Hays County Covid Dashboard

Hays county updates these numbers about twice a day.

I find it interesting that even with tests only being given with Dr. approval, or for emergency and hospital workers who have been exposed, the rate of positive tests is less than 15%.

I noticed that too. I think alot of the Nervous people are forcing their way to get test, even though they probably don't have anything.

642 cases, 7 deaths

690 cases, 9 deaths.

official report from Hays county today - no new cases. 25 new negative tests. 58 active cases - 3 hospitalized.

Aust Ag said:

---

I noticed that too. I think alot of the Nervous people are forcing their way to get test, even though they probably don't have anything.

---

I think COVID19 just happens to look like pretty much every respiratory illness caused by dozens of other viruses and bacteria.

744 cases, 9 deaths.

774 cases, 9 deaths

Hays County recorded their first Covid-19 fatality today.

18 recoveries also added today.

50 active cases in Hays County.

856 cases, 11 deaths.

Soooo why are we tightening restrictions?

Because known communists and government over-reachers are in office. If they can't tax you to death, the would rather take your jobs away.

wargograw said:

---

Soooo why are we tightening restrictions?

---

Because we're "2 Weeks" behind the country as a whole.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

emando2000 said:

---

wargograw said:

---

Soooo why are we tightening restrictions?

---

Because we're "2 Weeks" behind the country as a whole.

---

But isn't that the point of "flattening the curve." Delay the peak so it is lower. Doesn't being 2 weeks behind mean we are just doing a better job flattening than other places.

---

So we flatten the curve successfully!

Then we lift restrictions and we never have to worry about it again because we initially "flattened the curve"!

900 cases, 14 deaths

900 cases, 14 deaths

The interesting thing is that it looks like the highest age group of confirmed cases is in the 30-39 group.

Champ Bailey said:

---

900 cases, 14 deaths

The interesting thing is that it looks like the highest age group of confirmed cases is in the 30-39 group.

---

And I think second highest is 40-49. Not the norm other places ...

aginlakeway said:

---

Champ Bailey said:

---

900 cases, 14 deaths

The interesting thing is that it looks like the highest age group of confirmed cases is in the 30-39 group.

---

And I think second highest is 40-49. Not the norm other places ...

---

It might just be these are just the people with the highest likelihood to go in and get tested. Who knows. That's the most frustrating thing about this, is that nobody knows the true denominator of who actually has been infected.

aginlakeway said:

---

Champ Bailey said:

---

900 cases, 14 deaths

The interesting thing is that it looks like the highest age group of confirmed cases is in the 30-39 group.

---

And I think second highest is 40-49. Not the norm other places ...

---

Young city

1.2MM populace, 900 cases and 14 deaths. Yes, indeed, we have a crisis.

977 cases, 17 deaths.

Champ Bailey said:

---

977 cases, 17 deaths.

---

Sounds like Texas numbers keep going up. But steadily and not exponentially. Is that correct?

Let the dust settle and I guarantee you I can find more than 17 deaths wrought by the shutdown.

aginlakeway said:

---

Champ Bailey said:

---

977 cases, 17 deaths.

---

Sounds like Texas numbers keep going up. But steadily and not exponentially. Is that correct?

---

Yeah, today is the biggest jump. But it's been very steady. It's been around 40-50 new cases a day for the past week until yesterday.

IMHE model continues to be revised down for Texas...

rcannaday said:

---

IMHE model continues to be revised down for Texas...

---

i believe the IHME model is off on the peak date for Texas. The model uses the date isolation orders were issued (school closures, stay home order, non-essential business closing, and travel restrictions). They are basing their model on the governors stay home order on Apr 2, but most of the population (Houston, DFW, San Antonio, Austin, Waco, BCS, etc) was under stay home orders at least a week before that (about March 24). Also, they are modeling no order to close non-essential businesses, yet again, the local stay home orders closed non-essential businesses on March 24. Both of those factors should pull the peak date forward.

They are also using March 19 as the date for school closures. A lot of the state was on spring break that week and was effectively closed March 14. The other schools were mostly on spring break the week before and many delayed the return until the eventual closure later in the week putting their effective closure date even earlier.

How does this manifest in continual downward revisions? If they assume we are in an early part of the curve, there is more growth to happen to get to the peak. But if we are closer to the peak, the actual peak will be lower. We aren't growing as fast as they model expects for earlier in the curve since we are closer to the peak and closer to leveling off.

1,029 cases, 18 deaths.

What's interesting is the number is jumping, but the number of people hospitalized is going down. I'm thinking/hoping testing is just becoming more available.

Agreed. The IMHE model for most cities has been predicting disaster scenarios with full social distancing. Yet keeps getting revised down? I just don't see (my background is Stats, OR from TAMU) how a model could have this large of standard errors. Either the inputs are bad (could be), the model is overweighting certain variables that have less impact, thus were having different or not even close results. I wish the IMHE team would allow the model to be open-sourced, so other scientists and stats individuals could help improve.

In Austin, most companies that were tech - were already practicing WFH measures two weeks earlier than the governor's and or Federal ask. Also, to your point, most of Texas was on Spring break.

rcannaday said:

---

Agreed. The IMHE model for most cities has been predicting disaster scenarios with full social distancing. Yet keeps getting revised down? I just don't see (my background is Stats, OR from TAMU) how a model could have this large of standard errors. Either the inputs are bad (could be), the model is overweighting certain variables that have less impact, thus were having different or not even close results. I wish the IMHE team would allow the model to be open-sourced, so other scientists and stats individuals could help improve.

In Austin, most companies that were tech - were already practicing WFH measures two weeks earlier than the governor's and or Federal ask. Also, to your point, most of Texas was on Spring break.

---

https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/17/influential-covid-19-model-uses-flawed-methods-shouldnt-guide-policies-critics-say/

Explains how IHME model differs from traditional epidemic modeling. Mostly just takes the current data and applies a curve fit to the outcomes in other locations rather than modeling how a virus spreads throughout the population.

I think the interesting part of the IHME approach will be in understanding how effective various restrictions are/were at reducing the spread. Is the approach taken in the US as effective or close to as effective as locking people in their homes and having the military deliver daily rations?

I wonder if test results coming back more rapidly is increasing the daily numbers. You have the new results from the newer tests with quicker turn around time plus results finally coming in from older tests added together to produce "today's" result. A more meaningful chart would be to backdate the results to the original test date, but as far as I know there is no source for that data.

@BioChemAg97, have you looked at the UT model. I keep hearing Alder and others mention this model...? The prediction was something of nature is that we would need to be shut down till August?

Frozen Concoction said:

---

I wonder if test results coming back more rapidly is increasing the daily numbers. You have the new results from the newer tests with quicker turn around time plus results finally coming in from older tests added together to produce "today's" result. A more meaningful chart would be to backdate the results to the original test date, but as far as I know there is no source for that data.

---

Interestingly, Williamson County (Round Rock, Georgetown, Cedar Park) has a graph showing cases back dated to onset of symptoms. Probably more complicated than backdating to when the test was taken.

Thanks for the tip. Is this the link? http://www.wcchd.org/COVID-19/dashboard.php
That presents a much more useful picture of the local situation.

Travis County had symptom onset graph as well up until a couple days ago. Don't know why they took it down. Looking back at data from 2+ weeks it appeared the number of cases based on symptom onset was starting to go down. Not sure if that data is available elsewhere to keep tracking that.