k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

You state,"The only way testing changes the view is if our screening significantly changes." which completely ignores increased testing. If we test 100 people 10% is 10 people confirmed...if we test 1000 people 100 people are confirmed, assuming 10% tests are typically positive. This is true whether they presented for medical care or not.

Where is the data on the number of increased tests. What % of the 348 were captured through increased testing? By "only" reporting new confirmed tests it may be giving the impression that the virus is spreading faster that reality.

---

If we ignore false positives, you can't measure cases that aren't there. That's important.

We also aren't testing people who aren't presenting. So if screening criteria stays the same - if you have to be symptomatic - increasing the number of tests can only find more people that you were missing before of the same bracket.

If your test capacity is increasing, and screening stays the same, increased number of tests tells you only one of two things

1. You were unable to test people before who you would have liked to have tested
2. The number of people is increasing

If your screening is changing there's a third

3. You are now testing people you previously would / could not test before

The only way to split those is to understand how the screening is being applied. But that's different county to county or even hospital to hospital in some cases.

At any rate, it was pretty well clear we were undertesting, and seeing only the more severe end of things. At some point our test capacity + changes in screening will pass the rate of infectious growth.

---

Quoted for truth
".... So if screening criteria stays the same - if you have to be symptomatic - increasing the number of tests can only find more people that you were missing before of the same bracket."

This means that increased testing is not showing that there is necessarily that dramatic an increase in people with the virus. Those infected people were already infected but not counted until we increased the testing.

Until the number of tests performed on a given day is reported along side of confirmed cases the data is suspect. Even at that, we agree that if the targeted population for testing changes then extracting actionable information becomes even more obtuse.

k2aggie07 said:

---

That's very close to where I'm at. I think you do a hard blitz to buy some time, figure out what's what, and prep for surge where it's pretty clear you need it.

Then you assess and move forward.

After that, you have a menu of options up to a total shutdown to try to lever into protecting your hospital capacity. No need to be binary, and those decisions should be made as locally as possible.

I'm very happy with Pres. Trump's strong federalism on this, and glad Gov. Abbott is mirroring it at the state level.

---

Agreed, and I think Trump will make a HARD push in about a week and a half to start easing restrictions

He of all people knows how bad this is going to get on the social and economic front

Also, like I said yesterday, we don't know what the mood will be in 10 days

At some point, in the near future, people will hit a certain level of "**** it", and the government can either ease us into it, or let it happen on it's own

The latter will be EXTREMELY bad for everyone

What data are you basing your analysis off of. Again, this isn't some trivial thing. If you return to "normalcy" to early you change the ultimate death toll from tens of thousands to a million or 2. Furthermore, you assume the virus itself is not a huge driver of the economic consequences (hint: it is) but the reaction itself is it. The truth is that as long as this persists our economy will not return to normal. If more people die, qnd hospitals get flooded we will not return to normal. The truth is the economy may very well be worse off we if we revert to normal without a calculated, measheed, and modeled approach. So what you are describing isn't necessarily a middle ground.

You may call it panic, but at this point it's educated. Panic is scrambling to buy toilet paper and bottled water at the grocery store. Inforned decision making is recognizing that 40-70% of the US population will get this, and how we let that happen will dictate the course of history. This is bigger than anything we've ever experienced in our lives. We have to treat it as such. So the casual attitude from so many posters here is scary. By the time you (in general) realize how bad this is, it will be far too late.

Wildcat said:

---

The local ERs are overrun with panicked people who sneezed twice and want to be tested. Not joking. Multiple triage nurses required and checking people outside.

---

Thanks to all the fear mongering people on social media and news media.

It should say those you were missing plus any new ones, which is the point you keep wanting to overlook. You get both, the new ones AND the ones you were missing. You just can't separate them without more information.

I'm really hopeful that outside of the highly dense population centers like NYC that mirror European cities with high use of public transportation and people living much closer together, we won't see the same degree of outbreak we are seeing in Italy/Spain and now NYC.

I think reason would expect the outbreak to move slower but still be pretty bad. Flu hits bad in Houston and Small towns, too.

k2aggie07 said:

---

It should say those you were missing plus any new ones, which is the point you keep wanting to overlook. You get both, the new ones AND the ones you were missing. You just can't separate them without more information.

---

Except by leaving this qualifying statement, if increased testing is significant, then people seeing the numbers may make the wrong assumptions about how quickly the virus is spreading increasing the likelihood of panic.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I think reason would expect the outbreak to move slower but still be pretty bad. Flu hits bad in Houston and Small towns, too.

---

I didn't mean no outbreak, but hopefully slow enough that our hospitals will tolerate it.

