I know that people think that numbers are lying or that statistics are lying, but this is the reality of medical reporting data. The world is not simple, the world is not linear, and the world has a very, very large component of randomness with which humans have a hard time synthesizing.
So one poster asked for a reason for a jump in data test results. That will be impossible to know from here as there are so many variables involved, starting with samples taken. not every day is there a standard number of tests taken. not everyday is the same population tested, again, new people or retests for job availability. there is variability in the daily sample collection process. Then there is sample transport, time from sample site to lab site. Don't assume that its instantaneous or the same time from each location. Then there is daily testing rate. humans must log and set up the tests and then run the tests. don't assume that there is a standard rate of daily testing The rate will be variable based upon humans working and backlog of samples, and breakage and new machine acquisition.
So the output timing is a combination of all these variables, so which one is responsible for the increase in positives? most likely a combination of location and people taken, and sample backlog and throughput. There is a more randomness in this process than one might image, since in the rest of one's daily life, this randomness has been eliminated by industrial process control and advanced planning and safety stock, ie, your food being available at the store when you arrive.
There was a poster a while back who made the blank statement that "you don't understand medical records" and I agree, but he did not elaborate further. I will elaborate a little bit on the current state of reporting processes later, but i would suspect that its not what one might assume, given the similar complexities of medical reporting.
Which is why understanding the data and the information contained within requires a level of experience and education. So its also highly unlikely that the daily journalist has this level of nuanced understanding.
sportsguy
|