03-23-2020, 03:28 PM
(03-23-2020, 03:05 PM)jamincan Wrote:(03-23-2020, 01:58 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: It means the context of previous data is lost, the previous data is still valid, just in a different context...
The biggest problem is this change in context was not explained, and as a result, you get newspaper headlines like the ones I posted, which has the potential to increase panic.
The problem with continuing to report with the same methodology is that the context of that data has changed as well, so you can't interpret the results under the old methodology the same either. In fact, continuing to use that methodology could result in the public understanding that the situation is far less severe than it is. In that situation, then, you have to ask if waiting for confirmation of results from the National Laboratory better reflects the situation, or if using the preliminary results does.
Testing is not really being done in order to track the spread of the virus. We don't have the capacity for that kind of testing, so testing is being done to inform decisions about treatment of individual patients. The total results don't bear much relationship (or, anyway, a definable relationship) to the real number of cases.
It's also true that the methodology has changed, so it's hard to even get a sense of the rate of increase.
Based on computer modelling, Ottawa's chief medical officer of help estimates the real number of cases in Ottawa at around 4000.