Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PKRBKR who wrote (1223207)	4/21/2020 4:39:06 PM
From: Bonefish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578140

That would move the death rate to under .1%...

To: PKRBKR who wrote (1223207)	4/21/2020 4:47:30 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578140

Pkrbkr, The USC study was more random so stats guys can't refute it as much. It confirms the Standford results. My link to the Mercury News article already mentions the USC study. It's another data point, which is valuable, but there is a common flaw in both the USC study and the Stanford study. Both studies rely on a test kit that is 90-95% accurate. More specifically, the test is reported to have 2 false positives for every 371 true negatives. (There is no word on how many false negatives there are, but usually tests like these should have almost none, or else that's a huge liability for the producer of the tests.) In the Stanford study, which did a total of 3,330 tests, 50 tests were reported to be positive, which means 3,280 were negative. But that means 18 positive tests were likely to be false. That's a swing of 36%, which can have a huge effect on the magnitude of the results. Though the basic gist of the study seems valid, namely that there could be a large number of undetected, asymptomatic cases of the coronavirus, a factor of 40 seems way too high. This is why I don't like it when know-it-alls cite scientific studies and jump to conclusions in a vacuum. Consistency, not consensus, is the key to science. All I see from the know-it-alls is a desire to see consensus from like-minded know-it-alls. Tenchusatsu