That's a pretty nice SS.

I'd like to see the county demographics side by side. We here a lot about how African American are disproportionately affected, bit it doesn't appear to be the case here.

Hispanics seem over-represented, but that might have more to do with the multi-generational living arrangements common to the community.

Also interesting how many 20y/o are in the numbers.

Thanks for putting all that together.

cavscout96 said:

---

That's a pretty nice SS.

I'd like to see the county demographics side by side. We here a lot about how African American are disproportionately affected, bit it doesn't appear to be the case here.

Hispanics seem over-represented, but that might have more to do with the multi-generational living arrangements common to the community.

Also interesting how many 20y/o are in the numbers.

Thanks for putting all that together.

---

According to the 2010 census, this is the makeup of Brazos County. Probably has changed some in the last 10 years.

74.45% White
10.72% Black
4.01% Asian
The rest would be multi-racial, American Indian, and other small % classifications
17.88% Hispanic (The government actually counts most Hispanics as white)

So based on the current numbers, blacks are running about 1% higher at the moment (wouldn't be surprised if one family got hit and it spiked the numbers), while whites are running well below, and Hispanics way high.

We discussed on the politics board why blacks seemed to be hit hard in various areas, but I'm too tired right now to look up the thread. Its basically a combination of areas with large black populations getting hit hard such as New Orleans, others due to living conditions (large, public housing projects where people are crammed in close quarters thus making spread quick and easy) and that blacks tend to have higher rates of some of the most dangerous comorbidities like high blood pressure, obesity, and diabetes. Hispanics are often #2 when it comes to those same conditions.

And if anyone thinks saying that is racist, see the links at the bottom of this post.

I'd say the main contribution of the Hispanic numbers is Sanderson Farms, now that we know the outbreak there isn't over.

One problem is there is that big "unknown" chunk of cases from P@T so it is kind of throwing the numbers out of whack.

https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
https://www.cdc.gov/bloodpressure/facts.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/library/features/diabetes-stat-report.html

Thanks. I didn't realize the % of AA was that low in Brazos county.

I spend a lot of time in several neighboring counties where the % empirically seems considerably higher. That has probably skewed my perception.

I tend to agree that population density and close quarters are likely significant contributors to high infection rates.

7 new cases
0 new deaths (Sadly this will probably go up due to the number in the hospital and the outbreak at P@T.)
78 new tests
10 in the hospital (-1 +1)

77803 +4
77840 +2
77845 +1

They've also added a new page on the PDF, "Positivity Rates" which is a good addition in my opinion.

http://brazoshealth.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/5.29.20.pdf

7 new cases
0 new deaths
12 in the hospital (+2)
183 new tests

77803 +5
77840 +2

http://brazoshealth.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/5.30.20.pdf

On the hospitalizations, I have zero doubt that virtually all of it is coming from P@T. The number of EMS calls there have jumped big time in the last few days. Already heard one this morning, and its easy to figure out that they're responding to a virus patient based on what the dispatcher says, even though they never actually say it. Then the medic unit ends up "out of service for decon" after taking the person to the hospital. There was also an very old woman from north Bryan that was clearly a positive case going to the hospital a couple of days ago.

Sadly, all of this means we'll likely have a spike in deaths before too long.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11DhOiIPQwUQ5teJsvOV_JYp-zDkE4Eq5bQ91fud7y9Q/edit

Today's results include:

1 African American
1 Caucasian
5 Hispanic
0 other

2 Male, 5 Female

we had:
2 in 50's
1 in 40's
2 in 30's
1 in 20's
1 in 15-19

2 in College Station zips
5 in Bryan zips

3 Community
4 Cluster

lockett93 said:

---

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11DhOiIPQwUQ5teJsvOV_JYp-zDkE4Eq5bQ91fud7y9Q/edit

Today's results include:

1 African American
1 Caucasian
5 Hispanic
0 other

2 Male, 5 Female

we had:
2 in 50's
1 in 40's
2 in 30's
1 in 20's
1 in 15-19

2 in College Station zips
5 in Bryan zips

3 Community
4 Cluster

---

Any interest or chance you can add an active cases to the document? As that is what really matters day to day.

I will add active cases, but I'd argue hospitalizations is all that matters. Do we trust the active cases number is accurate?

Shouldn't all of the (identified) active cases be in quarantine?

How does AC as a % influence decision making in this case?

Not disagreeing, just trying to follow the logic.

I agree that more, relevant, info is always better to inform decisions. Just wondering how you assess the risk from AC when (we believe) much of the current AC are from two significant clusters? Are/should those cluaters be weighted differently?

Thanks again Lockett for all the compilation. .

