Rapier108 said:

---

And here come the same DOOM posts like clockwork.

Never anything but "not good" or the like.

So what do you all propose we do to prevent Armageddon?

---

Wow. Didn't know that "not good" meant the world is ending. You're so sensitive about this.

I am not going to get into this argument again because I'm sure any reply I make gets flagged. Asking what someone thinks should be done because they clearly are afraid due to the rising cases is asking a question, nothing more.

Every time there a larger than single digit number of cases, the same people show up to say how bad it is, how something must be done, etc. etc. etc. They never say what, and when asked, we get responses like what you just posted.

Most people here try to contribute to the discussion; a few just want to post DOOM.

And that's a grand total of 2,506 folks with covid in the hospital.

In the entire state.

Circling back to recent cluster vs community .... given the spike, zip, and ethnicity ... the spike is clearly cluster related within Bryan's Hispanic community. That said (and reading the tea leaves) ... BCHD is likely using HIPPA to incorrectly classify as 'community' to avoid questions on the cluster infection source(s).

Bottom line ...recent BCHD cluster vs community data is likely suspect.

benchmark said:

---

Bottom line ...recent BCHD cluster vs community data is a clustef***

---

fify

benchmark said:

---

Circling back to recent cluster vs community .... given the spike, zip, and ethnicity ... the spike is clearly cluster related within Bryan's Hispanic community. That said (and reading the tea leaves) ... BCHD is likely using HIPPA to incorrectly classify as 'community' to avoid questions on the cluster infection source(s).

Bottom line ...recent BCHD cluster vs community data is likely suspect.

---

Would not be a surprise.

Just once I wish our local media would commit a random act of journalism and ask some questions.

Wouldn't be a surprise if nearly all is still coming from Sanderson Farms, or due to big Hispanic community events.

Rapier108 said:

---

And here come the same DOOM posts like clockwork.

Never anything but "not good" or the like.

So what do you all propose we do to prevent Armageddon?

---

Assuming a vaccine is not available soon, you should expect everyone to eventually get it. As long as we keep hospitals from being absolutely overrun, then whoever dies was destined to die. Sucks, but it is what it is.

Protecting the most vulnerable and opening the economy at a rapid rate, but one that keeps the cases from causing a catastrophic failure of the healthcare system, is the best way to get to the other side of this mess.

Ghoulish, and ignores a lot of uncomfortable realities. A lot of "vulnerable" people are in the active workforce, not 85, diabetic, and in nursing homes. In short, you are abrogating to yourself the decision to sacrifice others. Please think about that.

Imagine in 2001: "I mean, we all face the very real possibility of being burned alive with jet fuel in a terrorist attack."

With all due respect, Esteban du Plantier, it's not your decision who in my family is "destined to die." But I doubt you realize that.

FlyRod said:

---

ignores a lot of uncomfortable realities. A lot of "vulnerable" people are in the active workforce, not 85, diabetic, and in nursing homes.

---

Not ignoring uncomfortable realities, quite the opposite. There cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach. In that case, since there are some vulnerable people in the workforce, everyone has to be unemployed? Hate to be austere, but your problems are different than my problems.

Some people need to stay out of public, and others are not at that risk level. If the vulnerable people need public support to stay safe at home to survive during that time, then they should have that support.

But to mandate that everyone stay home and everyone not work is absurd.

FlyRod said:

---

With all due respect, Esteban du Plantier, it's not your decision who in my family is "destined to die." But I doubt you realize that.

---

Since you edited to specifically reference me, I'll respond to that.

I'm not saying anyone should die, or is a better candidate, or anything like that.

I'm arguing personal responsibility.

Some people are particularly vulnerable and they need to take care of themselves. If that requires public help, then they should have that.

But for those that do not believe they are at significant risk, who is to tell them they cannot work and provide for their family and pursue their goals.

You're acting like I'm trying to decide who dies. I'm trying to get people to decide for themselves what they do.

Dr Frank explains why following the number of cases is useless.

Quote:

---

"% Positives"

If raw cases numbers are easily manipulated, derived numbers (ones that combine numbers) are even more vulnerable. Especially when there is a ratio.

