p--and--t
Established Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Posts
- 4,424
- Qantas
- Bronze
- Virgin
- Red
Having spent a a year or two in past life decades ago a position that was based on analysing stats, take everything you read with a grain of salt.
Basically we are seeing a combination of what someone wants you to see (e.g. China) and here's what we know - but we don't know what we don't know (most other places).
As with the annual flu, and many other myriad stats we are presented with on a daily basis, they are the result of collection of subjective data via imperfect processes being followed (and not followed) by imperfect people interpreting what they think you may had intended to be counted and are only a percentage of the actual data that would give certainty along with people feeling incentified to slant the results one way or the other by their personal circumstance.
Testing of less than .01% of a limited pre-selected biased sub-sample of the population IMHO cannot reveal any stats with any certainty.
It is indicative when the figures quoted are "confirmed cases" - i.e. what about all the unconfirmed cases. Think icebergs.
Basically we are seeing a combination of what someone wants you to see (e.g. China) and here's what we know - but we don't know what we don't know (most other places).
As with the annual flu, and many other myriad stats we are presented with on a daily basis, they are the result of collection of subjective data via imperfect processes being followed (and not followed) by imperfect people interpreting what they think you may had intended to be counted and are only a percentage of the actual data that would give certainty along with people feeling incentified to slant the results one way or the other by their personal circumstance.
Testing of less than .01% of a limited pre-selected biased sub-sample of the population IMHO cannot reveal any stats with any certainty.
It is indicative when the figures quoted are "confirmed cases" - i.e. what about all the unconfirmed cases. Think icebergs.