Quote:
Originally Posted by russellw
OK - so (as expected) the volume of tests being conducted varies widely but the top 5 countries in terms of tests per 100k of population are Italy (3,930); Switzerland (3,225); Australia (2,582); NZ (2,441) and Spain (2,410).
At the other end of the scale (and remember these are only countries with higher case numbers) we have Colombia (173), Brazil (176), Ecuador (262), Peru (622) and Iran (686).
image
In terms of tests conducted per confirmed case, most countries are below 10 except for Australia and NZ which are both > 60!
image
What can we extrapolate from that?
We can probably draw the conclusion that we (AU/NZ) are testing more people than we really need to but if that conservative approach is helping us keep the numbers down then so be it.
Otherwise, we probably can't extrapolate much else given that most of the tests are probably still being conducted on people who present with enough symptoms to merit being tested so it still leaves the hidden cases that are either no or very mild symptoms and we can't even properly say that if 'x' more people were tested you'd get similar numbers of confirmed cases because you wouldn't.
What we'd need to draw any conclusions is a large enough sample group to be all tested regardless of symptoms and even then any extrapolated data would be rubbery at best. |
Thanks Russellw
I did see somewhere that NSW is the only state to show where infections are actually located.
I searched Google for 15 seconds and I only found numbers by location, at least that was something.
Other states only give out totals for the state.
I find this odd because if people can see that the nearest infection is 600kms away then why can't they go for a
jog stroll along the beach, sit in a park bench or indeed go fishing?
Maybe the govmint doesn't want people revolting if they are too well informed.
Maybe that's why the media are continually catastrophising coronavirus (
how about that alliteration folks!)
Is Coronavirus the new climate change challenge?