[cardcrimson]

Wouldn't the significant increase in testing have something to do with the numbers?

The problem is that the proportion of positive patients has remained constant, which is not what you would expect if more testing availability were driving it.  Basically, if you are limited by testing availability, then you would expect a very high proportion of positive tests (only the individuals with the highest risk are tested).  As testing availability improves, the criteria for testing is relaxed and you are more likely to test people without coronavirus, which, in turn lowers the proportion of positive patients.

Basically, right now the ramp up in testing has coincided with an equally fast ramp up in cases.

BC

Agree with you regarding the proportion. Still, significantly increasing the number of tests will have an impact on the doubling calculations, right?

[cardcrimson]

Wouldn't the significant increase in testing have something to do with the numbers?

The problem is that the proportion of positive patients has remained constant, which is not what you would expect if more testing availability were driving it.  Basically, if you are limited by testing availability, then you would expect a very high proportion of positive tests (only the individuals with the highest risk are tested).  As testing availability improves, the criteria for testing is relaxed and you are more likely to test people without coronavirus, which, in turn lowers the proportion of positive patients.

Basically, right now the ramp up in testing has coincided with an equally fast ramp up in cases.

BC

Agree with you regarding the proportion. Still, significantly increasing the number of tests will have an impact on the doubling calculations, right?