It is good science.
Just was on a business call earlier this week where they were giving an update. They use infections per million people. That is a standard metric across the world. It helps even things out to testing when different amount of tests are being done, with different population centers. Raw numbers don’t cut it. They haven’t tested a million people in these states. They weight it to take into account increases testing. So if I am testing 5000 times a day, then 10000, you could literally have more cases but your rate goes down.
That’s why the we have done more tests/we have more infections thing is a dumb attack line.
California has more people than Rhode Island. How do you determine the seriousness of the infection and the penetration?
allows you to measure state to state and country to country.
The ncaa got this analysis right, Using The right metric too.
Btw, Europe has determined safe to open as 25 infections per one million. Only state in country that meets that threshold is Vermont.
John - it's not good science at all and don't appreciate your calling my metric dumb as it is the most accepted metric out there since it accounts for test volumes. And the ratio I quote is not raw number - read it again - positives tests divided by total tests.....numerator and denominator.
The metric you quote(infections per million people) is a non-starter - with more tests comes more infections. It's the wrong narrative. You're an old sports writer, I'm in healthcare and working on policy and mitigation efforts around the country with physicians and public health leaders. I think I'll go with my original premise.
Lastly - how do we tell if California is worse off than Rhode Island? We use a number of indicators - positive tests per total tests, hospitalization rates, ICU rates, % of admissions needing ventilators, length of stay of those admitted, length of stay for those with ICU stays with or without vents, average age of those hospitalized, beds available, meds available, staff available, PPE available and lastly mortality rates as a lagging indicator.
My whole point is the NCAA is using one flawed metric to make decisions as it does not adjust for volume. It's a whole lot more complicated than that.