We're not paying enough attention to the number of cases vs. the number of tests.

[Renew Deal]

I don't think we're paying enough attention to the number of new cases vs. the number of tests in certain states. Stacey Abrams tipped me off to this when she appeared on a podcast recently (links at the bottom).

Using the worldometers site with yesterday's data...

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us

New York is #1 in new cases and #2 in tests/1 Million population.

New Jersey is #2 in new cases and #9 in tests/1 Million population.

Massachusetts is #4 in new cases and #3 in tests/1 Million population

So far, so good. Then things get stupid.

Illinois is #3 in new cases, but #21 in tests/1 Million population.

Indiana is #6 is new cases, but #32 in tests/1 Million population. (#2 in deaths yesterday)

Georgia is #8 in new cases, but #36 in tests/1 Million population. (#7 in deaths yesterday)

Virginia is #11 in new cases, but #50 (out of 51) in tests/1 Million population

Texas is #12 in new cases, but #46 in tests/1 Million population

My point of all this is that the number of tests doesn't match up proportionally to the number of cases. I have a feeling that some of the states above are severely undercounting the sick. The Indiana, Georgia, Virginia, and Texas situations are scary. People in those states probably don't realize there is a problem yet.

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/dr-celine-gounder/epidemic-with-dr-celine-gounder-and-ronald-klain

Stacey Abrams Episode: https://app.stitcher.com/splayer/f/509759/69124353

[5X]

1. Add Oklahoma to that list. n/t

[progree]

2. Are new cases and tests both per million population? The other thing, where do you

get new cases per million population?

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us

I'm looking at the big table listing all states with about 11 column headers. The new cases aren't comparable from state to state because of different times when they are reported. As I look at it at 337 am ET, none except California have new cases. (Though I suppose there's a sweet spot in the evening where all have reported, and it hasn't all been wiped clean yet.)

And there isn't a new cases per million population header. If it's just new cases vs. tests per million population, a comparison of the two rankings is meaningless given the vast differences in population between states. (A highly populous state will tend to have a lot more cases than some sparsely populated Plains state that nobody wants to live in).

I'd also think that new tests should be compared to new cases, not cumulative total tests to new cases.

Another issue is that, especially for less populous states, new cases and new tests (or new cases per million and new tests per million) vary quite a lot from day to day, so any conclusions drawn are valid for only that day.

I agree though that the number of tests is a big consideration when reporting numbers of cases. And that any comparison between states has to be on a per million population basis (or some other per capita basis) to have any validity whatsoever.

Thanks.

[crickets]

3. Oh, we're aware there's a problem. Kicking in agreement with OP. nt

[tanyev]

4. #46 in tests, and we gonna open Texas back up! Yeehaw, it's gonna be awesome!