You can't make this up. Oklahoma tops 180 percent positiivty rate.

a reply to: amazingexplorer

Where did you whomever learn to do math, at the University of Pop Tarts???

The only way something can increase by an amount greater to 100% is if you compare it to some other reference point at a different point in time.

So, if (5) people had covid last year and (9) people have it a year later, that would be a 180% increase...in one year. But it still only means that 9 people have it, not 180% of the population.

Heck, I'd bet that the % increase in people with the common flu increases 10,000% between September and January!

Stop with the BS and fear mongering!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

My point exactly. Positivity rate cannot be more than 100%.

a reply to: amazingexplorer

Maybe I misunderstood your point then.

Sorry.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: amazingexplorer

Maybe I misunderstood your point then.

Sorry.

Yup. So the numbers are surely cooked.

a reply to: amazingexplorer
...

(Retracted post)

...

EDIT: There was a discrepancy in the source data where positive test numbers were reported but the number of total new tests were not. As the data was autogenerated in a 7-day moving average with only some of the total new tests reported, it explains the greater than 100% positivity.

a reply to: amazingexplorer

I knew it, its DeSantis, Texas, Santa, the Eastern bunny, baby Jesus and the 3 kings, fault.

Darn Democrats just figure all out, woo hoo.

Now back to the basement Joe, is not time for more news yet.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: amazingexplorer

It explains what the positivity criteria is in the article. Positivity refers to the number of positive tests per 100,000 people.

A higher than 100% positivity means that people have been tested more than once, and there have been more positive tests than there are tested people.

That's not how positivity rate is defined. Positivity rate is number of positives divided by number of tests. It must be between 0% and 100%.

What is positvity rate

originally posted by: amazingexplorer

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: amazingexplorer

It explains what the positivity criteria is in the article. Positivity refers to the number of positive tests per 100,000 people.

A higher than 100% positivity means that people have been tested more than once, and there have been more positive tests than there are tested people.

That's not how positivity rate is defined. Positivity rate is number of positives divided by number of tests. It must be between 0% and 100%.

What is positvity rate

My apologies.

I have investigated further, and it appears to be a reporting data error.

On this page of the source data, with Oklahoma selected, if you hover the mouse above the peak data point (186.7% positivity), it reveals 3,338 'New Positive Tests' but the 'Total New Tests' value is 0. Similar data values along the graph have zero total new tests. As the data is a 7-day moving average, with 'Total New Tests' only reported sometimes, it explains the discrepancy.

a reply to: chr0naut

So they're pulling the old positive test card instead of cases again it sounds. They have performed this maneuver a few times, they keep going back an forth depending on which sounds worse. Hopefully this flub will wake more up to their tactics.

You can get to this percentage quite easy. You have people catching COVID multiple times...simple.

originally posted by: MDDoxs
You can get to this percentage quite easy. You have people catching COVID multiple times...simple.

Positivity rate only depends on two things: number of positives, number of tests. Has nothing to do with how many positives a person comes up with.

a reply to: MDDoxs

Including the double vaxed in nursing homes like in Florida and CDC manufacture numbers, because they can count positives but they forgot how to deduct the vaxed from the totals.

Deceiving

originally posted by: MDDoxs
You can get to this percentage quite easy. You have people catching COVID multiple times...simple.

I taught a research methods class in a major University.

Statistics do not work that way.

What a rate of 180% means, scientifically and in reality means:
for every 100 people who took the COVID test in that area
180 of them tested positive
IMPOSSIBLE!

If there were 180 people who tested positive for COVID in that area
then if you say 180% of those people tested positive, then you are saying that
for every 180 people who took the COVID test in that area
324 of them tested positive
Again IMPOSSIBLE!

So if you and 18 of your friends and relatives tested for COVID in your area
and ALL of you tested positive, that would be 100%
To get a rate of 180%
32 of your friends and relatives would have had to have taken the test in the same area
when in reality only 18 of them really and actually took the test.
The statistician needs to be fired
or at least be forced to take a statistics 101 college class or even high school class

This is real science,
the article is obviously fake science

a reply to: The2Billies

No, this was because the source data is compiled and presented automatically and was unable to deal with incomplete source data.

If it was actually human entered, and verified data, or even made-up data, they would have realized that you cannot have thousands of positive tests, with zero tests being taken.

In my opinion, the incomplete data-points should have been discarded, and smoothing of the data (the 7-day moving average) not done.

In this way, the validly reported data-points would be retained, as they are likely to be a truthful representation, and the invalid data-points discarded.

A true graph, with holes in its reportage, is better, and functionally more usable, than an erroneous one.

originally posted by: Halfswede
So for every 100 they test they are seeing 180 come back positive? Checks out.

Yes!!

This is the same 2+2=5 "woke" anti-racist math Democrats used in the election....

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: amazingexplorer

Is Dominion now making COVID testing machines?

Outstanding point.
Perfectly and precisely outstanding.

Me and mine must have been the 12.5% that were neither tested nor had corona.

Oklahoma is flyover country. No one here knows math,

City folk - dumb as rocks

Most of the people I know, when they wake up sick and no taste,
they don't bother getting a test and
they do not bother going to the F#ing hospital
because they know that there is no a soul in that building that can help em.
All they will get is go home, take two ibuprofen, call me just before you die so we can collect from the government

originally posted by: amazingexplorer
So it seems the Republican states which let the virus run free and attenuate naturally are having higher positivity rates, with Oklahoma leading the pack topping out at a whooping 180+ percent points.

positivity rates by state

Sure. With what accurate tests? lol
Really.....please. Who actually believes these numbers? I don't. I would never ever take a test. I was sick last year and I am sure it was covid based on the list of symptoms. But I did not test and never will.

They are not accurate.

originally posted by: shaemac

originally posted by: amazingexplorer
So it seems the Republican states which let the virus run free and attenuate naturally are having higher positivity rates, with Oklahoma leading the pack topping out at a whooping 180+ percent points.

positivity rates by state

Sure. With what accurate tests? lol
Really.....please. Who actually believes these numbers? I don't. I would never ever take a test. I was sick last year and I am sure it was covid based on the list of symptoms. But I did not test and never will.

They are not accurate.

Totally, tests are for losers man…

I bet the numbers are underreported based on what you just said.