So how far into this are we?

i'vegotwinners

Hall of Famer
Dec 1, 2006
10,363
2,924
113
what percent of the US population to date do you think has been infected by covid at some point in time?
 

twenty02

Hall of Famer
Jan 28, 2011
17,075
15,909
113
10%-15% is my guess.

Also guess it will impact us another 18 months, at a high level. Spring 2022 possibly full normal?
 

Fro

Hall of Famer
Sep 2, 2001
14,299
1,989
113
You can't be serious. This is the ONLY part of this virus I will enjoy. Telling Trump fans how dumb they are as cases continue to rise and hospitals become overwhelmed post election.

Or are these dead people and overworked healthcare workers paid actors?
then we'll get these idiots giving Trump credit for the Oxford vaccine that he had zero to do with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: meridian

i'vegotwinners

Hall of Famer
Dec 1, 2006
10,363
2,924
113
I would love to know
ridiculous there aren't some numbers on this.

is there any kind of totally random testing program going on?

if so, i presume we could add up the positive rates for every two week period together since random testing began on a large enough scale to get a national average positivity rate.

then use those numbers to prorate back all the weeks before random testing on a large scale, using hospitalizations and any other stats available, to compute a relative infection rate comparison with weeks after random testing began.

add up all the projected average infection rates for every 2 wk period prior to random testing to all the known average rates for every two wk period post testing, and we have the total average positive rate to date.

ie, if we have averaged 1.5% positive rates in random testing for the 8 months of March through Oct, that's just over 16 two wk periods, so 16 X 1.5%, or just over 24%.

if average positive rates have been more like 3%, then we're closer to 48 or 50% to date.

i have no idea what the average US national positivity rate for each month in random sampling to date is, but it would be beyond irresponsible and total incompetence for the national govt to not know that number.

seems that where we are to date in this would be a must have stat in planing going forward, and no reason not to have that number.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
35,771
6,650
113
God forgive me for defending IGW, but your criticism is unfair, since he's talking cumulative positives. If those 1.5% results were all the result of random testing, he'd be right.
if the positives are a steady 20% of total tests per month; you don’t have 100% after 5 months.
 

meridian

Hall of Famer
Jul 3, 2001
17,258
2,436
113
Seattle
if the positives are a steady 20% of total tests per month; you don’t have 100% after 5 months.
Have you ever taken a course in statistics and/or probability?
That is not how those are computed.
I suggest you sign up for a statistics course at a junior high before you misuse it.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
35,771
6,650
113
You don't have 20%, either. You have 100% minus whatever proportion of them were repeat positives of the same people.
You are saying, assuming 100 tested each month, and a constant 20% positive rate, you’ll have 100 positives after 5 months. Thats still 20% because the total will be 500 tested.
You are also a student @outside shooter.
Have you ever taken a course in statistics and/or probability?
That is not how those are computed.
I suggest you sign up for a statistics course at a junior high before you misuse it.
I think you should take a reading course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
55,079
27,938
113
Margaritaville
You are saying, assuming 100 tested each month, and a constant 20% positive rate, you’ll have 100 positives after 5 months. Thats still 20% because the total will be 500 tested.
You are also a student @outside shooter.
It's a 20% rate of positives tests, yes, but it doesn't equate to a 20% overall infection rate, because all the people who were previously tested are still part of the total infected. For example:

Week 1: 20% positive. Total infected rate is now 20%.
Week 2: 20% positive. Total infected rate is now 40% minus whatever share of those positives were people who were already positive in Week 1.*

A better baseball analogy would be total hits, not batting average, since we are talking about a cumulative stat.

* An enterprising mathematician might argue that the total infected rate after Week 2 is 36%, not 40% (0.4 + 0.4 * 0.8), but that assumes all of the people tested in Week 2 are people who were not infected by Week 1. Not only will some of the positives in Week 2 be repeats, but some of the negatives in Week 2 will be people who were actually positive in Week 1, which is why the maximum total infected is 40%, not 36%.
 

Stuffshot

All-American
Feb 20, 2008
7,278
2,793
113
It won't be over by Wednesday. Too bad too. It was the one whack-a-mole conspiracy theory I was hoping would be true.
Check out this development.


Johnson knows Covid is serious.
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
35,771
6,650
113
It's a 20% rate of positives tests, yes, but it doesn't equate to a 20% overall infection rate, because all the people who were previously tested are still part of the total infected. For example:

Week 1: 20% positive. Total infected rate is now 20%.
Week 2: 20% positive. Total infected rate is now 40% minus whatever share of those positives were people who were already positive in Week 1.*

A better baseball analogy would be total hits, not batting average, since we are talking about a cumulative stat.

