[AR] Re: FW: [NASA HQ News] March 19 Administrator Statement on Agency Response to Coronavirus
- From: "Anthony Cesaroni" <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 17:40:27 -0400
I was fortunate enough to get tested and it looks like I'm good to go. 😊
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
Uwe Klein
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 5:07 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: FW: [NASA HQ News] March 19 Administrator Statement on Agency
Response to Coronavirus
Am 20.03.2020 um 21:20 schrieb David Summers:
While the infection rate may be unknown, the death rate is easier to
know. Barring a coverup, the numbers seem right.
Thing I haven't really tried to get a grip on:
You do a number of tests ( with cause for testing assumed i.e. not shotgun
style testing. ) from this you get a certain number of positives : infected.
for the US from official numbers 50+k tests with ~16k infected found or ~30%
positive.
for Germany I could only find 35k in the last week for the last weeks delta of
~9k positives. 25% ? ~ same domain.
( haven't looked anywhere else.)
When is a point of overtesting reached?
What positives rate should be aimed for to get good coverage?
( obviously testing everybody and his/her hamster is out of the question at the
moment // for ever?
I'd go for shotgun antibody testing later on to get expanded information
including (silent, unnoticed) spread )
Uwe
Attachment:
image001.jpg
Description:
Other related posts: