Some people said this would not constitute a good metric to determine the severity of COVID but I didn't understand why it wouldn't. Has someone an idea what a better metric would constitute? Assumption is that the data has some basis in reality of course.
A lot of other factors should matter, a famous example is polio, where a lot of the tragedy was in people having lifelong deformations and paralyses.
Personally I posted this article because I was irritated by how often local news would report "today there were a lot fewer cases, possibly due to lower testing" and the day after "today there were a lot more cases, possibly due to higher testing" as if any of those numbers are meaningful alone (compare 2000 positives on 3000 and 300,000 tests...)
2 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 19.2 ms ] threadPersonally I posted this article because I was irritated by how often local news would report "today there were a lot fewer cases, possibly due to lower testing" and the day after "today there were a lot more cases, possibly due to higher testing" as if any of those numbers are meaningful alone (compare 2000 positives on 3000 and 300,000 tests...)