Quote:

---

Inforned decision making is recognizing that 40-70% of the US population will get this, and how we let that happen will dictate the course of history.

---

While I agree that a majority of people will eventually become infected, only ~10% of tests are coming back positive. I'm not sure if that is scary or comforting. But I am certain it means we have a lot more coming down the road.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I think reason would expect the outbreak to move slower but still be pretty bad. Flu hits bad in Houston and Small towns, too.

---

This might be one area in which the hysteria actually helps...people being more disciplined in the basics (hand washing, sneeze/cough into elbow, keeping distance when out and about) as restrictions ar eased in less densely populated areas.

You do realize that if we haven't caught up to the existing cases that it's actually moving faster than what is being reported, right?

Gordo14 said:

---

https://texags.com/forums/84/topics/3101937/replies/56232619#56232619

I encourage you all to read this thread- especially NawlinsAg's post. And remind yourself this is only the beginning on the hospital side.

---

Everyone here will tell you the people in China, Italy, Spain, Washington, California, New York, Louisiana are so much different than they are here so it's not something to really worry about.

richardag said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

You state,"The only way testing changes the view is if our screening significantly changes." which completely ignores increased testing. If we test 100 people 10% is 10 people confirmed...if we test 1000 people 100 people are confirmed, assuming 10% tests are typically positive. This is true whether they presented for medical care or not.

Where is the data on the number of increased tests. What % of the 348 were captured through increased testing? By "only" reporting new confirmed tests it may be giving the impression that the virus is spreading faster that reality.

---

If we ignore false positives, you can't measure cases that aren't there. That's important.

We also aren't testing people who aren't presenting. So if screening criteria stays the same - if you have to be symptomatic - increasing the number of tests can only find more people that you were missing before of the same bracket.

If your test capacity is increasing, and screening stays the same, increased number of tests tells you only one of two things

1. You were unable to test people before who you would have liked to have tested
2. The number of people is increasing

If your screening is changing there's a third

3. You are now testing people you previously would / could not test before

The only way to split those is to understand how the screening is being applied. But that's different county to county or even hospital to hospital in some cases.

At any rate, it was pretty well clear we were undertesting, and seeing only the more severe end of things. At some point our test capacity + changes in screening will pass the rate of infectious growth.

---

Quoted for truth
".... So if screening criteria stays the same - if you have to be symptomatic - increasing the number of tests can only find more people that you were missing before of the same bracket."

This means that increased testing is not showing that there is necessarily that dramatic an increase in people with the virus. Those infected people were already infected but not counted until we increased the testing.

Until the number of tests performed on a given day is reported along side of confirmed cases the data is suspect. Even at that, we agree that if the targeted population for testing changes then extracting actionable information becomes even more obtuse.

---

If that's the case, then the spread is already huge. The dramatic increase must have happened at some point for us to all of a sudden start discovering this with increased testing. You can't have one without the other because it's not like we've had this significant population of the world walking around with a novel virus for a while without anyone noticing. Either you have a large subpopulation with the virus already and you're returning increased confirmations proportionally to testing because you're essentially sampling that population, or you have a small but growing subpopulation that you're tracking with increased testing. I think it's the latter.

What's more likely, we've had this subpopulation growing for several months without causing any sort of problems until now because it has grown so big we're finally seeing the outliers of a mild disease yet highly contagious disease, or we've had this subpopulation growing for several weeks and we're seeing an appreciable percentage becoming patients and experiencing symptoms from a bad, novel disease? Either it's highly contagious but not noticable in the vast majority of cases, or it's highly contagious and noticable but not lethal in most cases and lethal in severe cases. I think the latter is more likely based on when it was first discovered, and spread/death rates here and in other countries. If it was the former, most of Italy should be dead by now.

Proposition Joe said:

---

Two different frontline doctors from two different states JUST ON TEXAGS have posted this is bad, really bad.

And you've got guys who are in sales for a living questioning if they really know what they are talking about.

We are living in Idiocracy.

---

I didnt realize how many Karens on Facebook post here. Going against the advice of the scientists and medical professionals.

The rapid rise in cases in the US is unnerving. I'm more than happy to take the advice of the professionals on this.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

richardag said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

You state,"The only way testing changes the view is if our screening significantly changes." which completely ignores increased testing. If we test 100 people 10% is 10 people confirmed...if we test 1000 people 100 people are confirmed, assuming 10% tests are typically positive. This is true whether they presented for medical care or not.

Where is the data on the number of increased tests. What % of the 348 were captured through increased testing? By "only" reporting new confirmed tests it may be giving the impression that the virus is spreading faster that reality.

---

If we ignore false positives, you can't measure cases that aren't there. That's important.

