27
posted ago by TheBehavingBeaver ago by TheBehavingBeaver +27 / -0

Yeah, it doesn't sound good at all, but the media would be sure to take this quote and broadcast it as long as they live.

so I thought that I should clarify why you should slow down testing.

think about it like that:

assume that there are only 100 real cases and up to now your testing has detected only 10 out of the 100. let's assume that the number of real cases is starting to go down, for example only 85 cases are left.

but what you do, because you're stupid, is to increase the rate of growth of new tests. so you test even more than before and see that now 20 people are infected. so you conclude that the virus reach was doubled even if in fact in reality it's actually going down. and this can be done again, if the number of real cases is now down to 60, you can continue increasing the rate of new testing and see that 40 people are infected -> the virus has doubled its reach again!

all the while other countries keep the rate of new testing relatively the same and "miraculously" starting to see a drop in the number of cases.

trump's idea to slow down testing is so that the "ruler" they use to measure the infection rate by won't stretch while they are measuring, and also so that evil people would not be able to spread fear and misinformation for their political gain using "science".

Comments (9)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
2
aparition42 2 points ago +2 / -0

Also it's a waste of money because the virus isn't any more dangerous than all the other upper respiratory corona virus infection pandemics that we've had over the last fifty years without all this nonsense over reaction.

We shouldn't be wasting valuable medical resources testing people who have the sniffles just in case it's magic sniffles. If they actually get ill, they can go to the hospital and get tested as is the normal standard operating procedure.

Since we've never gathered data in this manner before, we have nothing with which to compare it anyway, so all the raw data is completely meaningless. Is the number of asymptomatic carriers more or less than other viruses? Is the percentage of infected people who normally would've just bought some Nyquil and taken a day off of work ten times as much as the flu, or half? We don't know because no one has ever reacted like this before.