[phonethrowaway]

Maybe because you need to learn basic statistics... You need to compare the number of tests to results, not the total population where nobody is getting tested. C'mon man...

I don't disagree with the spirit of self directed data exploration, but you need to be careful.

[hnrodey]

Test positivity is part of the story, but not the story.

If you are not getting tested it’s almost certainly because you’re not actively sick and/or been exposed.

There’s value, in my opinion, to knowing how people people have not have a positive test. This does not imply COVID negative.

I also make the assumption that once you have taken a test you quarantine like a responsible person.

I would say that the amount of people who tested positive is roughly the same as the amount of people who are contagious yet don’t know.

[tinix]

> I would say that the amount of people who tested positive is roughly the same as the amount of people who are contagious yet don’t know.

Based on what? Do you have anything to demonstrate that assumption and back it up with facts?

[hnrodey]

Facts? I don't have anything cite other than common sense.

We know that case counts generally do not have wild swings. In other words, prior performance indicates future behavior. If the two week moving average of positive case counts is 500 - then we can roughly predict what to expect the following day for positive case counts plus or minus the current infection trend.

My experience has been that people who simply get tested are already isolating/quarantining. That has been my approach. So if 500 people tested positive then I generally believe those 500 people isolate themselves and they are no longer infecting people because of their quarantine. Then 500ish people show up tomorrow to take their place.

That's my point. Once people are identified as sick then they aren't spreading the disease because of "hey don't be a giant dickhead".