Covid : Positive Test Results v Number of Tests

[Crossover]

This has been mentioned in passing in a few threads but I thought it was worthy of its own.

Has there been any indication as to what the positive test results are as a ratio of the overall number of tests being carried out (thought being in an area)?

Having gone through the fixation of an "R" rate, which seems to have fallen by the wayside somewhat, we are now restricting areas (I won't go so far as to call it lockdown, as it isn't) based on thew new fixation of positive results per 100,000 of the population.

Having heard anecdotally that in some areas (the ones with higher positives) there is increased random testing, it looks like a self-fulfilling prophecy that more cases will be found than if tests aren't being actively pushed.

Surely it can't be that difficult to compile such data, as they know how many tests they are carrying out and how many come back positive/negative/inconclusive and it would give more meaning to the positives per 100,000 figure mentioned above. Or is the data there, but being withheld as it doesn't fit the political profile (call me cynical, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were the case!)

 

[Domh245]

There is data like that albeit you had to work it out yourself from the number of cases announced and the number of tests published*. However as I commented yesterday, they've since stopped publishing the testing data daily, making it much harder to track this, which my more cynical side does find interesting. Using the testing data as of 2nd september, the %ve rate is like this:



7 day average positive rate is up to 0.74% from a low of ~0.4% in early/mid July. The peak positive rate was 39% in early April

*Caveat to this is that you have to do it by date published rather than specimen date, which can be subject to delays

 

[Crossover]

There is data like that albeit you had to work it out yourself from the number of cases announced and the number of tests published*. However as I commented yesterday, they've since stopped publishing the testing data daily, making it much harder to track this, which my more cynical side does find interesting. Using the testing data as of 2nd september, the %ve rate is like this:

View attachment 83238

7 day average positive rate is up to 0.74% from a low of ~0.4% in early/mid July. The peak positive rate was 39% in early April

*Caveat to this is that you have to do it by date published rather than specimen date, which can be subject to delays

Thanks, that is interesting.

I guess my follow on point is whether this is published per area - my concern is with the new fixation on positive tests by area per 100k of the population and applying restrictions based on it is all well and good, but two areas with the same positives per 100,000 population could have very different rates of positives vs tests carried out. The way I see it, 50 positives per 1000 carried out is a very different kettle of fish (and of potential greater concern) than an area with the same positives per 100k if they have 3 positives per 1000 carried out.