57Bear said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

To acknowledge the prescient OP, Texas continues to fall behind other, smaller states in terms of cases. Texas accounts for 2.06% of the nation's cases.

---

Unless we are testing widely, we have no earthly idea how many cases we have.

---

That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?

Heard today the Dallas County temporary hospital may be re-purposed to another state due to lack of use.

---

They have over 1,100 confirmed cases in Dallas County now, I would hold off on moving.

---

To or from?

---

From

curtpenn said:

---

A friend of mine maintains this doc on a daily basis. Interesting data:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1XW18Xbnoyx2sNLdX7tYmVkD1yUqA1DkNwSSJ8HhpDIw/htmlview

---

I keep a similar doc (without the predicted). Maybe why I am less hysterical than others. I respect the concern, but it is not exactly Bubonic plague either.

Flaming Moderate said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

To acknowledge the prescient OP, Texas continues to fall behind other, smaller states in terms of cases. Texas accounts for 2.06% of the nation's cases.

---

Unless we are testing widely, we have no earthly idea how many cases we have.

---

That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?

Heard today the Dallas County temporary hospital may be re-purposed to another state due to lack of use.

---

According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

To acknowledge the prescient OP, Texas continues to fall behind other, smaller states in terms of cases. Texas accounts for 2.06% of the nation's cases.

---

Unless we are testing widely, we have no earthly idea how many cases we have.

---

That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?

Heard today the Dallas County temporary hospital may be re-purposed to another state due to lack of use.

---

According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

---

Working in health care, I would be surprised if there was anywhere close to accuracy around testing much less some third-party, unaffiliated site. But that is neither here nor there. I thought the goal was cases and mortality not testing ... but I am used to moving goal posts.

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

To acknowledge the prescient OP, Texas continues to fall behind other, smaller states in terms of cases. Texas accounts for 2.06% of the nation's cases.

---

Unless we are testing widely, we have no earthly idea how many cases we have.

---

That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?

Heard today the Dallas County temporary hospital may be re-purposed to another state due to lack of use.

---

According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

---

Working in health care, I would be surprised if there was anywhere close to accuracy around testing much less some third-party, unaffiliated site. But that is neither here nor there. I thought the goal was cases and mortality not testing ... but I am used to moving goal posts.

---

Mortality is pretty easy to count, but you have to have widespread testing to know how many cases you have.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

To acknowledge the prescient OP, Texas continues to fall behind other, smaller states in terms of cases. Texas accounts for 2.06% of the nation's cases.

---

Unless we are testing widely, we have no earthly idea how many cases we have.

---

That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?

Heard today the Dallas County temporary hospital may be re-purposed to another state due to lack of use.

---

According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

---

Working in health care, I would be surprised if there was anywhere close to accuracy around testing much less some third-party, unaffiliated site. But that is neither here nor there. I thought the goal was cases and mortality not testing ... but I am used to moving goal posts.

---

Mortality is pretty easy to count, but you have to have widespread testing to know how many cases you have.

---

Exactly. There are no moving goalposts. Any discussion on relative impact across states is pretty useless without a reliable case count. And widespread testing is how you get that count.

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

To acknowledge the prescient OP, Texas continues to fall behind other, smaller states in terms of cases. Texas accounts for 2.06% of the nation's cases.

---

Unless we are testing widely, we have no earthly idea how many cases we have.

---

That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?

Heard today the Dallas County temporary hospital may be re-purposed to another state due to lack of use.

---

According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

---

Working in health care, I would be surprised if there was anywhere close to accuracy around testing much less some third-party, unaffiliated site. But that is neither here nor there. I thought the goal was cases and mortality not testing ... but I am used to moving goal posts.

---

Mortality is pretty easy to count, but you have to have widespread testing to know how many cases you have.

---

Exactly. There are no moving goalposts. Any discussion on relative impact across states is pretty useless without a reliable case count. And widespread testing is how you get that count.

---

It is also how you beat the spread.

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

To acknowledge the prescient OP, Texas continues to fall behind other, smaller states in terms of cases. Texas accounts for 2.06% of the nation's cases.

---

Unless we are testing widely, we have no earthly idea how many cases we have.

---

That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?

Heard today the Dallas County temporary hospital may be re-purposed to another state due to lack of use.

---

According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

---

Working in health care, I would be surprised if there was anywhere close to accuracy around testing much less some third-party, unaffiliated site. But that is neither here nor there. I thought the goal was cases and mortality not testing ... but I am used to moving goal posts.

---

Mortality is pretty easy to count, but you have to have widespread testing to know how many cases you have.

---

Exactly. There are no moving goalposts. Any discussion on relative impact across states is pretty useless without a reliable case count. And widespread testing is how you get that count.

---

It is also how you beat the spread.

---

It's too late for that now. But yes, that should be the biggest takeaway for the next time we face an outbreak of this kind.

Be more like South Korea and Germany and less like everyone else. Early testing is the key.

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

To acknowledge the prescient OP, Texas continues to fall behind other, smaller states in terms of cases. Texas accounts for 2.06% of the nation's cases.

---

Unless we are testing widely, we have no earthly idea how many cases we have.

---

That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?

Heard today the Dallas County temporary hospital may be re-purposed to another state due to lack of use.

---

According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

---

Working in health care, I would be surprised if there was anywhere close to accuracy around testing much less some third-party, unaffiliated site. But that is neither here nor there. I thought the goal was cases and mortality not testing ... but I am used to moving goal posts.

---

Mortality is pretty easy to count, but you have to have widespread testing to know how many cases you have.

---

Exactly. There are no moving goalposts. Any discussion on relative impact across states is pretty useless without a reliable case count. And widespread testing is how you get that count.

---

It is also how you beat the spread.

---

It's too late for that now. But yes, that should be the biggest takeaway for the next time we face an outbreak of this kind.

Be more like South Korea and Germany and less like everyone else. Early testing is the key.

---

That would require less regulation and admitting those greedy corporations are more capable and effective at testing the masses.

Can you believe there's people out there who want the government to run the whole thing?

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

To acknowledge the prescient OP, Texas continues to fall behind other, smaller states in terms of cases. Texas accounts for 2.06% of the nation's cases.

---

Unless we are testing widely, we have no earthly idea how many cases we have.

---

That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?

Heard today the Dallas County temporary hospital may be re-purposed to another state due to lack of use.

