|
|
|
|
|
|
by palmstroem
2304 days ago
|
|
|
He gives more detailed numbers about Guandong: at the height of the epidemic, they performed 320000 tests, of which less than 0.5% were positive, which means that they missed less than 200 cases. In other words, Aylward thinks the Chinese numbers are basically correct. Even though of course not all cases are detected, we are not looking at magnitudes more undetected cases driving up the infections in the background. |
|
|
That doesn't follow from your premise and it doesn't match what he said.
"Of 320,000 tests performed, just under 0.5% were positive for the virus at the peak of transmission there, he said — which suggests that only 1 case out of 200 was being missed."
And even based on what he said the conclusion he's drawing doesn't follow either. From other sources the 320,000 was from a community sample. Guangdong has a population of 113 million, a 0.5% infection rate is over half a million people.
Even assuming it's not a random community sample, and it's from people who self selected, so the infection rate is much higher than the general population, there is still room for an order of magnitude more mild cases than are showing up in official numbers.