6 new cases
0 deaths
153 new tests
15 in the hospital (+3) (Pretty much as expected, but watch our local media and officials lose their minds.)

77802 +2
77803 +2
77840 +1
77845 +1

http://brazoshealth.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/5.31.20.pdf

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11DhOiIPQwUQ5teJsvOV_JYp-zDkE4Eq5bQ91fud7y9Q/edit

Today's results include:

0 African American
3 Caucasian
3 Hispanic
0 other

3 Male, 3 Female

we had:
1 in 60's
2 in 50's
1 in 40's
2 in 20's

2 in College Station zips
4 in Bryan zips

5 Community
1 Cluster

How many of those new hospitalizations are from P@T?

For anyone interested in community spread cases since they started reporting 'cluster' separately. FYI

cavscout96 said:

---

Shouldn't all of the (identified) active cases be in quarantine?

How does AC as a % influence decision making in this case?

Not disagreeing, just trying to follow the logic.

I agree that more, relevant, info is always better to inform decisions. Just wondering how you assess the risk from AC when (we believe) much of the current AC are from two significant clusters? Are/should those cluaters be weighted differently?

Thanks again Lockett for all the compilation. .

---

Yes they should be quarantined but there is so current legal activity to enforce that and people have to pay bills and get food.

KidDoc said:

---

cavscout96 said:

---

Shouldn't all of the (identified) active cases be in quarantine?

How does AC as a % influence decision making in this case?

Not disagreeing, just trying to follow the logic.

I agree that more, relevant, info is always better to inform decisions. Just wondering how you assess the risk from AC when (we believe) much of the current AC are from two significant clusters? Are/should those cluaters be weighted differently?

Thanks again Lockett for all the compilation. .

---

Yes they should be quarantined but there is so current legal activity to enforce that and people have to pay bills and get food.

---

I guess I was under the mistaken impression that arrangements were made to support quarantined individuals and families.

By which I mean food and other essential deliveries.

cavscout96 said:

---

By which I mean food and other essential deliveries.

---

I think the govt stupidly assumes friends and family will drop off food and pay your rent while you are quarantined.

Imagine a poor family with mom and dad both quarantined? No savings? Of course they will do whatever is necessary to eat and keep a roof over their head.

Ratsa said:

---

I heard the food bank is working in conjunction with the Health Department to identify food insecure COVID-positive residents and deliver food to them weekly until they recover. I'm not sure whether they are also doing this for people quarantined due to exposure, but haven't tested positive.

---

They should so those folks don't have to go out and get food.

Rapier108 said:

---

• 4 new cases

0 deaths

• 0 new tests

15 in the hospital (-1 +1)

77801 +1
77802 +1
77808 +1
77840 +1

http://brazoshealth.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/6.1.20.pdf

---

how is this feasible?

cavscout96 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

• 4 new cases

0 deaths

• 0 new tests

15 in the hospital (-1 +1)

77801 +1
77802 +1
77808 +1
77840 +1

http://brazoshealth.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/6.1.20.pdf

---

how is this feasible?

---

I would guess just none reported.

They report tests as soon as they are submitted not when they get results.

ah... OK.

I guess 0 new tests means 0 new folks presenting for symptoms, so that is a bit of a plus, right?

I guess the new buzz phrase is respect and responsibility.

Novel.

I didn't listen to the whole thing, had to get doggies walked after clinic!

The only interesting thing I heard was Sullivan talking about recovered numbers. He says the number they report are confirmed recovered. They often have trouble reaching patients to see if they are recovered so they just stay on the "active case" list for extended periods. He was walking about possibly just making them "assumed recovered" 10-14 days after diagnosis if they cannot reach them.

I wonder if there was another facility tested to account for the 500+ tests done? Or does somewhere like Parc do a full round of retests after the last round to find new cases, or just test on a per case basis based on symptoms? I know a number of the positives there were asymptomatic, so testing based on symptoms would seem to miss infections/ spreaders.

I found it amusing yesterday with zero tests, 4 new cases, and I think 1 hospitalization, KBTX had the "Breaking News, 15 hospitalizations" headline!

It's so irritating that the fear gets the clicks and drives the headlines. Which in turn drives the ads and advertising rates, which brings in the money to the news media. So even if there's good news, relatively stable cases, lower hospitalizations, etc, the media has to find a fear source to report on in order to draw people in to pay the bills.

I did not comment yesterday, but I caught part of the "press conference." I think it was the KAGS reporter who asked whether kids should go to swimming pools this summer. The answer was a more drawn out version of "it depends on how scared you are of getting sick."

That huge increase in testing may be from the drive through testing results finally coming in, but I don't have any inside knowledge about those test sights.