---

According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

---

Working in health care, I would be surprised if there was anywhere close to accuracy around testing much less some third-party, unaffiliated site. But that is neither here nor there. I thought the goal was cases and mortality not testing ... but I am used to moving goal posts.

---

Mortality is pretty easy to count, but you have to have widespread testing to know how many cases you have.

---

Exactly. There are no moving goalposts. Any discussion on relative impact across states is pretty useless without a reliable case count. And widespread testing is how you get that count.

---

It is also how you beat the spread.

---

It's too late for that now. But yes, that should be the biggest takeaway for the next time we face an outbreak of this kind.

Be more like South Korea and Germany and less like everyone else. Early testing is the key.

---

There are parts of the country where we are still early days with this, and people can spread it before they have symptoms (and possibly after they have symptoms). Testing on a massive scale remains crucial.

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

To acknowledge the prescient OP, Texas continues to fall behind other, smaller states in terms of cases. Texas accounts for 2.06% of the nation's cases.

---

Unless we are testing widely, we have no earthly idea how many cases we have.

---

That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?

Heard today the Dallas County temporary hospital may be re-purposed to another state due to lack of use.

---

According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

---

Working in health care, I would be surprised if there was anywhere close to accuracy around testing much less some third-party, unaffiliated site. But that is neither here nor there. I thought the goal was cases and mortality not testing ... but I am used to moving goal posts.

---

Mortality is pretty easy to count, but you have to have widespread testing to know how many cases you have.

---

Exactly. There are no moving goalposts. Any discussion on relative impact across states is pretty useless without a reliable case count. And widespread testing is how you get that count.

---

It is also how you beat the spread.

---

It's too late for that now. But yes, that should be the biggest takeaway for the next time we face an outbreak of this kind.

Be more like South Korea and Germany and less like everyone else. Early testing is the key.

---

There are parts of the country where we are still early days with this, and people can spread it before they have symptoms (and possibly after they have symptoms). Testing on a massive scale remains crucial.

---

If we had test results on everybody today, that would tell us today's results. Would the negatives still be negative next week? next month?

Texas has tested over 85 thousand people, less than 7400 positive (<10%)

That is good news

57Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

To acknowledge the prescient OP, Texas continues to fall behind other, smaller states in terms of cases. Texas accounts for 2.06% of the nation's cases.

---

Unless we are testing widely, we have no earthly idea how many cases we have.

---

That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?

Heard today the Dallas County temporary hospital may be re-purposed to another state due to lack of use.

---

According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

---

Working in health care, I would be surprised if there was anywhere close to accuracy around testing much less some third-party, unaffiliated site. But that is neither here nor there. I thought the goal was cases and mortality not testing ... but I am used to moving goal posts.

---

Mortality is pretty easy to count, but you have to have widespread testing to know how many cases you have.

---

Exactly. There are no moving goalposts. Any discussion on relative impact across states is pretty useless without a reliable case count. And widespread testing is how you get that count.

---

It is also how you beat the spread.

---

It's too late for that now. But yes, that should be the biggest takeaway for the next time we face an outbreak of this kind.

Be more like South Korea and Germany and less like everyone else. Early testing is the key.

---

There are parts of the country where we are still early days with this, and people can spread it before they have symptoms (and possibly after they have symptoms). Testing on a massive scale remains crucial.

---

If we had test results on everybody today, that would tell us today's results. Would the negatives still be negative next week? next month?

---

You keep testing the same people and keep isolating positives.

curtpenn said:

---

A friend of mine maintains this doc on a daily basis. Interesting data:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1XW18Xbnoyx2sNLdX7tYmVkD1yUqA1DkNwSSJ8HhpDIw/htmlview

---

The problem so far in Texas until recently has been the limited availability of testing, which makes it difficult to compare to the models at this point in time.

syme said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

To acknowledge the prescient OP, Texas continues to fall behind other, smaller states in terms of cases. Texas accounts for 2.06% of the nation's cases.

---

Unless we are testing widely, we have no earthly idea how many cases we have.

---

That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?

Heard today the Dallas County temporary hospital may be re-purposed to another state due to lack of use.

---

According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

---

Working in health care, I would be surprised if there was anywhere close to accuracy around testing much less some third-party, unaffiliated site. But that is neither here nor there. I thought the goal was cases and mortality not testing ... but I am used to moving goal posts.

---

Mortality is pretty easy to count, but you have to have widespread testing to know how many cases you have.

---

Exactly. There are no moving goalposts. Any discussion on relative impact across states is pretty useless without a reliable case count. And widespread testing is how you get that count.

---

It is also how you beat the spread.

---

It's too late for that now. But yes, that should be the biggest takeaway for the next time we face an outbreak of this kind.

Be more like South Korea and Germany and less like everyone else. Early testing is the key.

---

That would require less regulation and admitting those greedy corporations are more capable and effective at testing the masses.

Can you believe there's people out there who want the government to run the whole thing?

---

We could have used the WHO test, the same as South Korea, early on.

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

To acknowledge the prescient OP, Texas continues to fall behind other, smaller states in terms of cases. Texas accounts for 2.06% of the nation's cases.

---

Unless we are testing widely, we have no earthly idea how many cases we have.

---

That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?

Heard today the Dallas County temporary hospital may be re-purposed to another state due to lack of use.

---

According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

---

Working in health care, I would be surprised if there was anywhere close to accuracy around testing much less some third-party, unaffiliated site. But that is neither here nor there. I thought the goal was cases and mortality not testing ... but I am used to moving goal posts.

---

Mortality is pretty easy to count, but you have to have widespread testing to know how many cases you have.

---

Exactly. There are no moving goalposts. Any discussion on relative impact across states is pretty useless without a reliable case count. And widespread testing is how you get that count.

---

If someone is symptomatic, they can get tested. If they're not, who cares.

---

The people they infect, and their doctors and nurses.

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

To acknowledge the prescient OP, Texas continues to fall behind other, smaller states in terms of cases. Texas accounts for 2.06% of the nation's cases.

---

Unless we are testing widely, we have no earthly idea how many cases we have.

---

That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?

Heard today the Dallas County temporary hospital may be re-purposed to another state due to lack of use.

---

According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

---

Working in health care, I would be surprised if there was anywhere close to accuracy around testing much less some third-party, unaffiliated site. But that is neither here nor there. I thought the goal was cases and mortality not testing ... but I am used to moving goal posts.

---

Mortality is pretty easy to count, but you have to have widespread testing to know how many cases you have.

