[ExI] puzzling

[Dan TheBookMan]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 2:25 AM spike jones via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan via
>
> >...I'm not just guessing here on overcounting negative tests. There was a local story on just this here in June:
>
> https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/washington-states-coronavirus-testing-data-has-been-wrong-for-nearly-a-month/
>
>
> Regards,  Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Entirely possible that people get multiple negative tests, but the ratio of
> negative to positive is irrelevant to me.  The number that shows up on
> the chart is the number of new cases.  I don't know how they determine
> an actual new case if people are taking multiple free tests, fishing for a
> negative result.

The problem here is, in the midst of the crisis, figuring out if
overcounting is biased in one direction. I get the scenario you're
pointing to, but aside from speculation do you have any evidence to
back it up?

And by calling it speculation, I don't mean to imply it's
unreasonable, but I do mean to imply I would overplay that particular
scenario. This is why I went back to the June news report about
overcounting negative results. Or, to put it in your terms, fishing
for a positive result.

And if you're looking for a motivation for overcounting negative
results, I can speculate on two. One, people might take multiple tests
just to be safe. Two, authorities in a given area might want to make
it seem like whatever they're doing (or not doing) is effective.
That's more sinister, but I wouldn't rule it out tout court.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst