|
|
|
|
|
|
by timr
1919 days ago
|
|
|
> the poster is continuously misinterpreting a rate as a fixed quantity. I am not. It is a measurement of the percentage of samples in a surveillance network, positive for each pathogen. Here is the methods paper: https://publichealth.jmir.org/2018/3/e59/ Here is the relevant section: > To calculate the pathogen detection rate (as displayed in Figure 2 [second data view] and on the Trend website), we compute the rate for each organism at each institution as a centered 3-week moving average. To adjust for the capacity differences between sites, a national aggregate is calculated as the unweighted average of individual site rates. Only data from sites contributing more than 30 tests per week is included to avoid noise from small numbers of tests. Because the calculation of pathogen detection rate includes results from patients with multiple detections, the detection rate for all organisms can, in theory, add up to greater than one. In practice, this does not occur. The data says exactly what I described: influenza prevalence has declined to nearly zero. Rhinovirus has continued to circulate at normal levels. |
|
|
> The fact that rhinovirus continues to circulate so widely
This statement cannot be made from the link you posted. This is a rate. A frequency rate among sampled data. However it does not track the number of samples occurring. No amount of averaging can cover that. As a result, a person cannot make a conclusion to support the above statement on frequency of circulation of rhinovirus.
> Rhinovirus has continued to circulate at normal levels.
This statement is not supported by the data you list. The description you provide above even supports my argument. They are adjusting for capacity differences, but are still reporting a rate.
This is the key statement they make supporting my point:
> To adjust for the capacity differences between sites, a national aggregate is calculated as the unweighted average of individual site rates.
They are averaging rates of infection. You cannot use that to make the statement that you're making that "Rhinovirus has continued to circulate at normal levels."
This is all very well understood stats. The only thing I can suggest at this point is to do some background reading on statistics, sampling and statistical inference.
I'm trying to both be cordial about it, as you have been cordial in your tone and appear to have an earnest interest in this topic - but also trying to make clear that you are unintentionally spreading false information.
You are doing something that statistics 101 makes clear is invalid to do. I'm not certain how else to put it. My only request is that you refrain from repeatedly posting. It is incorrect information, and it turns out it isn't just an invalid conclusion, it's actually the opposite of what is occurring.
Keep the enthusiasm, but just understand the math/stats a bit more.