Poll of the Day > 1/330 Americans tested positive for COVID yesterday.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Really makes you think.

What about the untested ones?

Revelation34 posted...

What about the untested ones?

They didnt test negative or positive

Cumulative or just yesterday alone?

Just yesterday alone

A million positive tests? Do you even have that much testing capacity?

In a few weeks we could be seeing a double event, where each American tests positive twice a day.

Blightzkrieg posted...

each American tests positive twice a day

But that is already a possibility given that they test positive once. They need merely take the test once more.

EclairReturns posted...

But that is already a possibility given that they test positive once. They need merely take the test once more.

In that case we already have an infinite number of cases a day and are drastically undercounting.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

A million positive tests? Do you even have that much testing capacity?

Yes and it did not even count at home testing.

Where are you getting these statistics from?

BEERandWEED posted...

Where are you getting these statistics from?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/04/us-counts-over-1-million-new-daily-covid-cases-in-global-record-.html

Lets hope omnicom burns itself out quickly cause of this

Judgmenl posted...

Yes and it did not even count at home testing.

Home testing is not relevant to my surprise. The total numbers of official tests performed yesterday is, do you also have that number?

Hospitalizations and deaths are still lower than last year.

Lol skewed reporting is some fearmongering.

"The record single-day total may be due in part to delayed reporting from over the holiday weekend. A number of U.S. states did not report data on Dec. 31, New Years Eve, and many do not report data on weekends, meaning that some of these cases could be from positive tests taken on prior days."

1 in 330 makes it sound rare. Hardly worth being concerned with.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

1 in 330 makes it sound rare. Hardly worth being concerned with.

I don't think those numbers are right. If you had that % for a whole month, that would mean in 1 month 1 in 11 people tested would be positive.

That may still not sound like alot, but it can take weeks to get over and a percentage of people have long term effects that don't end. In addition if you have 10% of the population get a virus within a month, you will eventually have the entire population test positive unless someone lives in an actual bubble.

If over a mill people tested positive in the US in 1 day, that is a big deal (don't think that actually happened though). That is especially true if they are including children (since there are only about 220 million adults in this country).

Let me just say, as someone waiting to hear back from my work's automated system telling me where to get tested, that this seems to be about a week, week and a half, after the last minute Christmas shopping. So some of the last minute shoppers were probably super spreaders with zero regard for anyone else; more like they only shopped when they did for their own sake. Crowds of people participating in the corporate sham of what the holiday has become, and nevermind the pandemic still going on. -.-

Ogurisama posted...

Lets hope omnicom burns itself out quickly cause of this

That is the hope. By spreading this quickly and effectively, it stands a chance of inducing herd immunity all on its own. Unfortunately, there's so little immune overlap between Omicron and previous variants that that's going to mean pretty much nothing for Covid overall.

BEERandWEED posted...

Lol skewed reporting is some fearmongering.

"The record single-day total may be due in part to delayed reporting from over the holiday weekend. A number of U.S. states did not report data on Dec. 31, New Years Eve, and many do not report data on weekends, meaning that some of these cases could be from positive tests taken on prior days."

But it's that reporting that explained why the spike is so high. How is that skewed/fearmongering?

That is, however, why single-day highs don't mean a whole lot. They often reflect quirks in data collection/reporting, rather than actual massive spikes. Instead, you're best off looking at the 7-day average, which is also pretty readily attainable. Yesterday's 7-day average was around 481,000, which is clearly quite a bit less than a million, but still the highest such figure recorded by a significant margin.

BEERandWEED posted...

Hospitalizations and deaths are still lower than last year.

Yesterday's 7-day average for hospitalizations was about 70% of the highest figure seen during the third wave, a record set almost exactly a year ago. That is lower, but it's currently climbing quite rapidly, and is nonetheless alarmingly high given that the vaccination rate (which is supposed to significantly lower hospitalizations, and otherwise would be) is so much higher than it was a year ago.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

1 in 330 makes it sound rare. Hardly worth being concerned with.

Can you name a single disease in history that has managed to infect an average of 0.15% of a given country's population every day for a week?