---

Exactly. There are no moving goalposts. Any discussion on relative impact across states is pretty useless without a reliable case count. And widespread testing is how you get that count.

---

With all due respect, that's exactly what happened on this thread, and in fairness that often happens when the goal is winning vs. discussion. The article is the typical fear-mongering that a Republican governor is unprepared for Wuhan Virus. Abbott is not acting fast enough, and hospitals will be over-run, and we cannot manage the looming crisis.

None of that has happened. Our cases are relatively low, our mortality is relatively low. Instead of being thoughtful and saying: "good job Texas." The goal posts get moved to "well, we don't have enough testing, so we don't know."

My answer is - I don't care. Testing is a red herring. If someone is symptomatic, they can get tested. If they're not, who cares. It is a red herring.

What matters is we don't have many cases, we don't have many deaths, not a single hospital is in crisis. I would say we're doing pretty good. But we cannot acknowledge that if it means given credit to someone in the other tribe.

---

You are not understanding where I am coming from. I don't care who is in charge of Texas or who gets credit or blame for how this pandemic turns out. I am not interested in "winning" a political argument.

Testing, on a massive scale, is what we need to do both to know the scale of the problem and to manage it. It is not a red herring. If we test people who are symptomatic, that doesn't do much except tell us they have it because we can, if needed, have people go in to quarantine based on symptoms without even testing them. It is those without symptoms, but who test positive, who are driving the spread of the virus. I do know there are asymptomatic people in Texas being tested now.

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

To acknowledge the prescient OP, Texas continues to fall behind other, smaller states in terms of cases. Texas accounts for 2.06% of the nation's cases.

---

Unless we are testing widely, we have no earthly idea how many cases we have.

---

That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?

Heard today the Dallas County temporary hospital may be re-purposed to another state due to lack of use.

---

According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

---

Working in health care, I would be surprised if there was anywhere close to accuracy around testing much less some third-party, unaffiliated site. But that is neither here nor there. I thought the goal was cases and mortality not testing ... but I am used to moving goal posts.

---

Mortality is pretty easy to count, but you have to have widespread testing to know how many cases you have.

---

Exactly. There are no moving goalposts. Any discussion on relative impact across states is pretty useless without a reliable case count. And widespread testing is how you get that count.

---

With all due respect, that's exactly what happened on this thread, and in fairness that often happens when the goal is winning vs. discussion. The article is the typical fear-mongering that a Republican governor is unprepared for Wuhan Virus. Abbott is not acting fast enough, and hospitals will be over-run, and we cannot manage the looming crisis.

None of that has happened. Our cases are relatively low, our mortality is relatively low. Instead of being thoughtful and saying: "good job Texas." The goal posts get moved to "well, we don't have enough testing, so we don't know."

My answer is - I don't care. Testing is a red herring. If someone is symptomatic, they can get tested. If they're not, who cares. It is a red herring.

What matters is we don't have many cases, we don't have many deaths, not a single hospital is in crisis. I would say we're doing pretty good. But we cannot acknowledge that if it means given credit to someone in the other tribe.

---

The difference is you have a political ideology to defend. I'm just pointing out facts. You asked how Texas was testing relative to other states, and I answered based on the only source I've found that is tracking such things. Then you accused me of moving the goalposts to score political points in a game I'm not even playing.

I don't give a **** about either political party. I care about good governance/government, and both have failed epically over the years to provide either.

And as pointed out by Sam and D.C. above, testing is absolutely not a red herring. It's the key to containing this virus (too late) and slowing/stopping its spread in the future. I haven't blamed anyone specifically for the testing debacle in this country, which has only recently been remedied. I've only said we need to learn from our mistakes and fix them in the future. But I'm not going to let anyone downplay the role testing plays in combating this virus because suggesting the opposite might require them to use a critical lens on their preferred tribe's leadership.

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

To acknowledge the prescient OP, Texas continues to fall behind other, smaller states in terms of cases. Texas accounts for 2.06% of the nation's cases.

---

Unless we are testing widely, we have no earthly idea how many cases we have.

---

That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?

Heard today the Dallas County temporary hospital may be re-purposed to another state due to lack of use.

---

According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

---

Working in health care, I would be surprised if there was anywhere close to accuracy around testing much less some third-party, unaffiliated site. But that is neither here nor there. I thought the goal was cases and mortality not testing ... but I am used to moving goal posts.

---

Mortality is pretty easy to count, but you have to have widespread testing to know how many cases you have.

---

Exactly. There are no moving goalposts. Any discussion on relative impact across states is pretty useless without a reliable case count. And widespread testing is how you get that count.

---

With all due respect, that's exactly what happened on this thread, and in fairness that often happens when the goal is winning vs. discussion. The article is the typical fear-mongering that a Republican governor is unprepared for Wuhan Virus. Abbott is not acting fast enough, and hospitals will be over-run, and we cannot manage the looming crisis.

None of that has happened. Our cases are relatively low, our mortality is relatively low. Instead of being thoughtful and saying: "good job Texas." The goal posts get moved to "well, we don't have enough testing, so we don't know."

My answer is - I don't care. Testing is a red herring. If someone is symptomatic, they can get tested. If they're not, who cares. It is a red herring.

What matters is we don't have many cases, we don't have many deaths, not a single hospital is in crisis. I would say we're doing pretty good. But we cannot acknowledge that if it means given credit to someone in the other tribe.

---

The difference is you have a political ideology to defend. I'm just pointing out facts. You asked how Texas was testing relative to other states, and I answered based on the only source I've found that is tracking such things. Then you accused me of moving the goalposts to score political points in a game I'm not even playing.

I don't give a **** about either political party. I care about good governance/government, and both have failed epically over the years to provide either.

And as pointed out by Sam and D.C. above, testing is absolutely not a red herring. It's the key to containing this virus (too late) and slowing/stopping its spread in the future. I haven't blamed anyone specifically for the testing debacle in this country, which has only recently been remedied. I've only said we need to learn from or mistakes and fix them in the future. But I'm not going to let anyone downplay the role testing plays in combating this virus because suggesting the opposite might require them to use a critical lens on their preferred tribe's leadership.

---

Please don't assign motive or intent. It's immature. And context is important. It will help you understand to frame arguments more successfully. And free tip: the first clue you're not focusing on an agenda and only care about facts is you have to tell people you're focused on facts and don't have an agenda.

