Περισσότερα τεστ αποτελούν ή όχι περισσότερες αποδείξεις; Γενικά μιλώντας.
Για τον ΣΚΑΪ πάντως το παραδέχομαι, είμαι biased.
Βέβαια, πρώτοι δεν είμαστε.
Προς Θεού, δεν ισχυρίζομαι ότι δεν πάμε εξαιρετικά ως χώρα - φτου φτου. Απλά είναι λίγο κουφό να παρουσιάζονται τα λιγότερα τεστ ως success story. Εδώ πχ:
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-testing
Why is data on testing important?
No country knows the total number of people infected with COVID-19. All we know is the infection status of those who have been tested. All those who have a lab-confirmed infection are counted as confirmed cases.
This means that the counts of confirmed cases depend on how much a country actually tests. Without testing there is no data.
Testing is our window onto the pandemic and how it is spreading. Without data on who is infected by the virus we have no way of understanding the pandemic. Without this data we can not know which countries are doing well, and which are just underreporting cases and deaths.
...
Generally, we would expect that more testing means more reliable data on confirmed cases, for two reasons.
Firstly,
a greater degree of testing provides us with a larger ‘sample’ of people for which their infection status is known. If everybody was tested, we would know the true number of people who are infected.
Secondly, it may be the case that countries with a high capacity for testing do not need to ration tests as much. Where the capacity for testing is low, tests may be reserved (or ‘rationed’) for particularly high-risk groups. Such rationing is one of the reasons that tested people are not representative of the wider population.
As such,
where testing coverage is higher, the ‘sample’ of tested people may provide a less biased idea of the true prevalence of the virus.
