@GavinNewsom@Steve_Glazer
If you don't want another embarrassing data problem to come out of your CDPH, I suggest you take a look at the seriously flawed use of episode date in a forward sliding window in an environment with testing result delays.
https://t.co/l47Z1AuSyc
@CDPHDirector The California Department of Public Health is using a flawed case rate metric in determining whether counties should be on the monitoring list. https://t.co/dAHoreNhNI
@LTrain18@calonghurst The problem: Using episode date in a current forward sliding window in an environment with testing delays will always significantly undercount cases. Please see my prior tweets on this topic.
https://t.co/l47Z1AuSyc
@CDPHDirector The California Department of Public Health is using a flawed case rate metric in determining whether counties should be on the monitoring list. https://t.co/dAHoreNhNI
@LTrain18@calonghurst "Although case rates are often calculated using the date they were reported to the health department, this measure uses the episode date. The episode date is the earliest of several dates and corresponds to the earliest date that the case can be known to have had the infection."
@devin_breise@LTrain18@calonghurst@SanDiegoCounty To get the flawed numbers that CDPH uses, you need to use the episode date for each case (which we don't have access to).
I've written a lengthy explanation of why CDPH number are so low and why they are junk:
https://t.co/l47Z1AuSyc
@CDPHDirector The California Department of Public Health is using a flawed case rate metric in determining whether counties should be on the monitoring list. https://t.co/dAHoreNhNI
@calonghurst The best way to get a counties CDPH case rate down is to increase delays in testing! It's easier than wearing masks and social distancing!
@LTrain18
https://t.co/l47Z1AuSyc
@CDPHDirector The California Department of Public Health is using a flawed case rate metric in determining whether counties should be on the monitoring list. https://t.co/dAHoreNhNI
@calonghurst@LTrain18@CDPHE@SanDiegoCounty Yes, and the specific numbers (really dates) being used by the CDPH don't make any sense. Any delays in testing will cause a significant undercounting of cases. They simply disappear.
https://t.co/l47Z1AuSyc
@CDPHDirector The California Department of Public Health is using a flawed case rate metric in determining whether counties should be on the monitoring list. https://t.co/dAHoreNhNI
@LTrain18@calonghurst@CDPHE@SanDiegoCounty I've been trying to make the following case to the California Department of Public Health for over two weeks, with no luck.
https://t.co/l47Z1AuSyc
Using Episode Date when there is significant delays in testing will *always* significantly undercount the number of cases.
@CDPHDirector The California Department of Public Health is using a flawed case rate metric in determining whether counties should be on the monitoring list. https://t.co/dAHoreNhNI
@CDPHDirector The California Department of Public Health is using a flawed case rate metric in determining whether counties should be on the monitoring list. https://t.co/dAHoreNhNI
Using a Case Rate based upon Episode Date will severely undercount cases in an environment of long testing turnaround.
"The episode date is the earliest of several dates and corresponds to the earliest date that the case can be known to have had the infection.”
@CDPHDirector The California Department of Public Health is using a flawed case rate metric in determining whether counties should be on the monitoring list. https://t.co/dAHoreNhNI