Here is a simple illustration. Say there is a population of 1000 people, and 100 are infected.

By our 100,30,6,1 rule, 30 people will show symptoms. Depending upon where they live, they may get tested, maybe not. Six of the thirty go to the hospital and are definitely tested. One person dies. :-(

Of the 24 others, let's say that half are tested. So far, we have 18 positive tests out of 18, for a 100% positive rate.

So how many other people shall we include in our test? Let's randomly pick 200 more. Well, that will find about twenty more positives and 180 negatives. So the new % positive rate is (18 + 20) / 218 = 17%.

The next day, I want to show how good of a governor I am, so I order my people to increase the tests to 250.

They find 25 cases, plus 18 new symptomatic cases, giving

(18 + 25) / 268 = 16%. Wow, look how great my plan is working!

Or, say instead that I want to keep my state locked down, so I want it to look like things are getting worse. I tell my folks to decrease the number of tests from 200 to 150.

Now, the "% Positive" is (18 + 15) / (150 + 18) = 19.6%

Oh no, things are getting worse!

By simply deciding *how many* tests to do, I can change the numbers.

But it doesn't even have to be nefarious. Maybe we are simply running low on tests, maybe we suddenly got a shipment. Maybe a new drive-through testing facility just opened. All of these things affect the outcome.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with the actual number of infections or the status of the epidemic.

From the start of this, I've told you that cases are an unreliable way to track the epidemic. They are all we have at first, so we had to use them then, but we switched to deaths as soon as the numbers became statistically significant.

Any time I hear a report or claim that begins with "reported cases are up today," I find myself immediately discounting or ignoring it, because the objective of such a report is not to inform.

This is not to say that *raw* cases data are useless... their morphology (overall shape) can sometimes give us good clues. So we still watch raw cases numbers... but we don't rely on them. They are fickle. Derived values are even worse.

---

I wonder how many of those are from the retesting at Sanderson farms.

trouble said:

---

I wonder how many of those are from the retesting at Sanderson farms.

---

Keep wondering because our local media won't ask that question, nor will the BCHD tell us.

Rapier108 said:

---

Keep wondering because our local media won't ask that question, nor will the BCHD tell us.

---

Mind boggling when you think about it.

In the last 11 days, BCHD has reported 227 new cases - more cases since the outbreak until early May.

No masks and social distancing in stores what do you expect.

tb9665 said:

---

No masks and social distancing in stores what do you expect.

---

How do we know it's from going to the store vs a cluster in a care facility, manufacturing, office, meat packing, or other location? The point is we don't know. It'll they really wanted to lessen the spread the officials would tell us to stay away from certain facilities, people working at those facilities, etc..

But instead, we have blanket warnings and orders and ambiguity to keep people in the dark, under control and not offend those who are sick or might be affected by reasonably warning the public with actual facts and data that could do something to better contain the spread.

tb9665 said:

---

No masks and social distancing in stores what do you expect.

---

"No masks and social distancing in stores "....

.......yeah, that's it.

tb9665 said:

---

No masks and social distancing in stores what do you expect.

---

If you look at the numbers, most of the spread is still occurring within the Hispanic community. Highly likely the spread is not from random trips to the grocery store, but community interactions like parties or just get togethers.

Most studies say, and some of our resident doctors on TexAgs have backed this up based on their own observations, that most spread comes from close contact with an infected person, and for more than just a brief interaction. That's not to say one cannot get it by walking past someone who coughs, just that it is not likely.

That said, if we see a big jump in people under 30 and/or in the black demographic, then it is safe to assume a lot of it is coming from the protests. So far we haven't seen that, but we've got at least another 10 days to go before we know for sure. If it is going to happen, we'll likely start seeing it in the next few days.

tb9665 said:

---

No masks and social distancing in stores what do you expect.

---

Nonsense. The new cases are heavily the Hispanic community and In Bryan. So College Station doing a better job of wearing masks and social distancing?

Does anyone think that anyone who goes to stores, bars, church, quinceneras, barbecues, other parties, or even work or class doesn't know there is a risk of catching Covid-19? By now, everyone knows the risk, and they accept the risk simply by going to any of these places. Let people accept the risks as they see fit and protect themselves as they see fit.