I'll lay it out for you and see if it helps.
- This thread was started by an anti-Trump bigot who posts non-stop TDS drivel, so put the poster in context - he has not posted anything blaming Cuomo or DeBlasio for the NYC outbreak but once to pre-blame Abbott for Texas
- He linked an article criticizing Texas for not responding fast enough to the Wuhan Virus spread with the requisite doomsday predictions
- None of that has occurred:
1. Texas remains well below other smaller states in cases and mortality
2. Texas has < 2% of the total cases but 9% of the total population
3. Texas has no over-run hospitals, no dying in the streets, no real crisis that the article claimed

The moving of the goal posts occurs when you shift from "Texas is going to mismanage this" to "well, we are not testing everybody so maybe Texas is mismanaging this." it is essentially trying to prove a negative and using the lack of reliable data to continue to allege that Texas (and Abbott) are mis-managing. It is disingenuous.

That's where the agenda is illuminated. There is not really good evidence that Texas is better / worse in terms of testing, but I maintain my position that while testing is important, we will not evaluate it based on the number of tests but the number of cases and deaths.

And to D.C. and Sam - if my response was clumsy, my fault. I acknowledge testing is important and it does prevent perfect data, but that's not really the subject of the thread: it is Texas (really Abbott's) management of the crisis - based on the data we have, we are doing a good job. We could play hypothetical all day, but the article was the expected, premature panic-hit job without any clear evidence of mis-management.

If there is a assertion that Texas (and Abbott) is mis-managing public health by refusing testing, etc., fair enough. Let's have that conversation. Otherwise, it is just a red herring to the discussion at hand.

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

To acknowledge the prescient OP, Texas continues to fall behind other, smaller states in terms of cases. Texas accounts for 2.06% of the nation's cases.

---

Unless we are testing widely, we have no earthly idea how many cases we have.

---

That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?

Heard today the Dallas County temporary hospital may be re-purposed to another state due to lack of use.

---

According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

---

Working in health care, I would be surprised if there was anywhere close to accuracy around testing much less some third-party, unaffiliated site. But that is neither here nor there. I thought the goal was cases and mortality not testing ... but I am used to moving goal posts.

---

Mortality is pretty easy to count, but you have to have widespread testing to know how many cases you have.

---

Exactly. There are no moving goalposts. Any discussion on relative impact across states is pretty useless without a reliable case count. And widespread testing is how you get that count.

---

With all due respect, that's exactly what happened on this thread, and in fairness that often happens when the goal is winning vs. discussion. The article is the typical fear-mongering that a Republican governor is unprepared for Wuhan Virus. Abbott is not acting fast enough, and hospitals will be over-run, and we cannot manage the looming crisis.

None of that has happened. Our cases are relatively low, our mortality is relatively low. Instead of being thoughtful and saying: "good job Texas." The goal posts get moved to "well, we don't have enough testing, so we don't know."

My answer is - I don't care. Testing is a red herring. If someone is symptomatic, they can get tested. If they're not, who cares. It is a red herring.

What matters is we don't have many cases, we don't have many deaths, not a single hospital is in crisis. I would say we're doing pretty good. But we cannot acknowledge that if it means given credit to someone in the other tribe.

---

The difference is you have a political ideology to defend. I'm just pointing out facts. You asked how Texas was testing relative to other states, and I answered based on the only source I've found that is tracking such things. Then you accused me of moving the goalposts to score political points in a game I'm not even playing.

I don't give a **** about either political party. I care about good governance/government, and both have failed epically over the years to provide either.

And as pointed out by Sam and D.C. above, testing is absolutely not a red herring. It's the key to containing this virus (too late) and slowing/stopping its spread in the future. I haven't blamed anyone specifically for the testing debacle in this country, which has only recently been remedied. I've only said we need to learn from or mistakes and fix them in the future. But I'm not going to let anyone downplay the role testing plays in combating this virus because suggesting the opposite might require them to use a critical lens on their preferred tribe's leadership.

---

Please don't assign motive or intent. It's immature. And context is important. It will help you understand to frame arguments more successfully. And free tip: the first clue you're not focusing on an agenda and only care about facts is you have to tell people you're focused on facts and don't have an agenda.

I'll lay it out for you and see if it helps.
- This thread was started by an anti-Trump bigot who posts non-stop TDS drivel, so put the poster in context - he has not posted anything blaming Cuomo or DeBlasio for the NYC outbreak but once to pre-blame Abbott for Texas
- He linked an article criticizing Texas for not responding fast enough to the Wuhan Virus spread with the requisite doomsday predictions
- None of that has occurred:
1. Texas remains well below other smaller states in cases and mortality
2. Texas has < 2% of the total cases but 9% of the total population
3. Texas has no over-run hospitals, no dying in the streets, no real crisis that the article claimed

The moving of the goal posts occurs when you shift from "Texas is going to mismanage this" to "well, we are not testing everybody so maybe Texas is mismanaging this." it is essentially trying to prove a negative and using the lack of reliable data to continue to allege that Texas (and Abbott) are mis-managing. It is disingenuous.

That's where the agenda is illuminated. There is not really good evidence that Texas is better / worse in terms of testing, but I maintain my position that while testing is important, we will not evaluate it based on the number of tests but the number of cases and deaths.

And to D.C. and Sam - if my response was clumsy, my fault. I acknowledge testing is important and it does prevent perfect data, but that's not really the subject of the thread: it is Texas (really Abbott's) management of the crisis - based on the data we have, we are doing a good job. We could play hypothetical all day, but the article was the expected, premature panic-hit job without any clear evidence of mis-management.

If there is a assertion that Texas (and Abbott) is mis-managing public health by refusing testing, etc., fair enough. Let's have that conversation. Otherwise, it is just a red herring to the discussion at hand.

---

You are quite literally the one who assigned motive here, so you can save the lecture or apply it to yourself.

FLAMING MODERATE (1:59 on Monday): "That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?"

BEAR2BE2 (3:36 on Monday): "According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population."

FLAMING MODERATE (3:50 on Monday): "Working in health care, I would be surprised if there was anywhere close to accuracy around testing much less some third-party, unaffiliated site. But that is neither here nor there. I thought the goal was cases and mortality not testing ... but I am used to moving goal posts. "

-------------------------------------

But my overarching point remains. And I don't have to assign motivation because you prove it with every post. You are here to defend your tribe against criticism, which is your prerogative, but just be honest with yourself. You're not a moderate in the least. When your first instinct any time you see criticism of Republican leadership is to defend, you're a flaming partisan. Which, again, is fine. But own that.

