A) The odd story of both testing & fatality attribution over the past months has served to inflate fatality numerators & minimize infection denominators.
B) That had the effect of increasing compliance and decreasing questioning of drastic measures.
Q: Was B the point of A?
B) That had the effect of increasing compliance and decreasing questioning of drastic measures.
Q: Was B the point of A?
I cannot understand the seeming resistance to focusing on testing. In March/April we were meeting resistance to even the idea of testing. Why??
In the case of fatality statistics why would you want to collapse codes rather than have separate codes for definite v probable Covid?
In the case of fatality statistics why would you want to collapse codes rather than have separate codes for definite v probable Covid?
I should say that my experience in public health circles is that people attracted to the field are *both* quite well-meaning & scary.
It works backwards from science thinking: “What would we have to tell the public & how would we coerce them to do the thing we know is needed?”
It works backwards from science thinking: “What would we have to tell the public & how would we coerce them to do the thing we know is needed?”
Lastly I should say I still just don’t get this at all. In some ways we inflated severity. In other ways we minimized it. Sure there is a certain amount of fog with a new virus. But there is something weirder; normally experts behave like they are trying to figure something out.