Dang! That's like wow man

adjl posted...

Can you name a single disease in history that has managed to infect an average of 0.15% of a given country's population every day for a week?

This may or may not be the most transmissable disease in human history. But that would be impossible to determine because no disease has ever been tested for on the magnitude of covid. Not even in the same ballpark

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

1 in 330 makes it sound rare. Hardly worth being concerned with.

lol

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

1 in 330 makes it sound rare. Hardly worth being concerned with.

Bruh do you have any idea how percentages work

https://twitter.com/vb_jens/status/1372251931444350976

Zareth posted...

Bruh do you have any idea how percentages work

Yes, a percent is 1 in 100. 330 is 3.3 x 100. So 1 in 330 is less than a third of a percent.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Yes, a percent is 1 in 100. 330 is 3.3 x 100. So 1 in 330 is less than a third of a percent.

That's a start. Now apply that knowledge. What is 0.33% of 300,000,000?

Blightzkrieg posted...

In a few weeks we could be seeing a double event, where each American tests positive twice a day.

Why would anybody test twice a day?

adjl posted...

Can you name a single disease in history that has managed to infect an average of 0.15% of a given country's population every day for a week?

Pornography addiction.

Revelation34 posted...

Why would anybody test twice a day?

Whoosh!

Entity13 posted...

That's a start. Now apply that knowledge. What is 0.33% of 300,000,000?

1 in 330 is 0.303% but I'll play along.
300,000,000 / (0.33 * 100) = 9,090,909.091

This is why public education in the united states is an absolute failure.

OhhhJa posted...

This may or may not be the most transmissable disease in human history. But that would be impossible to determine because no disease has ever been tested for on the magnitude of covid. Not even in the same ballpark

They have not, so conclusive data is not available, but pretty much every disease ever tracked has estimates made for the true incidence by extrapolating from the concrete test results that were gathered. Even if you can't give a conclusive answer to the question, you can at least cite examples that might be comparable.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

1 in 330 is 0.303% but I'll play along.
300,000,000 / (0.33 * 100) = 9,090,909.091

That's an... interesting way to work with percentages.

Judgmenl posted...

This is why public education in the united states is an absolute failure.

But you don't understand! Some of those cases are going to be asymptomatic, and that means we don't have to worry about any of them!

you guys know that x * 1 = x right?

Side note, yesterday's new case count was almost 900,000, bringing the 7-day average to 553k. I fully expect that the 1 million figure was a product of holiday testing backlogs, rather than an accurate report of actual new cases, but that backlog is clearing and numbers are still awfully high.

adjl posted...

That's an... interesting way to work with percentages.

Agreed. I'm waiting to see where Entity13 is going with this.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Agreed. I'm waiting to see where Entity13 is going with this.

You don't actually realize how badly you botched the math there, do you?

adjl posted...

You don't actually realize how badly you botched the math there, do you?

Apparently no.

Edit:
Oh, I think I flipped the operators.
300,000,000 * (0.33 / 100) = 990,000

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Apparently no.

You just divided 300 million by 33, which has nothing to do with anything. To determine a given percentage of a number, you multiply the percentage by that number. In this case, .33%*300,000,000=1 million.

Should be noted that only 260 million of the population are adults and therefore could be tested, so using 330 as the baseline is false.

If the average over 7 days was over 500k, and that continues for a full month, that would end up being 15 million people testing positive on average over the month. Add in the 2-3 week time frame average (due to some lasting longer), and you could easily hit over 30million people having covid at the same time.

30 million people currently infected out of 260 million is over 10% of the population.

adjl posted...

To determine a given percentage of a number, you multiply the percentage by that number.

Let's try that...
25% of 40 = 25 * 40 = 1,000
20% of 10 = 20 * 10 = 200
80% of 20 = 80 * 20 = 1,600

You have to divide all of those by 100 to get the right answer.
1000 / 100 = 10
200 / 100 = 2
1,600 / 100 = 16

In other words the percentage has to be converted to a fractional value first.
25% = 25 / 100
0.33% = 0.33 / 100

Then you multiply the fractional value by the number.
40 * (25 / 100) = 10
300,000,000 * (0.33 / 100) = 990,000

adjl posted...

