[fastglass]

>any person who tests positive will be counted as a positive test only once, no matter how many times they test positive. But a person who tests negative will be counted over and over again each time they test negative for the coronavirus.

Which is a reasonable assertion about "the data".

This is where the point about her not being a data scientist comes into play, and needs to be cleared before going into anything else, such as her personal life/drama. She, like many others, including those in this comments section, are running afoul when it comes to familiarity with the subject matter of the data.

You get counted as a positive case "only once", because (early on in theory) you only get the disease once. Whether that's true or not is beyond her paygrade, to say the least.

[CleaveIt2Beaver]

That's not even the crux of the issue, so maybe we should get a little introspective about our own qualifications while we're at it. The problem is that negative tests are counted each time, while positives are per-person. So one nurse could account for 100 negative tests, so the presentation is misleading.

[fastglass]

>The problem is that negative tests are counted each time, while positives are per-person.

The point I was making is that whether this is a problem or not is not a resolved scientific issue, which presupposes the data and presentation.

Furthermore 'this' is a 2 fold issue: do you count negatives more than once; and, do you count positives more than once? These are 2 separate matters; however, I would say counting negatives more than once is the least controversial part.