Neither of America's two major parties have earned the defense they get from their devotees. Both have been terrible by and large individually and have combined to create one of the most dysfunctional governments in the West.

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

To acknowledge the prescient OP, Texas continues to fall behind other, smaller states in terms of cases. Texas accounts for 2.06% of the nation's cases.

---

Unless we are testing widely, we have no earthly idea how many cases we have.

---

That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?

Heard today the Dallas County temporary hospital may be re-purposed to another state due to lack of use.

---

According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

---

Working in health care, I would be surprised if there was anywhere close to accuracy around testing much less some third-party, unaffiliated site. But that is neither here nor there. I thought the goal was cases and mortality not testing ... but I am used to moving goal posts.

---

Mortality is pretty easy to count, but you have to have widespread testing to know how many cases you have.

---

Exactly. There are no moving goalposts. Any discussion on relative impact across states is pretty useless without a reliable case count. And widespread testing is how you get that count.

---

With all due respect, that's exactly what happened on this thread, and in fairness that often happens when the goal is winning vs. discussion. The article is the typical fear-mongering that a Republican governor is unprepared for Wuhan Virus. Abbott is not acting fast enough, and hospitals will be over-run, and we cannot manage the looming crisis.

None of that has happened. Our cases are relatively low, our mortality is relatively low. Instead of being thoughtful and saying: "good job Texas." The goal posts get moved to "well, we don't have enough testing, so we don't know."

My answer is - I don't care. Testing is a red herring. If someone is symptomatic, they can get tested. If they're not, who cares. It is a red herring.

What matters is we don't have many cases, we don't have many deaths, not a single hospital is in crisis. I would say we're doing pretty good. But we cannot acknowledge that if it means given credit to someone in the other tribe.

---

The difference is you have a political ideology to defend. I'm just pointing out facts. You asked how Texas was testing relative to other states, and I answered based on the only source I've found that is tracking such things. Then you accused me of moving the goalposts to score political points in a game I'm not even playing.

I don't give a **** about either political party. I care about good governance/government, and both have failed epically over the years to provide either.

And as pointed out by Sam and D.C. above, testing is absolutely not a red herring. It's the key to containing this virus (too late) and slowing/stopping its spread in the future. I haven't blamed anyone specifically for the testing debacle in this country, which has only recently been remedied. I've only said we need to learn from or mistakes and fix them in the future. But I'm not going to let anyone downplay the role testing plays in combating this virus because suggesting the opposite might require them to use a critical lens on their preferred tribe's leadership.

---

Please don't assign motive or intent. It's immature. And context is important. It will help you understand to frame arguments more successfully. And free tip: the first clue you're not focusing on an agenda and only care about facts is you have to tell people you're focused on facts and don't have an agenda.

I'll lay it out for you and see if it helps.
- This thread was started by an anti-Trump bigot who posts non-stop TDS drivel, so put the poster in context - he has not posted anything blaming Cuomo or DeBlasio for the NYC outbreak but once to pre-blame Abbott for Texas
- He linked an article criticizing Texas for not responding fast enough to the Wuhan Virus spread with the requisite doomsday predictions
- None of that has occurred:
1. Texas remains well below other smaller states in cases and mortality
2. Texas has < 2% of the total cases but 9% of the total population
3. Texas has no over-run hospitals, no dying in the streets, no real crisis that the article claimed

The moving of the goal posts occurs when you shift from "Texas is going to mismanage this" to "well, we are not testing everybody so maybe Texas is mismanaging this." it is essentially trying to prove a negative and using the lack of reliable data to continue to allege that Texas (and Abbott) are mis-managing. It is disingenuous.

That's where the agenda is illuminated. There is not really good evidence that Texas is better / worse in terms of testing, but I maintain my position that while testing is important, we will not evaluate it based on the number of tests but the number of cases and deaths.

And to D.C. and Sam - if my response was clumsy, my fault. I acknowledge testing is important and it does prevent perfect data, but that's not really the subject of the thread: it is Texas (really Abbott's) management of the crisis - based on the data we have, we are doing a good job. We could play hypothetical all day, but the article was the expected, premature panic-hit job without any clear evidence of mis-management.

If there is a assertion that Texas (and Abbott) is mis-managing public health by refusing testing, etc., fair enough. Let's have that conversation. Otherwise, it is just a red herring to the discussion at hand.

---

You are quite literally the one who assigned motive here, so you can save the lecture or apply it to yourself.

FLAMING MODERATE (1:59 on Monday): "That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?"

BEAR2BE2 (3:36 on Monday): "According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population."

FLAMING MODERATE (3:50 on Monday): "Working in health care, I would be surprised if there was anywhere close to accuracy around testing much less some third-party, unaffiliated site. But that is neither here nor there. I thought the goal was cases and mortality not testing ... but I am used to moving goal posts. "

-------------------------------------

But my overarching point remains. And I don't have assign motivation because you prove it with every post. You are here to defend your tribe against criticism, which is your prerogative, but just be honest with yourself. You're not a moderate in the least. When you rfirst instinct any time you see criticism of the Republican leadership is to defend, you're a flaming partisan. Which, again, is fine. But at least own that.

---

Since you're so fond of quoting me, can you highlight the area where I assigned motive and share what that motive is?

Dude, you are full-on projection mode.

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

To acknowledge the prescient OP, Texas continues to fall behind other, smaller states in terms of cases. Texas accounts for 2.06% of the nation's cases.

---

Unless we are testing widely, we have no earthly idea how many cases we have.

---

That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?

Heard today the Dallas County temporary hospital may be re-purposed to another state due to lack of use.

---

According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

---

Working in health care, I would be surprised if there was anywhere close to accuracy around testing much less some third-party, unaffiliated site. But that is neither here nor there. I thought the goal was cases and mortality not testing ... but I am used to moving goal posts.

---

Mortality is pretty easy to count, but you have to have widespread testing to know how many cases you have.

---

Exactly. There are no moving goalposts. Any discussion on relative impact across states is pretty useless without a reliable case count. And widespread testing is how you get that count.

---

With all due respect, that's exactly what happened on this thread, and in fairness that often happens when the goal is winning vs. discussion. The article is the typical fear-mongering that a Republican governor is unprepared for Wuhan Virus. Abbott is not acting fast enough, and hospitals will be over-run, and we cannot manage the looming crisis.

None of that has happened. Our cases are relatively low, our mortality is relatively low. Instead of being thoughtful and saying: "good job Texas." The goal posts get moved to "well, we don't have enough testing, so we don't know."

