Quote:
Originally Posted by petegz28
See I call outright bullshit on this for a couple reasons...
One, I know for a fact a lot of people do not get tested properly because they stop the test giver before the swab is deep enough. I have heard this especially from drive up testing.
Secondly up until then all the "negative" tests were met with a huge amount of skepticism and were called false negatives.
Suddenly we are to take this on face value? 10's of thousands of people in the very age group who were out protesting, in some cases before the bars even opened barely 2 weeks ago didn't spread it or get it but the second they walked into a bar...yea....okay
They didn't even open the bars there until 16 days ago. Sorry that just sounds like someone trying to turn a blind eye.
|
Well, testing challenges will be universal... unless someone tested all 7700 of those people and was just terrible at it, I'd think testing any random person after protests, bar-going, etc; would roughly the same percentage of bad results over time.
As far as "but the second they walked into a bar", we don't know what that percentage would be either... it's not like the article says "90% of bar-goers have tested positive".... that could easily be 1% or less, and of course the same people can continue making the same bad decisions and eventually catch it somewhere.
It does make me curious what stats are out there from other large outdoor gatherings though, whether it was protests in other cities or whatever.
~1.5% doesn't seem crazy low for something outdoors and right after/during reopening.