[三文鱼]

我相信纽约没有为冠状病毒疾病做足够的测试。您没有将测试数量与总人数进行比较。取而代之的是，您比较测试的收益率，即阳性率。如果只有1％的测试呈阳性，则说明您过度测试，应仅将测试限制在更可能患此病的人。因此减少了测试数量。但是，如果您获得30-50％的收益，则意味着您的预选限制太严格，您可能会错过那些也很有可能成为肯定的人。在极端情况下，如果100％的检测结果为阳性，那么无论您是否要进行检测，都可以说100％的人群被感染。当然，您的预选可能会过于严格，以至于您只测试您百分百确定患有这种疾病的人。即使那些90％肯定患有这种疾病的人也不允许进行检查。简而言之，纽约正在接受测试，因此对COVID-19的病例进行了大量报道。我希望看到像大多数其他地方一样，收益率下降到10％。

[三文鱼]

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.

[平行空间]

思路是对的，做无用功是浪费太多资源，而资源总是有限。检测欠缺也把公众放在危险境地。

当然评判标准有待验证。1%和10%未必合适。我觉得平均每验50个能发现一个比较合适。

[法_语]

纽约的检测阳性率超过10%？。。。

[坤朋]

今天听广播，加拿大检查后发现感染的比率在3%左右。

[三星堆]

但是如果有症状不检测，绝对是大问题了。先不说无症状的。像Bc这样掩耳盗铃纯粹扯

[空山]

三文鱼 写道:

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。你还得看这个人如果有传染性，他/她的危害程度。比如超市员工，银行员工，药房员工，加油站员工，他们难道不该被测试么？

如果是对public营业的场所的人员，都该戴口罩，如果有症状都应该被测试。这样才能及时发现隔离病人，并且关闭场所消毒，隔离观察其他员工。否则会造成更大规模社区感染。

不幸的是，本省这些人很多也不戴口罩，有症状也不获得测试。大概亨利博士觉得这些都是没必要接受检测的普通人。

所以看到隔壁省卡尔加里的大统华员工确诊，超市关门消毒的新闻的时候，居然会替AB的人觉得庆幸他们及时制止了一个小cluster爆发。再说这也不是个案，安省的superstore都确诊两个了。

又觉得悲哀，BC的超市银行加油站药房等等必要服务场所服务人员现在究竟是什么样的状态呢，天知道。

[空山]

平行空间 写道:

思路是对的，做无用功是浪费太多资源，而资源总是有限。检测欠缺也把公众放在危险境地。 当然评判标准有待验证。1%和10%未必合适。我觉得平均每验50个能发现一个比较合适。

思路有问题。即使资源有限，不应该至少把潜在危害程度大的人都纳入检测范围么。

比如应该把essential行业那些对public服务的人员，凡是有症状的都测试哎。

看新闻就能看出至少ON和AB最近都测出超市员工感染了。

BC倒好，除了医护人员和养老院的，其他都是普通人。

[平行空间]

东城烟柳 写道:

思路有问题。即使资源有限，不应该至少把潜在危害程度大的人都纳入检测范围么。 比如应该把essential行业那些对public服务的人员，凡是有症状的都测试哎。 看新闻就能看出至少ON和AB最近都测出超市员工感染了。 BC倒好，除了医护人员和养老院的，其他都是普通人。

这样说行不？ 不同类别的人标准不同。

[空山]

平行空间 写道:

这样说行不？ 不同类别的人标准不同。

反正我总觉得亨利博士这样只测医护人员和养老院的，好吧，还有一些911拖去的，这种无意义的新增曲线只会把大家带到沟里。她老人家好歹应该把公共服务的人也包含进去吧。现在这情况都不敢细想，只能自求多福吧。