My answer is - I don't care. Testing is a red herring. If someone is symptomatic, they can get tested. If they're not, who cares. It is a red herring.

What matters is we don't have many cases, we don't have many deaths, not a single hospital is in crisis. I would say we're doing pretty good. But we cannot acknowledge that if it means given credit to someone in the other tribe.

---

The difference is you have a political ideology to defend. I'm just pointing out facts. You asked how Texas was testing relative to other states, and I answered based on the only source I've found that is tracking such things. Then you accused me of moving the goalposts to score political points in a game I'm not even playing.

I don't give a **** about either political party. I care about good governance/government, and both have failed epically over the years to provide either.

And as pointed out by Sam and D.C. above, testing is absolutely not a red herring. It's the key to containing this virus (too late) and slowing/stopping its spread in the future. I haven't blamed anyone specifically for the testing debacle in this country, which has only recently been remedied. I've only said we need to learn from or mistakes and fix them in the future. But I'm not going to let anyone downplay the role testing plays in combating this virus because suggesting the opposite might require them to use a critical lens on their preferred tribe's leadership.

---

Please don't assign motive or intent. It's immature. And context is important. It will help you understand to frame arguments more successfully. And free tip: the first clue you're not focusing on an agenda and only care about facts is you have to tell people you're focused on facts and don't have an agenda.

I'll lay it out for you and see if it helps.
- This thread was started by an anti-Trump bigot who posts non-stop TDS drivel, so put the poster in context - he has not posted anything blaming Cuomo or DeBlasio for the NYC outbreak but once to pre-blame Abbott for Texas
- He linked an article criticizing Texas for not responding fast enough to the Wuhan Virus spread with the requisite doomsday predictions
- None of that has occurred:
1. Texas remains well below other smaller states in cases and mortality
2. Texas has < 2% of the total cases but 9% of the total population
3. Texas has no over-run hospitals, no dying in the streets, no real crisis that the article claimed

The moving of the goal posts occurs when you shift from "Texas is going to mismanage this" to "well, we are not testing everybody so maybe Texas is mismanaging this." it is essentially trying to prove a negative and using the lack of reliable data to continue to allege that Texas (and Abbott) are mis-managing. It is disingenuous.

That's where the agenda is illuminated. There is not really good evidence that Texas is better / worse in terms of testing, but I maintain my position that while testing is important, we will not evaluate it based on the number of tests but the number of cases and deaths.

And to D.C. and Sam - if my response was clumsy, my fault. I acknowledge testing is important and it does prevent perfect data, but that's not really the subject of the thread: it is Texas (really Abbott's) management of the crisis - based on the data we have, we are doing a good job. We could play hypothetical all day, but the article was the expected, premature panic-hit job without any clear evidence of mis-management.

If there is a assertion that Texas (and Abbott) is mis-managing public health by refusing testing, etc., fair enough. Let's have that conversation. Otherwise, it is just a red herring to the discussion at hand.

---

You are quite literally the one who assigned motive here, so you can save the lecture or apply it to yourself.

FLAMING MODERATE (1:59 on Monday): "That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?"

BEAR2BE2 (3:36 on Monday): "According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population."

FLAMING MODERATE (3:50 on Monday): "Working in health care, I would be surprised if there was anywhere close to accuracy around testing much less some third-party, unaffiliated site. But that is neither here nor there. I thought the goal was cases and mortality not testing ... but I am used to moving goal posts. "

-------------------------------------

But my overarching point remains. And I don't have assign motivation because you prove it with every post. You are here to defend your tribe against criticism, which is your prerogative, but just be honest with yourself. You're not a moderate in the least. When you rfirst instinct any time you see criticism of the Republican leadership is to defend, you're a flaming partisan. Which, again, is fine. But at least own that.

---

Since you're so fond of quoting me, can you highlight the area where I assigned motive and share what that motive is?

Dude, you are full-on projection mode.

---

You said I was moving goalposts when all I did was answer your question directly. Why would I move goalposts (which I never set in the first place, mind you) without motive? Again, be intellectually honest. It was you that projected the opinions of others in this thread onto me.

The post quoted above was my first in this thread and was made for no other reason than to provide information -- information you specifically asked for, no less. It was you that upon receiving that information immediately attacked the source and crafted the narrative around it.

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

To acknowledge the prescient OP, Texas continues to fall behind other, smaller states in terms of cases. Texas accounts for 2.06% of the nation's cases.

---

Unless we are testing widely, we have no earthly idea how many cases we have.

---

That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?

Heard today the Dallas County temporary hospital may be re-purposed to another state due to lack of use.

---

According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

---

Working in health care, I would be surprised if there was anywhere close to accuracy around testing much less some third-party, unaffiliated site. But that is neither here nor there. I thought the goal was cases and mortality not testing ... but I am used to moving goal posts.

---

Mortality is pretty easy to count, but you have to have widespread testing to know how many cases you have.

---

Exactly. There are no moving goalposts. Any discussion on relative impact across states is pretty useless without a reliable case count. And widespread testing is how you get that count.

---

With all due respect, that's exactly what happened on this thread, and in fairness that often happens when the goal is winning vs. discussion. The article is the typical fear-mongering that a Republican governor is unprepared for Wuhan Virus. Abbott is not acting fast enough, and hospitals will be over-run, and we cannot manage the looming crisis.

None of that has happened. Our cases are relatively low, our mortality is relatively low. Instead of being thoughtful and saying: "good job Texas." The goal posts get moved to "well, we don't have enough testing, so we don't know."

My answer is - I don't care. Testing is a red herring. If someone is symptomatic, they can get tested. If they're not, who cares. It is a red herring.

What matters is we don't have many cases, we don't have many deaths, not a single hospital is in crisis. I would say we're doing pretty good. But we cannot acknowledge that if it means given credit to someone in the other tribe.

---

The difference is you have a political ideology to defend. I'm just pointing out facts. You asked how Texas was testing relative to other states, and I answered based on the only source I've found that is tracking such things. Then you accused me of moving the goalposts to score political points in a game I'm not even playing.

I don't give a **** about either political party. I care about good governance/government, and both have failed epically over the years to provide either.

And as pointed out by Sam and D.C. above, testing is absolutely not a red herring. It's the key to containing this virus (too late) and slowing/stopping its spread in the future. I haven't blamed anyone specifically for the testing debacle in this country, which has only recently been remedied. I've only said we need to learn from or mistakes and fix them in the future. But I'm not going to let anyone downplay the role testing plays in combating this virus because suggesting the opposite might require them to use a critical lens on their preferred tribe's leadership.

