When Releasing Covid Infection Figures, Shouldn't They Also Release The Number Of Tests Carried Out?

[dave50]

This would give us a running daily actual proportion of tests against positive results.

[MrsCheese]

"Basically, things have got a lot better because of vaccinations. That's all I need to know."

yes, so much better now, freedom to travel anywhere, not having to wear masks anymore, no social distancing, no daily fear porn from the bbc/daily mail.... oh wait..

[Teapots1]

I don't think its covid making most people ill at the moment, but the constant number crunching being rammed down the necks of people by the media, the constant threats of lock downs. The stress to people who are trying to keep their businesses going must be through the roof.

[pat2604]

I was talking about Covid itself Mrs Cheese! Not things that inconvenience us. I agree the media is dreadful, but as for masks and distancing ourselves that should come naturally to us if we have any sense. I'm just grateful for the vaccine and the fact that such s larger proportion of us have have had it.

[Teapots1]

Its a shame that some have already forgotten or choose to ignore the difference the vaccine continues to make. The media seem again to relish on the few that still get ill after the vaccine, but don't care to look towards the millions that have not become ill. I dread to think just how many more would have died without it?

[Peter Pedant]

// yes, so much better now, ..........tancing, no daily fear porn from the bbc/daily mail.... oh wait..//

you naughty cheesy girl you - these are NOT caused by vaccination
They are an effect of covid
you saucy minx!

oh la miss - soon you will say that it is the vaccination that has caused 150 000 deaths - oh wait a minute ....

[Gromit]

I post the Government’s official published figures, and I am accused to deliberately trying to mislead.
Then you instead give amended contrived figures that you believe are more accurate because they skew to your own agenda.
Only on AB.

[New Judge]

What figures are you talking about and who has posted the contrived ones?

[Gromit]

// I don't think there's any reasonable case for arguing, as Gromit does implicitly, that Covid is more prevalent now than a year ago, and his figures, presented as always out of context, are seriously misleading. //

Just the Government’s official figures.
As published, not out of context.

[New Judge]

The problem is, as I have illustrated, the government does not provide any context. Yes it's certainly available, but you have to dig deeply. Simply publishing there are nnn daily infections, when they are measured by positive tests, is of no use whatsoever unless the number of tests undertaken is also published. If you test ten people the most positives you can get is ten. If you test a million...well I'm sure you get my drift.

[Gromit]

NJ,
The number of cases are published...
1,635,922.
90,000 positive.

Can we now ignore that figure because of the context?

[jim360]

I can't stress enough that taking the figures from one day last year, and one day this year, is precisely "taking things out of context". You need also to consider the trends at the time, the volume of testing, other measures of Covid rates such as the more impactful ones (hospital cases, ICU cases, deaths), etc etc.

[New Judge]

//Can we now ignore that figure because of the context?//

No. We put it into context. If there had been half the number of tests there would almost certainly have been (roughly) half the number of positive results.

[Gromit]

Face Palm.

[Peter Pedant]

face palm ditto
no tested here

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/testing

lost the will to live ....

[Peter Pedant]

// If there had been half the number of tests......ber of positive results.//

yes but there havent been - roughly the same denominator ( bottom line ) no of tests and 50% higher top line ( numerator )

[Gromit]

The only reliable source of info is the Governments own figures. I have used them.
Anything else is bogus, unreliable and or skewed.

[THECORBYLOON]

Over the seven days from 10th December to 16th December, there were 9,330,590 tests which is a 19% increase over the previous week.

Over the seven days from 11th December to 17th December, there were 477,229 positive tests which is a 38.6% increase over the previous week.

As a percentage of tests, in the latest seven days, 5.1% were positive compared to 4.4% for the previous week.

[THECORBYLOON]

Before someone comments, I know the periods for tests and positive results are a day out but they are the latest figures and the percentages compare like with like.

[Peter Pedant]

yeah they will comment because there is on this thread complete confusion between a ratio ( ecks over why ) and an absolute number ( ecks)

This thread should carry a health warning for data deliberately mis-stated and deliberately mis-intepreted ( bit like a govt hand out then)

The statements made on this thread - good faith or not - are completely consistent with the following: ( logically entail even, altho a bit technical)

Following the Tory Victory in North Salop with an increased majority, Downing St commented that this was a welcome mandate for "more of the same"

[Peter Pedant]

oh, just thought
the concentration of the wise people who govern us - on absolute numbers rather than ratios ( per head or even a rate - per unit time) is because hospital beds and ITU beds are absolute numbers

( ratios per head of pop, they tend to be low compared to western eruope