[三文魚]

我相信紐約沒有為冠狀病毒疾病做足夠的測試。您沒有將測試數量與總人數進行比較。取而代之的是，您比較測試的收益率，即陽性率。如果只有1％的測試呈陽性，則說明您過度測試，應僅將測試限制在更可能患此病的人。因此減少了測試數量。但是，如果您獲得30-50％的收益，則意味著您的預選限制太嚴格，您可能會錯過那些也很有可能成為肯定的人。在極端情況下，如果100％的檢測結果為陽性，那麼無論您是否要進行檢測，都可以說100％的人群被感染。當然，您的預選可能會過於嚴格，以至於您只測試您百分百確定患有這種疾病的人。即使那些90％肯定患有這種疾病的人也不允許進行檢查。簡而言之，紐約正在接受測試，因此對COVID-19的病例進行了大量報道。我希望看到像大多數其他地方一樣，收益率下降到10％。

[三文魚]

英文原文如下，

I believe New York is not doing enough tests for Coronavirus disease. You don’t compare the number of tests to total populations. Instead you compare the yield of the tests, which is the percentage positive. If only 1% of the tests is positive, you are over testing and should limit tests only to people who are more likely to have the disease. So cut done number of tests. But if you are yielding 30-50% it means your pre-selection is too restrictive and you may be missing those who also have a high probability of being positive. In the extreme case when 100% of the tests are positive, then you can say that 100% of the population is infected, whether you want to test them or not. Of course it is more likely that your pre-selection is so restrictive that you only test people you are 100% sure have the disease. Even those who are 90% sure to have the disease are not allowed to have the tests. In short, New York is under tested and COVID-19 cases are therefore greatly under reported. I want to see the yield go down to 10%, like most other places.

[平行空間]

思路是對的，做無用功是浪費太多資源，而資源總是有限。檢測欠缺也把公眾放在危險境地。

當然評判標准有待驗證。1%和10%未必合適。我覺得平均每驗50個能發現一個比較合適。

[法_語]

紐約的檢測陽性率超過10%？。。。

[坤朋]

今天聽廣播，加拿大檢查後發現感染的比率在3%左右。

[三星堆]

但是如果有症狀不檢測，絕對是大問題了。先不說無症狀的。像Bc這樣掩耳盜鈴純粹扯

[空山]

三文魚 寫道:

英文原文如下， I believe New York is not doing enough tests for Coronavirus disease. You don’t compare the number of tests to total populations. Instead you compare the yield of the tests, which is the percentage positive. If only 1% of the tests is positive, you are over testing and should limit tests only to people who are more likely to have the disease. So cut done number of tests. But if you are yielding 30-50% it means your pre-selection is too restrictive and you may be missing those who also have a high probability of being positive. In the extreme case when 100% of the tests are positive, then you can say that 100% of the population is infected, whether you want to test them or not. Of course it is more likely that your pre-selection is so restrictive that you only test people you are 100% sure have the disease. Even those who are 90% sure to have the disease are not allowed to have the tests. In short, New York is under tested and COVID-19 cases are therefore greatly under reported. I want to see the yield go down to 10%, like most other places.

不能光看yield。你還得看這個人如果有傳染性，他/她的危害程度。比如超市員工，銀行員工，藥房員工，加油站員工，他們難道不該被測試麼？

如果是對public營業的場所的人員，都該戴口罩，如果有症狀都應該被測試。這樣才能及時發現隔離病人，並且關閉場所消毒，隔離觀察其他員工。否則會造成更大規模社區感染。

不幸的是，本省這些人很多也不戴口罩，有症狀也不獲得測試。大概亨利博士覺得這些都是沒必要接受檢測的普通人。

所以看到隔壁省卡爾加裡的大統華員工確診，超市關門消毒的新聞的時候，居然會替AB的人覺得慶幸他們及時制止了一個小cluster爆發。再說這也不是個案，安省的superstore都確診兩個了。

又覺得悲哀，BC的超市銀行加油站藥房等等必要服務場所服務人員現在究竟是什麼樣的狀態呢，天知道。

[空山]

平行空間 寫道:

思路是對的，做無用功是浪費太多資源，而資源總是有限。檢測欠缺也把公眾放在危險境地。 當然評判標准有待驗證。1%和10%未必合適。我覺得平均每驗50個能發現一個比較合適。

思路有問題。即使資源有限，不應該至少把潛在危害程度大的人都納入檢測范圍麼。

比如應該把essential行業那些對public服務的人員，凡是有症狀的都測試哎。

看新聞就能看出至少ON和AB最近都測出超市員工感染了。

BC倒好，除了醫護人員和養老院的，其他都是普通人。

[平行空間]

東城煙柳 寫道:

思路有問題。即使資源有限，不應該至少把潛在危害程度大的人都納入檢測范圍麼。 比如應該把essential行業那些對public服務的人員，凡是有症狀的都測試哎。 看新聞就能看出至少ON和AB最近都測出超市員工感染了。 BC倒好，除了醫護人員和養老院的，其他都是普通人。

這樣說行不？ 不同類別的人標准不同。

[空山]

平行空間 寫道:

這樣說行不？ 不同類別的人標准不同。

反正我總覺得亨利博士這樣只測醫護人員和養老院的，好吧，還有一些911拖去的，這種無意義的新增曲線只會把大家帶到溝裡。她老人家好歹應該把公共服務的人也包含進去吧。現在這情況都不敢細想，只能自求多福吧。