---

Please don't assign motive or intent. It's immature. And context is important. It will help you understand to frame arguments more successfully. And free tip: the first clue you're not focusing on an agenda and only care about facts is you have to tell people you're focused on facts and don't have an agenda.

I'll lay it out for you and see if it helps.
- This thread was started by an anti-Trump bigot who posts non-stop TDS drivel, so put the poster in context - he has not posted anything blaming Cuomo or DeBlasio for the NYC outbreak but once to pre-blame Abbott for Texas
- He linked an article criticizing Texas for not responding fast enough to the Wuhan Virus spread with the requisite doomsday predictions
- None of that has occurred:
1. Texas remains well below other smaller states in cases and mortality
2. Texas has < 2% of the total cases but 9% of the total population
3. Texas has no over-run hospitals, no dying in the streets, no real crisis that the article claimed

The moving of the goal posts occurs when you shift from "Texas is going to mismanage this" to "well, we are not testing everybody so maybe Texas is mismanaging this." it is essentially trying to prove a negative and using the lack of reliable data to continue to allege that Texas (and Abbott) are mis-managing. It is disingenuous.

That's where the agenda is illuminated. There is not really good evidence that Texas is better / worse in terms of testing, but I maintain my position that while testing is important, we will not evaluate it based on the number of tests but the number of cases and deaths.

And to D.C. and Sam - if my response was clumsy, my fault. I acknowledge testing is important and it does prevent perfect data, but that's not really the subject of the thread: it is Texas (really Abbott's) management of the crisis - based on the data we have, we are doing a good job. We could play hypothetical all day, but the article was the expected, premature panic-hit job without any clear evidence of mis-management.

If there is a assertion that Texas (and Abbott) is mis-managing public health by refusing testing, etc., fair enough. Let's have that conversation. Otherwise, it is just a red herring to the discussion at hand.

---

You are quite literally the one who assigned motive here, so you can save the lecture or apply it to yourself.

FLAMING MODERATE (1:59 on Monday): "That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?"

BEAR2BE2 (3:36 on Monday): "According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population."

FLAMING MODERATE (3:50 on Monday): "Working in health care, I would be surprised if there was anywhere close to accuracy around testing much less some third-party, unaffiliated site. But that is neither here nor there. I thought the goal was cases and mortality not testing ... but I am used to moving goal posts. "

-------------------------------------

But my overarching point remains. And I don't have assign motivation because you prove it with every post. You are here to defend your tribe against criticism, which is your prerogative, but just be honest with yourself. You're not a moderate in the least. When you rfirst instinct any time you see criticism of the Republican leadership is to defend, you're a flaming partisan. Which, again, is fine. But at least own that.

---

Since you're so fond of quoting me, can you highlight the area where I assigned motive and share what that motive is?

Dude, you are full-on projection mode.

---

You said I was moving goalposts when all I did was answer your question directly. Why would I move goalposts (which I never set in the first place, mind you) without motive? Again, be intellectually honest. It was you that projected the opinions of others in this thread onto me.

The post quoted above was my first in this thread and was made for no other reason than to provide information -- information you specifically asked for, no less. It was you that upon receiving that information immediately attacked the source and crafted the narrative around it.

---

Dude. Moving goalposts is an action not a motive. Everyone has a motive. I did not assign you one. I cannot make it any clearer - diverting a discussion of Texas' response to Wuhan Virus cases to testing is moving the goal post. To make it clear - if you want to complain about Texas and testing, cool. But to-date, based on the best, consistent information we have, Texas is doing really well. Maybe spend less time letting me get in your head and ask yourself why you're arguing so passionately that Texas is failing?

Again, what opinions did I project on you? If you're going to throw out accusations, I am going to need you to be more specific.

And calm down Shirley, I did not attack your precious source; I just said I was skeptical of the ability for a random, third party site (or anyone) to track testing. I mean use common sense - ask basic questions: 1) from where does it get its data: 2) how is that reported? 3) it is uniform across every city, state, county, plan, provider? what about across countries? 4) how is the data transmitted? 5) do we have results of the tests? I work in health care, and data sharing and technology is about 2000. I'm skeptical of cases and mortality - there are myriad opportunities for human and technology errors.

1. We need widespread testing to determine who HAD the disease. They can go back to work. Widespread testing of a sample would allow extrapolation to the population at large.

2. We need to assure that hospitals won't be overwhelmed before we allow everyone to go back to work (I think they should be tested first; if you haven't had the virus, stay isolated)

3. Boomers who haven't contracted the virus need to stay in isolation so the youngsters can go to work.

1. No, the cost would be prohibitive

2. No, that is overreach and would hurt the economy even worse for negligible benefit at best

3. Hell no

Oldbear83 said:

---

1. No, the cost would be prohibitive

2. No, that is overreach and would hurt the economy even worse for negligible benefit at best

3. Hell no

---

1. How much is it costing now?

2 .I don't think the benefit is negligible. Hospitals being overwhelmed gives you Italy.

3. Government of the people, by the people, for the Boomers. It makes more sense for Boomers to self quarantine for their own protection than to sideline people for whom the odds of a bad result approaches zero (assuming no underlying condition).

You don't get to deny one part of the nation their rights, just because you want to give help to someone else.

Oldbear83 said:

---

You don't get to deny one part of the nation their rights, just because you want to give help to someone else.

---

I'm not advocating a law. I'm advocating that Boomers help their kids and grandkids by self quaranting so the youngsters, who don't need to quarantine, can go back to work.
Seems like that is a request, like Texas' stay at home directive, that would help Boomers. Youngsters aren't faring badly due to the virus. Their economic futures are being irretrievably damaged.

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

To acknowledge the prescient OP, Texas continues to fall behind other, smaller states in terms of cases. Texas accounts for 2.06% of the nation's cases.

---

Unless we are testing widely, we have no earthly idea how many cases we have.

---

That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?

Heard today the Dallas County temporary hospital may be re-purposed to another state due to lack of use.

---

According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

---

Working in health care, I would be surprised if there was anywhere close to accuracy around testing much less some third-party, unaffiliated site. But that is neither here nor there. I thought the goal was cases and mortality not testing ... but I am used to moving goal posts.

---

Mortality is pretty easy to count, but you have to have widespread testing to know how many cases you have.

