Good morning! It has been 361 days since the first documented human case of COVID-19. Today’s a headlines one, and I also have some comments to discuss, at least briefly. Sorry about the headlines, it’s kind of bleak today. Stay safe. I want to take a minute out to thank everyone who has commented or has sent me emails; there are a lot of great questions that have been posed to me over the last few days, both vaccine-related and not. That’s a lot of material that I need to cover, and I’m glad to have it to cover. It’s not easy to write a daily newsletter that people want to read and open; by engaging with it and telling me what you want to read, we help each other and we make this a better project together. So really, I appreciate it.
What is a good test/population rate to be able to "trust" the positivity rate?
Meaning, when NYC was only testing people with symptoms the rate was through the roof, so we sort of know not to use it as a basis for anything.
My zip code is currently 5.2% positivity in the last 2 weeks (https://www.phila.gov/programs/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/testing-and-data/#/ - I am 19147). There have been 582 tests / 10,000 people, or 5% of people have had a test. Is that enough tests to consider that number really high? Or, is it inflated because of a lack of tests?
10025 is testing 700/100,000 per day based on the NYC dashboard. Over 2 weeks that would be 980/10,000, so nearly 10% of residents are getting tested in a 2 week period - and the positivity rate is much lower (even if you halved my zipcode, the UWS is still better, but its not as stark a difference).
So, should I be totally freaked out by a 5.2% positive rate? Or is that inflated because of not enough testing? (And yes, I know we should be freaked out because relative numbers are skyrocketing.)
Also, not sure if you noticed, but NYT now has # hospitalized nationally as one of their metrics. Given the lag with deaths, and the fluctuation of #s based on testing, I know Cuomo liked to talk about hospitalizations during his briefings. I assume this is NYT finally getting national numbers to start to use this as a metric to counter the "it's because we are testing more" rhetoric, which I think its great.
Couple of questions for you -
What is a good test/population rate to be able to "trust" the positivity rate?
Meaning, when NYC was only testing people with symptoms the rate was through the roof, so we sort of know not to use it as a basis for anything.
My zip code is currently 5.2% positivity in the last 2 weeks (https://www.phila.gov/programs/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/testing-and-data/#/ - I am 19147). There have been 582 tests / 10,000 people, or 5% of people have had a test. Is that enough tests to consider that number really high? Or, is it inflated because of a lack of tests?
10025 is testing 700/100,000 per day based on the NYC dashboard. Over 2 weeks that would be 980/10,000, so nearly 10% of residents are getting tested in a 2 week period - and the positivity rate is much lower (even if you halved my zipcode, the UWS is still better, but its not as stark a difference).
So, should I be totally freaked out by a 5.2% positive rate? Or is that inflated because of not enough testing? (And yes, I know we should be freaked out because relative numbers are skyrocketing.)
Also, not sure if you noticed, but NYT now has # hospitalized nationally as one of their metrics. Given the lag with deaths, and the fluctuation of #s based on testing, I know Cuomo liked to talk about hospitalizations during his briefings. I assume this is NYT finally getting national numbers to start to use this as a metric to counter the "it's because we are testing more" rhetoric, which I think its great.
Thanks!
-david