We also aren't testing people who aren't presenting. So if screening criteria stays the same - if you have to be symptomatic - increasing the number of tests can only find more people that you were missing before of the same bracket.

If your test capacity is increasing, and screening stays the same, increased number of tests tells you only one of two things

1. You were unable to test people before who you would have liked to have tested
2. The number of people is increasing

If your screening is changing there's a third

3. You are now testing people you previously would / could not test before

The only way to split those is to understand how the screening is being applied. But that's different county to county or even hospital to hospital in some cases.

At any rate, it was pretty well clear we were undertesting, and seeing only the more severe end of things. At some point our test capacity + changes in screening will pass the rate of infectious growth.

---

Quoted for truth
".... So if screening criteria stays the same - if you have to be symptomatic - increasing the number of tests can only find more people that you were missing before of the same bracket."

This means that increased testing is not showing that there is necessarily that dramatic an increase in people with the virus. Those infected people were already infected but not counted until we increased the testing.

Until the number of tests performed on a given day is reported along side of confirmed cases the data is suspect. Even at that, we agree that if the targeted population for testing changes then extracting actionable information becomes even more obtuse.

---

If that's the case, then the spread is already huge. The dramatic increase must have happened at some point for us to all of a sudden start discovering this with increased testing. You can't have one without the other because it's not like we've had this significant population of the world walking around with a novel virus for a while without anyone noticing. Either you have a large subpopulation with the virus already and you're returning increased confirmations proportionally to testing because you're essentially sampling that population, or you have a small but growing subpopulation that you're tracking with increased testing. I think it's the latter.

What's more likely, we've had this subpopulation growing for several months without causing any sort of problems until now because it has grown so big we're finally seeing the outliers of a mild disease yet highly contagious disease, or we've had this subpopulation growing for several weeks and we're seeing an appreciable percentage becoming patients and experiencing symptoms from a bad, novel disease? Either it's highly contagious but not noticable in the vast majority of cases, or it's highly contagious and noticable but not lethal in most cases and lethal in severe cases. I think the latter is more likely based on when it was first discovered, and spread/death rates here and in other countries. If it was the former, most of Italy should be dead by now.

---

I'm going with highly contagious, noticeable in most cases, not SEVERE in most cases, lethal in SOME severe cases

I predict the mortality rate in the US will eventually fall to below 1% overall

WAAAAY below 1% for those under 70

It would be really amusing to have everyone with a strong opinion about this to post what their degree is in (and where from) as well as their current occupation.

Proposition Joe said:

---

It would be really amusing to have everyone with a strong opinion about this to post what their degree is in (and where from) as well as their current occupation.

---

Ag Econ with finance and real estate emphasis. Minors in business and Econ. Currently in commercial real estate and deal with capital markets every day. Realtor on the side for friends, family, and referrals.

I'm also a newly minted infectious disease skeptic.

Proposition Joe said:

---

It would be really amusing to have everyone with a strong opinion about this to post what their degree is in (and where from) as well as their current occupation.

---

My undergrad is construction science, but my masters is data analytics.

Proposition Joe said:

---

Two different frontline doctors from two different states JUST ON TEXAGS have posted this is bad, really bad.

And you've got guys who are in sales for a living questioning if they really know what they are talking about.

We are living in Idiocracy.

---

IMO, living in idiocracy is believing everything you read on the internet, not raising questions and not distilling the BS for yourself, your family and community

No one is arguing that its bad, or becoming potentially really bad. But we're getting mixed messages as to why its bad and frankly it's hard to know who to trust and who is 'talking their book.' Using posts from Drs in NO and Dallas (some information reads like it's in direct conflict with other news outlets/stories) as indicative of all of the entire country, state or even the region comes across as reductive.

Nuclear Engineer....

Proposition Joe said:

---

It would be really amusing to have everyone with a strong opinion about this to post what their degree is in (and where from) as well as their current occupation.

---

I do not think this is turning out like you thought it would...

tysker said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

Two different frontline doctors from two different states JUST ON TEXAGS have posted this is bad, really bad.

And you've got guys who are in sales for a living questioning if they really know what they are talking about.

We are living in Idiocracy.

---

IMO, living in idiocracy is believing everything you read on the internet, not raising questions and not distilling the BS for yourself, your family and community

No one is arguing that its bad, or becoming potentially really bad. But we're getting mixed messages as to why its bad and frankly it's hard to know who to trust and who is 'talking their book.' Using posts from Drs in NO and Dallas (some information reads like it's in direct conflict with other news outlets/stories) as indicative of all of the entire country, state or even the region comes across as reductive.

---

Good points. Anyone who blindly trusts the government with their safety, security, and liberty; deserves none of the above. Let alone anonymous posters on the internet claiming to experts.

