The Murphy adminstration answers the ‘old coronavirus cases’ question, and the answer is less than clear
Oh for the love of … I mean come on. Here’s the thing: I don’t think New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy and his administration are purposefully trying to fool us with coronavirus case numbers, as Murphy hinted at at his Wednesday press conference. I did - and still do - wonder if the way they are counting tests is the correct way. The quote, in full. (It’s about at the 52-minute mark of his musings.)
“I know there was some inference, and I’m not suggesting it was Alex (Zdan of News12), there was some inference based on his question the other day that for some reason we are making this look worse than it is,” Murphy said. “This just in: That’s the last thing we have any interest in doing. If you all think it’s a burden, you should assume you’ve got a lot of sympathy up here. The last thing we want to do is mislead people. That’s just not gonna happen. That’s not to say there may be some reason why you’ve got a handful of tests that are getting caught up on, or to your question getting removed. The last thing we’re going to do is make this seem worse than it is. We are trying to call balls - or better than it is, by the way, we’re not gonna do that either - we want to call balls and strikes and call it as we see it.”
Murphy was talking about the previous 48 hours on Twitter, after he fumbled a question from Zdan on Monday, when he couldn’t answer - or chose not to answer - a question concerning why old tests were being counted as new.
I wrote a column about this, Kurt Siegelen of News12 tweeted up a storm about it, and then finally,
after Siegelen asked the Department of Health for clarification, clarification was given. Of sorts. Kind of. A little bit. Maybe.
Basically, the response from the DOH was if they test someone today and it comes back positive, but they first had symptoms at some point in the past - be it a day, a week, a month, a year that’s when the date gets assigned to the case.
So basically, the tests are new, but the case (may) be old.
Frankly, I’m not entirely sure I buy this 100%, but this is the answer and I suppose that’s what we’re going with until someone proves otherwise. Either way, it doesn’t really clear up how many truly active cases are happening right now (unless I’m completely
missing something, which is possible, as this seemingly simple question is proving to be anything but).
But one thing is certainly jumping out at me based on this response, and also based on what’s happening in Michigan right now (more on that in a second): It is pretty clear states count cases differently, and as a result, there’s really no way to know how many cases are really floating around. (As an aside, this is why hospitalizations are really the only number that should count right now.)
But yes: Michigan. Go find a map of current coronavirus cases. I’m using the New York Times for this, if you’re reading this online, give it a click here. And look at that: Coronavirus cases seem to stop at the Michigan border with
Indiana and Ohio. There’s no other way to phrase it. You see other places across the country where it goes from “red” to “not red” as abruptly, but those can easily be explained away by cities bearing the brunt of the cases.
But Michigan? Nope. Nearly the entire state is in one shade of dark orange or red, and once you get to the Indiana and Ohio border … bupkis.
“How is this possible?” seems to be a pretty fair question, and the only answer that seems reasonable is that how positive tests are counted are different in Michigan compared to the other states. I suppose it’s *possible* Michigan is just unlucky here, and the geography of the situation is a coincidence, but … that strains the
bounds of credulity.
Why am I talking about Michigan here in New Jersey? Just to show how the counting of coronavirus tests certainly seems different, depending on the locale.
So again: No grand conspiracy here, just questions. Best way to answer them is the way I mentioned the other day: For the state to provide a list of “new” cases, and along with it, when those cases were tested. I cannot think of a simpler way to end this conversation.