"A stunning investigation by Orlando Fox News affiliate Fox 35 finds that the Florida Department of Health is reporting suspiciously high “positive” rates from dozens of COVID-19 testing labs..."

[Mark Venzke]

Do not blame the messenger.

Much contradictory news, information and analysis surrounds Covid-19.

much politicization; much corruption of science, media, government and judiciary; much censorship; much online, digital "book burning"

Not all "science" is true.  Trillions of dollars and control of the world are at stake.

"The more that is at stake,

the more that getting to the truth takes."

Mark Venzke

Do not fall for the Gambit.  Do not allow sophisticated AI-driven conflict baiting draw you into conflict and wastes of time.

Instead, diligently combine efforts to find the truth and sanction the conflict promoters.

Supplant lie mongers with truth mongers.

Let us ferret out the truth together.

Let me know after this discussion will have moved to a different venue.

truth 🕯️

Harmony and Health,

Mark Venzke 🌳

"A stunning investigation by Orlando Fox News affiliate Fox 35 finds that the Florida Department of Health is reporting suspiciously high “positive” rates from dozens of COVID-19 testing labs..."

https://www.newstarget.com/2020-07-14-florida-department-of-health-rigging-coronavirus-test-results-sabotage.html

also:

"333 Florida Testing Labs Showng 100% Positivity Rates with No Negativity Rate*

https://www.brighteon.com/618ae7a6-693c-4614-b3e2-fef13ddae067

[Robert Munyer]

I like bad applied math (in the same way Phil Plait likes bad astronomy)
so I spent some time researching this.

There is a logic error here. "Reported only positive tests" and
"Reported all tests positive" do not have the same meaning.

The former is what actually happened, according to Gov. DeSantis[1].
Many of the people who are writing about this, including some who call
themselves journalists, are wrongly assuming that the former logically
implies the latter. It doesn't.

Mark Venzke wrote:

> Let me know after this discussion will have moved to a different venue.

Mark, the intent was that _you_ would create the new Google Group.
Allen volunteered to help you do that, but I'm sure that he wasn't
volunteering to be the "proprietor" of the new group.

[1] https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/governor-reacts-to-fox-35-investigation-into-covid-19-data-discrepancies

[Mark Venzke]

Robert,

Thank you for your message.

In my first post, I wrote that I would love to participate in an active discussion on a dedicated, secure discussion site, but I have too many other irons in the fire.

Allen offered to no one in particular to establish a Google group.

(As I write this message, it has acquired errors that were not present when I first wrote the meence between the "positives?"ssage.). I shall leave the error in the previous sentance as an example.  Text garbling is one of many, common malfunctions of my Gmail account and Android operating system.

After significant research on over-reporting Covid-19 infections and deaths you concluded that reporters have been misunderstanding and mis-using the word, "positive(s)?" What do you think is the difference in the two uses of the word, "positive(s)?"  Did you learn anything about over-reporting Covid-19 infections and deaths?

I am still interested in contributing to an ongoing  civil discussion an occasional written or recorded piece--mine or others' data, analysis or commentary--or into the middle of a (rugby) "scrum" as the participants would make the exchanges.

Harmony and Health,

Mark Venzke 🌳

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Gainesville Hackerspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gainesville-hacke...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gainesville-hackerspace/875zamom28.fsf%40mid.munyer.com.

[Robert Munyer]

Mark Venzke wrote:

> After significant research on over-reporting Covid-19 infections and
> deaths you

I didn't do a "significant" research campaign; I didn't need to.

I just read the articles on Fox 35's site about their investigation,
and the one article on the junk site whose content you pasted here.

> concluded that reporters have been misunderstanding and mis-using the
> word, "positive(s)?" What do you think is the difference in the two
> uses of the word, "positive(s)?"

It isn't about different meanings of the word "positive", it's about
different ways of dividing to get a percentage.

Suppose you photograph 100 snakes, and send the pictures to a snake
expert to find out which are venomous. He sends you a report about the
two that are venomous, and his report also mentions that one of your
photos is of a very rare indigo snake.

Do you divide 2 by the original 100, and get 2%? Or do you divide 2 by
the number of snakes mentioned in the report (which is 3), and get ~67%?

You can do either calculation, if you are clear about which one you are
doing. If you do it one way, and people who see your percentage _think_
that you did it the other way, people might think that you are claiming
that ~67% of the snakes that you photographed are venomous, which is not
what you actually meant.

There is a disagreement, between the state and some labs, about whether
the state asked those labs to include negative tests in their reports.
Both sides agree that the anomalous percentages investigated by Fox 35
resulted from state software dividing positive test result counts by
divisors that did not include all negative test results.

The junk site whose content you pasted here is claiming that both sides
(the state and the labs) are wrong, and the divisor _does_ include all
negative test results, and the percentages are anomalous because shadowy
state government conspirators have faked the dividend by a factor of ten.
There is no real attempt to justify that claim, just a bare assertion.