Let's not keep up the false dichotomy. You don't need blind trust to agree, and trust but verify is a good way to go forward. I don't think most of us are very far off in how we view this or what the correct response is.

Few are in the do nothing camp - though some are, and at this point they're either sociopaths or narcissists like the_fox (and I mean that in the nicest way possible buddy), they're under-informed, or for whatever reason they are drawing massively different conclusions from the same information others are looking at. If we put a nice interpretation on it these folks are commendably looking out for their own self-interest and the economic interest of others, if at the expense of lives.

Few are in the - shut it down forever camp. But some are, and those people are either bleeding hearts, under-informed, or for whatever reason are drawing massively different conclusions from the same information others are looking at. If we put a nice interpretation on it these folks are commendably looking out for their own self-interest and the physical interest of others, if at the expense of economic cost.

Most of us are in the do-something-but-it-needs-to-be-reasonable camp.

Quote:

---

I do not think this is turning out like you thought it would...

---

Only thing on this thread that I unequivocally agree with.

Three replies, zero with any medical background?

ah the ole rope-a-dope. They thought you were looking for a buncha non-STEM types

But of the response, I believe everyone "knows simple math"

Quote:

---

Most of us are in the do-something-but-it-needs-to-be-reasonable camp.

---

And for the most part, at least here in Texas, I think the responses have been mostly reasonable, maybe over-reactive but also somewhat expected. (An expected response is a subtly important feature to prevent panic.) People generally are acting responsibly and rationally. Like most things nowadays, the vocal extremists are getting the headlines and clicks, and the media forgets about all of the many many families that are staying home, schooling their kids, taking their dog for a walk to pass time and get some exercise, then watching netflix at night while picking up something to go from local restaurants.

Proposition Joe said:

---

Three replies, zero with any medical background?

---

Also none admitted to sleeping at a Holiday Inn last night. I'm slightly disappointed in TexAgs right now...

Anyways, Econ with emphasis in econometrics. Career in financial compliance.

Hi, Im Brett said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

It was hypothetical. I said what if... I also never specified USA only.

You're getting off topic because you can't answer the question. You don't know the answer. You're just emotionally fueled because what's done is done. **** happens. We can do it different in the future, but we are committed to fighting this thing now. There will be major implications in the trillions of dollars yes, but there likely would have been if we didn't lock down businesses and ask people to stay home.

---

We will never know whether this is true.

---

We will never know if the economic impacts would have been worse in the long run had we not done what we are doing now. There. Want to keep playing what if's?

---

Nope. The only thing anyone can know with certainty is their own situation. That calculation is an easy one.

---

This is simply not true, and quite frankly, the crux of the issue. Some people are invincible until they're not.

I don't lean strongly one way or the other, but the middle is a lonely place these days.

---

What?? You do not think I can accurately predict my economic risk if we did nothing and let this virus burn through several million people. I absolutely can. It will have zero impact on my industry. Hell, everyone above 65 could die and it would have zero effect on my industry. It is entirely a young man's game.

As for personal risk. I have about a 1 in 200 chance of dying from this. I have taken far greater risks with my personal safety for far less money than 1 in 200.

I know my individual health and economic risk.

The_Fox said:

---

Hi, Im Brett said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

The_Fox said:

---

FriendlyAg said:

---

It was hypothetical. I said what if... I also never specified USA only.

You're getting off topic because you can't answer the question. You don't know the answer. You're just emotionally fueled because what's done is done. **** happens. We can do it different in the future, but we are committed to fighting this thing now. There will be major implications in the trillions of dollars yes, but there likely would have been if we didn't lock down businesses and ask people to stay home.

---

We will never know whether this is true.

---

We will never know if the economic impacts would have been worse in the long run had we not done what we are doing now. There. Want to keep playing what if's?

---

Nope. The only thing anyone can know with certainty is their own situation. That calculation is an easy one.

---

This is simply not true, and quite frankly, the crux of the issue. Some people are invincible until they're not.

I don't lean strongly one way or the other, but the middle is a lonely place these days.

---

What?? You do not think I can accurately predict my economic risk if we did nothing and let this virus burn through several million people. I absolutely can. It will have zero impact on my industry. Hell, everyone above 65 could die and it would have zero effect on my industry. It is entirely a young man's game.

As for personal risk. I have about a 1 in 200 chance of dying from this. I have taken far greater risks with my personal safety for far less money than 1 in 200.

I know my individual health and economic risk.

---

It's closer to 1 in 20,000 isn't it? Or higher.

Molecular and Cellular Biology
Texas A&M
R&D for 11 years, now an Acct Mgr

This country is gonna be singing a different tune in about a week and a half

Wait and see