In this case, .33%*300,000,000=1 million.

you multiply the percentage (0.33) by that number 300,000,000
0.33 * 300,000,000 = 99,000,000
99,000,000 =/= 1 million
You're further off than I was.

Can you people please just learn to use a calculator or some shit?

990,000 tested positive in one day. Not 990,000 positive as of the one day, but so many tested in the one day. For something still dangerous to however many out there, and a cruddy way to survive for yet more. For something that could have been contained and made significantly less. 990,000 . . . plus others tested on other days before or after.

That is a lot of people. When you look down on the percentage alone, it looks like nothing, but then you apply the number, put it to actual form, and it's not something to look down at. Combine with the religious extremists in this country, and it's basically everything we accuse the Middle Ages of being; everything we throw insults at as if we're somehow better. Well, this is not better.

990,000 in one day. There's some gravity to that.

Entity13 posted...

990,000 in one day. There's some gravity to that.

It wasn't one day. The article said that. It was more like 4-5 days.

BEERandWEED posted...

It wasn't one day. The article said that. It was more like 4-5 days.

That is different, it both disregards what I was getting at--which was based on what was being argued over in this topic--and renders the entire argument moot.

Entity13 posted...

That is different, it both disregards what I was getting at--which was based on what was being argued over in this topic--and renders the entire argument moot.

It's why the whole reporting is based on fearmongering and sensationalizing to promote a positive public attitude about a topic inaccurately.

Man, that article. It reads like the writer dislikes he has to sensationalize the facts to falsely sway public opinion.

My favorite part is right after they admit the data isn't actually from a single day, they start the next paragraph with "nonetheless" as if misreporting facts is not important.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Let's try that...
25% of 40 = 25 * 40 = 1,000
20% of 10 = 20 * 10 = 200
80% of 20 = 80 * 20 = 1,600

... 25%=0.25. The percent symbol carries an implicit "*0.01" operation. Literally nobody that isn't a 6th grade math teacher insisting that everyone write out their entire thought process for every mathematical operation they do actually bothers to explicitly write out the conversion between decimals and percents.

Entity13 posted...

990,000 tested positive in one day. Not 990,000 positive as of the one day, but so many tested in the one day.

The actual number is 1,018,935. Judg just went with 1/330 of the total population was a rough estimate that contextualized it quite effectively, for most people.

BEERandWEED posted...

It wasn't one day. The article said that. It was more like 4-5 days.

And then the next day saw 880,000 new cases. There was likely still a bit of backlog contributing to that, but whatever nitpicking you can do over the details, it's a metric butt-ton of new cases in a very short period of time.

BEERandWEED posted...

It's why the whole reporting is based on fearmongering and sensationalizing to promote a positive public attitude about a topic inaccurately.

The report in question includes the explanation that you're relying on to say "oh that's not as bad as it sounds. You literally copied it. Accusing them of fearmongering by presenting misleading statistics when they explain why those statistics seem worse than they are in the next breath is just plain silly.

That said, for the reasons the article outlines and that you're clinging so desperately to, single-day case counts are not tremendously meaningful. It's generally better to look at averages to get a better picture of the trend, which is why case data is reported as both the single-day figures and the 7-day average. Yesterday's 7-day average was 550k, which is notably less than a million, but is still more than twice the record from previous waves. That's a big deal, even if it's less than a million. This is objectively a massive outbreak, whatever you'd like to believe.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Man, that article. It reads like the writer dislikes he has to sensationalize the facts to falsely sway public opinion.

It really doesn't. Like, at all.

SunWuKung420 posted...

My favorite part is right after they admit the data isn't actually from a single day, they start the next paragraph with "nonetheless" as if misreporting facts is not important.

The following paragraph amounts to "even though the true number isn't as high as it looks, the average over all relevant days has still shattered records, so it's still a very big deal." Nothing has been misreported, nothing is misleading, it's just a huge number of cases.