* An enterprising mathematician might argue that the total infected rate after Week 2 is 36%, not 40% (0.4 + 0.4 * 0.8), but that assumes all of the people tested in Week 2 are people who were not infected by Week 1. Not only will some of the positives in Week 2 be repeats, but some of the negatives in Week 2 will be people who were actually positive in Week 1, which is why the maximum total infected is 40%, not 36%.
I understand the duplicate tests in the same sample issue. But the hypothetical said “random” so I think a different sample for each period is a reasonable assumption. Accumulation in a random sample is not the real world.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
55,079
27,938
113
Margaritaville
I understand the duplicate tests in the same sample issue. But the hypothetical said “random” so I think a different sample for each period is a reasonable assumption. Accumulation in a random sample is not the real world.
No, random means there will be random overlap based on the size of the sample. Either way, some of the positives in Week 2 will be new positives, which means the overall infected rate goes up. The overlap is the reason it won't go up the max (i.e., all the way to 40%), but it will still go up. Otherwise, you'd be talking about a situation where no one got infected at all after Week 1, which we know is ridiculous!
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
35,771
6,650
113
Either way, some of the positives in Week 2 will be new positives, which means the overall infected rate goes up.

Only if you are talking about testing the entire US population over and over. Or if you are talking about repeated testing of the same smaller sample. I don’t think that is a reasonable interpretation. Continuing testing of different random individuals is the reality with the hypo separating them by time (months).
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
55,079
27,938
113
Margaritaville
Only if you are talking about testing the entire US population over and over. Or if you are talking about repeated testing of the same smaller sample. I don’t think that is a reasonable interpretation. Continuing testing of different random individuals is the reality with the hypo separating them by time (months).
Sorry but that just doesn't make any sense. Once you've been infected, you've been infected, and you stay a member of that group. Any new members added later increase the size of that group.

Look at it like this. Say in Week 1, 20% come back positive. Then in Week 2, only 10% come back positive. Would you then argue that the total infected in the country somehow dropped to 15%? Such a result would be mathematically impossible.
 

sglowrider

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 9, 2012
20,362
14,974
113
Tiny Red Dot
Check out this development.


Johnson knows Covid is serious.
He like Trump didn't take the early warnings seriously. Telling half the world that he even met Covid patients, handshakes them and low & behold, got Rona a few weeks later. Went on ventilator too.

He did pivot but unfortunately his poor messaging and delivery of the measures further confused the people who by now, were only half-serious on it and the other half confused on what needs to be done.

Early denial and general incompetence were his biggest problem. Some of his cabinet members had even ignored their own lockdown rules -- so like in the States, if the leadership arent taking things seriously, why should the rest of the population.

Trump on the other hand persists on making the message murky. And no pivot.

But both own the two worst Covid numbers in the world, per capita in Boris' case.

Brazil is right behind -- another country with the leader who is a Covid denier.

Once you start badly ie deny or delay -- then the decision-making tree/pathways just spirals down a path of bad or worse choices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiede and meridian

mcmurtry66

All-Big Ten
Mar 14, 2019
4,603
3,296
113
Check out this development.


Johnson knows Covid is serious.
We all know it’s serious but what are we doing. Our region is talking about shutting down because of hospitalizations. We have 422 in hospitals out of 3 million people. Lockdowns are not the answer. I don’t know what is but you hear hospitalizations are up that could literally be a few dozen people out of millions. Capacity is so small at hospitals. It’s a shitshow. I wonder what it would take to appreciably increase capacity. That seems an area the feds should be involved by way of subsidies etc
 
Last edited:

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
35,771
6,650
113
Look at it like this. Say in Week 1, 20% come back positive. Then in Week 2, only 10% come back positive. Would you then argue that the total infected in the country somehow dropped to 15%? Such a result would be mathematically impossible.
Are you assuming the same sample? If you have two discrete samples, the overall average rate would indeed be 15%—the same as if tested together.

Just to split another hair, we are not talking about infection rates. We are talking about the percent positive tests.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
55,079
27,938
113
Margaritaville
Are you assuming the same sample? If you have two discrete samples, the overall average rate would indeed be 15%—the same as if tested together.

Just to split another hair, we are not talking about infection rates. We are talking about the percent positive tests.
No, we are talking about the total infected rate. We have been since the beginning. That's why I have stressed this point approximately 400 times in this thread.
 

iuwclurker

All-Big Ten
Jul 6, 2015
4,869
1,734
113
Sorry but that just doesn't make any sense. Once you've been infected, you've been infected, and you stay a member of that group. Any new members added later increase the size of that group.

Look at it like this. Say in Week 1, 20% come back positive. Then in Week 2, only 10% come back positive. Would you then argue that the total infected in the country somehow dropped to 15%? Such a result would be mathematically impossible.
Seems like the simplest way to end this is talk in terms testing the entire population. Firdt week 20%, second weeks can only go up, eventually reaching the max possible of 100%.