If you’re in a room of 30 random strangers, there’s a 50/50 chance someone in that room has tested positive in the last two weeks

16 comments
  1. Think it would have been better to use 60 random strangers in this example surely lol.

    Also using 10 days as opposed to 2 weeks would be more relevant.

  2. Not fully related to the post but jesus I hate twitter.

    How is such a nuanceless communication model so central to discourse around a pandemic.

    This guy wanted to essentially write a quick bit of info and had to split it into 3 parts. Its so clunky and confusing.

    Now excuse me, there are some clouds I need to shout at

  3. Sure, if Covid is evenly distributed throughout the populace but it’s not.

    It’s a misunderstanding of the birthday problem (possibly willingly) and not realising there are underlying assumptions

  4. So if I’m in a room with 60 strangers then there’s statistically a 100% chance one of them has tested positive in the last two weeks?

  5. I’m due to do exams with a couple of hundred others in DKIT next week. No sign of them being moved online, I have Asthma and Crohn’s, I’m on immunosuppressants and basically have no immune system.

    Fully vaccinated but the answer I got was if you don’t sit the exams you either repeat in August and graduate with only a pass or repeat the year next year. Absolutely fuming but have no choice to just sit in a hall for two hours with people I’ve never met before from other parts of the campus.

  6. That’s one of those catchy statements, which doesn’t hold up in real world situations. Someone misinterpreting the statistics, albeit for a good cause.

    [Edit] To clarify, people who know they have covid should be self isolating and would not be found in a room of 30 people. Additionally, people who enter a single room of 30 people may not be the most covid-cautious people out there.

Leave a Reply