There's a long piece on HR (public TV for Hessen) on the issues of the newly identified 'process' to cover the Covid infection rate. In simple terms, they 'dump' on the hospitalization rate (the new standard), and basically hint that the old rate (infection per 100k residents) should be brought back.
The problem here.....no matter which method you use....it all leads to questionable values in the end.
Earlier this year, the Mainz University folks came out and did a major 'test' of the general public (only that region) and found that whatever legit number you used for the PCR-proven Covid folks.....that another 40-percent had a marginal Covid infection and never were tested (likely thinking they had a plain cold).
If you had Covid....got tested....then lapsed into a 5-day period of illness with doctor-prescribed treatments successful in downsizing the Covid....how should you be 'counted' or 'identified'?
If you had serious and bad Covid....requiring hospitalization but NOT ventilator support....how should you be 'counted' or 'identified'?
If you had ICU treatment with the ventilator.....how should you be 'counted' or 'identified'?
If you survived the virus, but ended up with 'long-Covid'....how should you be 'counted' or 'identified'?
If you died in the hospital or at home, but had secondary issues going on.....how should you be 'counted' or 'identified'?
The problem I see.....you need an Einstein type formula with at least ten different numbers....done on a daily basis, and only then do you reach some type of logical answer.
But to the regular German on the street....would this Einstein formula even make any sense? That's really the problem here.
No comments:
Post a Comment