Help Translating German, 1000000 Tested, 93% Negative For COVID19?

[RealNeat]

Negative Corona-Befunde: Die Test-Frage - DER SPIEGEL - Wissenschaft

any way someone who knows German can confirm this and dissect it for issues or accuracy?

 

[Giraffe]

"As per March 29, a total of approximately 918,460 samples have been tested of which 64,910 were positive. Thus 7 % were positive, and 93 % were negative. Not all laboratories report negative test results, therefore there are some uncertainties regarding the total number of tests."

This means: They don't know how many tests have been performed, and the percentage of positive tests might be lower.

I have watched the press conference that is described in the article. There the health minister and the head of the Association of Physicians just threw figures at each other. It was like a Punch and Judy show.

 

[RealNeat]

"As per March 29, a total of approximately 918,460 samples have been tested of which 64,910 were positive. Thus 7 % were positive, and 93 % were negative. Not all laboratories report negative test results, therefore there are some uncertainties regarding the total number of tests."

This means: They don't know how many tests have been performed, and the percentage of positive tests might be lower.

I have watched the press conference that is described in the article. There the health minister and the head of the Association of Physicians just threw figures at each other. It was like a Punch and Judy show.

Regardless does this not go against the premise that a lot of people are infected but a symptomatic? Even peat says the more tests we do the more we will see the number of infected, but according to these stats it seems many have yet to be infected.

 

[LeeLemonoil]

According to official figures as of now there are about 100.000 infected in Germany, of a population of 82 million. That’s 0.12%.
Even if the numbers might be 10 times higher as most „experts“ in Germany grant, 7% is significantly higher than 1.2% obviously. That a random cohort of tested yield 7% instead of 1.2% shows that there are more infected than the experts assume.

Even if the tested surely were tested because of symptoms or having been on proximity of infected the trend is what Peat and most here say: a lot more infected than the official figures state

 

[Giraffe]

Regardless does this not go against the premise that a lot of people are infected but a symptomatic?

Asymptomatic people do not get tested. This is a decision of the German CDC, and it's part of the fear mongering. If you test only the symptomatic people, the disease looks a lot more severe.

Even peat says the more tests we do the more we will see the number of infected, but according to these stats it seems many have yet to be infected.

When Peat says the more tests you do the more infected you will find, he talks about absolute numbers. No contradiction.

but according to these stats it seems many have yet to be infected

No, not necessarily. They normally look for the virus in the nasal cavity (in hospital they probably check the lungs, too, but this is a lot more invasive). Now let's assume the virus can be detected in the nasal cavity for 10 days. We had the first lab confirmed SARS-CoV-2 case in January. This is one million tests between January 25 (?) and March 29.

So what do we know if someone was tested negative? We know that at the time of the test they could not find the virus. We can't rule out that the person was positive before the test was done. We can't rule out either that he got infected later.

The only way to get a clear picture is to design a study and test a representative cohort. And you need to do tests a couple of weeks in a row. As far as I know CDC has neither done nor planned such a study. They are vaccine pushers. It's not serving their interests to get reliable data.

That a random cohort of tested yield 7% instead of 1.2% shows that there are more infected than the experts assume.

What random cohort are you talking about?