that?
Skipped over in the article is a bigger problem -- the chance, nay,
likelihood, that they are now double-counting cases. First, count
them when they are "probable", and then count them again when they go
to "confirmed". You think they won't? Happens all the time in data
of this kind. It's probably why WHO accepts only "confirmed" counts.
Think any journalist will raise this issue of double counting? Of
course not. We dull-witted plebs will take what we are given.
No they are not double counting - but there are different categories
to be counted, and a case may appear in one category and then move to
another. Some are calling for additional caegories - those who are
presumed to have had expsure when overseas or from a returned
traveller from overseas, those from a community contact, etc. Our
reporting to the WHO is slightly different from their measure as we do
count (and account for separately), those who are believed likely to
be infected but who have not (at least as yet) tested positive.
Different numbers are useful for different purposes, but it can be
confusing for some.
Rich80105
2020-05-08 06:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Willy Nilly
And there they go, "2 new confirmed cases" today of which one was
previously a "probable" case, so only one actually added to the total
case load. But the takeaway is "2 new cases".
On Tuesday there were zero new cases but one "probable" case was
redesignated as "not a case", so the total case load was decreased by
1. So did they announce it as "negative 1 new cases"? Of course not!
OK, these are small things. but they should have said "one new case"
today, not "two new confirmed cases", because otherwise they give the
total of new confirmed plus new probable as the announced figure. Why
can't they show simple integrity?
You watch, when "recovered" cases test positive again, they'll call
them "new cases". Wait for it.
You are correct - at one time there was a presumption that once a
person had Covid-19 they wuld then be immune, but that turrns out not
ot be the whole story, so while we hope they will be rare, sucghh a
case should rightly be regarded as a "new case" - justthe same as if
you had influenza and then a year later caught it again, you could
reasonably count youself as being among those wit the disease both
times.
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Willy Nilly
Stuff explains today that a "probable" COVID-19 case is someone who
shows symptoms but the test comes back negative or is not taken. The
article further enlightens us that although all NZ media present
today's case count as 1106 "confirmed and probable" cases, the actual
confirmed ones are just 911 cases.
Apparently only the 911 is reported to WHO which is interested only in
confirmed cases and not so-called "probable" cases, but the NZ media
gives us public only the combined count -- why is that?
Skipped over in the article is a bigger problem -- the chance, nay,
likelihood, that they are now double-counting cases. First, count
them when they are "probable", and then count them again when they go
to "confirmed". You think they won't? Happens all the time in data
of this kind. It's probably why WHO accepts only "confirmed" counts.
Think any journalist will raise this issue of double counting? Of
course not. We dull-witted plebs will take what we are given.
No they are not double counting - but there are different categories
to be counted, and a case may appear in one category and then move to
another. Some are calling for additional caegories - those who are
presumed to have had expsure when overseas or from a returned
traveller from overseas, those from a community contact, etc. Our
reporting to the WHO is slightly different from their measure as we do
count (and account for separately), those who are believed likely to
be infected but who have not (at least as yet) tested positive.
Different numbers are useful for different purposes, but it can be
confusing for some.
To communists
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Willy Nilly
2020-05-08 07:45:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
To communists
Redbaiter, is that you?
George
2020-05-08 20:14:31 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 08 May 2020 07:45:21 GMT
Post by Willy Nilly
Post by Rich80105
To communists
Redbaiter, is that you?
:)
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Willy Nilly
2020-05-08 07:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Willy Nilly
You watch, when "recovered" cases test positive again, they'll call
them "new cases". Wait for it.
You are correct - at one time there was a presumption that once a
person had Covid-19 they wuld then be immune, but that turrns out not
ot be the whole story, so while we hope they will be rare, sucghh a
case should rightly be regarded as a "new case" - justthe same as if
you had influenza and then a year later caught it again, you could
reasonably count youself as being among those wit the disease both
times.
You've obviously never been a data man, Rich. If you allow one person
to be counted as more than one case, then you can easily raise the
caseload just by introducing a series of "positive" and "negative"
COVID-19 tests, and voila, one case becomes five or ten, easy! Such a
system would be worthless, but might have truck with lefties, true.
George
2020-05-08 20:13:40 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 08 May 2020 03:28:06 GMT
Post by Willy Nilly
And there they go, "2 new confirmed cases" today of which one was
previously a "probable" case, so only one actually added to the total
case load. But the takeaway is "2 new cases".
On Tuesday there were zero new cases but one "probable" case was
redesignated as "not a case", so the total case load was decreased by
1. So did they announce it as "negative 1 new cases"? Of course not!
OK, these are small things. but they should have said "one new case"
today, not "two new confirmed cases", because otherwise they give the
total of new confirmed plus new probable as the announced figure. Why
can't they show simple integrity?
You watch, when "recovered" cases test positive again, they'll call
them "new cases". Wait for it.
It has everything to do with control.
Those who control the narrative control the country.
Used to be the media would be able to question that narrative but as
they have become part of the left they dont do that any more.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Loading...