Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherdan
You couldn’t get tested when that first wave struck. Especially in the states and Ontario/Quebec. So basically you’re working with garbage data. That’s not science. Garbage in = garbage out.
As far as I can tell, the most complete data in North America comes from Alberta. South Korea was testing like crazy on day two. That data is way more accurate than stuff from the States where there was no testing for a while.
I think we understand what you’re saying... you’re having a party, and not everyone is going to survive it. Doesn’t sound like a good party... before I make an educated decision on whether I should go or not, I need to know what kind of beer you will have, and will there be ladies?
|
Agreed that testing and the congruency of the data collection took most jurisdictions some time to get right - true - but I'd say the data is the best we have right now - at least the most credible.
To suggest a higher or lower rate from anyone, would be based on conjecture, but I'd say it's likely pretty accurate at this point and accuracy continues to improve the more data we get in (over these last 3-4 months or so).
I don't know if Alberta's data would be more accurate or less accurate compared to other jurisdictions - and not to argue, but why would you say that? just curious.
A party where someone dies would suck. Agreed. But if I'm having any party, you can bet there will be pretty ladies and cold beers. Without them, it's no party.