>Can't comment on the specific test you are referring - have no idea what they tested (some early tests even tested against IgA, which is/was found before 12/19 due to non-SARS-Cov-2 infections. Even if testing against SARS-Cov-2, in a population with virtually no previous infections, the set of positive results will be include false positives, which are 1-specific %, so somewhere upwards of 1-6% for the tests I read about. Not even certain if false positives across different tests stem from marking specific personal antigenes not connected to Cov-2 or to test weakness (second would be better, as testing with different tests and getting positive results on every test would weed out those false positives.
>Over here only PCR tests will include in case statistics - but searching for positive PCR in asymptomatic carriers, while eliminating potential future infections, "inflate" case# compared to countries only able to test (heavy) symptomatic cases, which often are the set death results from.
>Unless I see statistics I believe in for a selectivity beyond 0.9995 any positive antigene test should be viewed as a coin toss up probability of being true (as in having overcome Covid-19 without noticing it), whereas negative result is safe to interpret as in slam door into any unknown face.
>
Here are the notes for the testing I referenced:
"Results are reported from commercial laboratory doing serologic testing for COVID-19 IgG or total antibody (IgM and IgG). The performance of the individual commercial laboratory tests used is not known."
http://ww11.doh.state.fl.us/comm/_partners/action/report_archive/serology/serology_20200529.pdf
As I said, I'm not sure of the accuracy or the sampling but the results parallel other test done in CA and NY.


>>II believe all the data for "cases" is bogus anyway. According to the latest (29 May report) serologic testing for COVID-19 in Florida (123k tests) 4.43 % of those tested have the COVID-19 antibody. I don't claim that this is at all random or reliable testing but if is any way close to the real % it would indicate 960k cases in the state - not even close to the 60k cases identified by testing.
>>>
>>>>I'm not saying "anyone's" stats are the correct ones, as different sources have reported different numbers.
>>>>
>>>>My only point from a few posts ago is that daily stats (ANY daily stats) are nearly worthless. They can represent an accumulation of test results or death counts going back over several days (or even weeks).
>>>>
>>>>To me, here are the "best" (relatively speaking) concepts of metrics for this area, when put together to frame a scenario:
>>>>
>>>>- % of increase or decrease in weekly death count
>>>>- deaths per square mile
>>>>- population per square mile
>>>>
>>>>Here is something absolutely sobering:
>>>>
>>>>In the U.S. as a whole, there are .03 deaths per square mile
>>>>In Manhattan NY, there are 178 deaths per square mile. (Stands to reason, Manhattan is geographically small and yet you have about 1.6 million people)
>>>>
>>>>See attached, as of end of last week, here are the top U.S. counties in terms of deaths per square mile