---

Exactly. There are no moving goalposts. Any discussion on relative impact across states is pretty useless without a reliable case count. And widespread testing is how you get that count.

---

With all due respect, that's exactly what happened on this thread, and in fairness that often happens when the goal is winning vs. discussion. The article is the typical fear-mongering that a Republican governor is unprepared for Wuhan Virus. Abbott is not acting fast enough, and hospitals will be over-run, and we cannot manage the looming crisis.

None of that has happened. Our cases are relatively low, our mortality is relatively low. Instead of being thoughtful and saying: "good job Texas." The goal posts get moved to "well, we don't have enough testing, so we don't know."

My answer is - I don't care. Testing is a red herring. If someone is symptomatic, they can get tested. If they're not, who cares. It is a red herring.

What matters is we don't have many cases, we don't have many deaths, not a single hospital is in crisis. I would say we're doing pretty good. But we cannot acknowledge that if it means given credit to someone in the other tribe.

---

The difference is you have a political ideology to defend. I'm just pointing out facts. You asked how Texas was testing relative to other states, and I answered based on the only source I've found that is tracking such things. Then you accused me of moving the goalposts to score political points in a game I'm not even playing.

I don't give a **** about either political party. I care about good governance/government, and both have failed epically over the years to provide either.

And as pointed out by Sam and D.C. above, testing is absolutely not a red herring. It's the key to containing this virus (too late) and slowing/stopping its spread in the future. I haven't blamed anyone specifically for the testing debacle in this country, which has only recently been remedied. I've only said we need to learn from or mistakes and fix them in the future. But I'm not going to let anyone downplay the role testing plays in combating this virus because suggesting the opposite might require them to use a critical lens on their preferred tribe's leadership.

---

Please don't assign motive or intent. It's immature. And context is important. It will help you understand to frame arguments more successfully. And free tip: the first clue you're not focusing on an agenda and only care about facts is you have to tell people you're focused on facts and don't have an agenda.

I'll lay it out for you and see if it helps.
- This thread was started by an anti-Trump bigot who posts non-stop TDS drivel, so put the poster in context - he has not posted anything blaming Cuomo or DeBlasio for the NYC outbreak but once to pre-blame Abbott for Texas
- He linked an article criticizing Texas for not responding fast enough to the Wuhan Virus spread with the requisite doomsday predictions
- None of that has occurred:
1. Texas remains well below other smaller states in cases and mortality
2. Texas has < 2% of the total cases but 9% of the total population
3. Texas has no over-run hospitals, no dying in the streets, no real crisis that the article claimed

The moving of the goal posts occurs when you shift from "Texas is going to mismanage this" to "well, we are not testing everybody so maybe Texas is mismanaging this." it is essentially trying to prove a negative and using the lack of reliable data to continue to allege that Texas (and Abbott) are mis-managing. It is disingenuous.

That's where the agenda is illuminated. There is not really good evidence that Texas is better / worse in terms of testing, but I maintain my position that while testing is important, we will not evaluate it based on the number of tests but the number of cases and deaths.

And to D.C. and Sam - if my response was clumsy, my fault. I acknowledge testing is important and it does prevent perfect data, but that's not really the subject of the thread: it is Texas (really Abbott's) management of the crisis - based on the data we have, we are doing a good job. We could play hypothetical all day, but the article was the expected, premature panic-hit job without any clear evidence of mis-management.

If there is a assertion that Texas (and Abbott) is mis-managing public health by refusing testing, etc., fair enough. Let's have that conversation. Otherwise, it is just a red herring to the discussion at hand.

---

You are quite literally the one who assigned motive here, so you can save the lecture or apply it to yourself.

FLAMING MODERATE (1:59 on Monday): "That is true - how many tests has Texas done and how does that compare to other states?"

BEAR2BE2 (3:36 on Monday): "According to worldometer, which has been pretty reliable so far, Texas is pretty low nationally for tests per million in population."

FLAMING MODERATE (3:50 on Monday): "Working in health care, I would be surprised if there was anywhere close to accuracy around testing much less some third-party, unaffiliated site. But that is neither here nor there. I thought the goal was cases and mortality not testing ... but I am used to moving goal posts. "

-------------------------------------

But my overarching point remains. And I don't have assign motivation because you prove it with every post. You are here to defend your tribe against criticism, which is your prerogative, but just be honest with yourself. You're not a moderate in the least. When you rfirst instinct any time you see criticism of the Republican leadership is to defend, you're a flaming partisan. Which, again, is fine. But at least own that.

---

Since you're so fond of quoting me, can you highlight the area where I assigned motive and share what that motive is?

Dude, you are full-on projection mode.

---

You said I was moving goalposts when all I did was answer your question directly. Why would I move goalposts (which I never set in the first place, mind you) without motive? Again, be intellectually honest. It was you that projected the opinions of others in this thread onto me.

The post quoted above was my first in this thread and was made for no other reason than to provide information -- information you specifically asked for, no less. It was you that upon receiving that information immediately attacked the source and crafted the narrative around it.

---

Dude. Moving goalposts is an action not a motive. Everyone has a motive. I did not assign you one. I cannot make it any clearer - diverting a discussion of Texas' response to Wuhan Virus cases to testing is moving the goal post. To make it clear - if you want to complain about Texas and testing, cool. But to-date, based on the best, consistent information we have, Texas is doing really well. Maybe spend less time letting me get in your head and ask yourself why you're arguing so passionately that Texas is failing?

Again, what opinions did I project on you? If you're going to throw out accusations, I am going to need you to be more specific.

And calm down Shirley, I did not attack your precious source; I just said I was skeptical of the ability for a random, third party site (or anyone) to track testing. I mean use common sense - ask basic questions: 1) from where does it get its data: 2) how is that reported? 3) it is uniform across every city, state, county, plan, provider? what about across countries? 4) how is the data transmitted? 5) do we have results of the tests? I work in health care, and data sharing and technology is about 2000. I'm skeptical of cases and mortality - there are myriad opportunities for human and technology errors.

---

For at least the third time, all I did was answer the question YOU asked about testing in Texas. There was literally no commentary attached, so I don't understand why you continue to defend Texas' response to me. I think our state's done about as well as most others, though it's far too early to make any determination at this point. We'll have a better idea in two or three weeks once we've seen how Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio and Houston are impacted. And I'm hoping for the best.

But if you weren't interested in an answer or furthering the discussion on testing, you probably shouldn't have asked a question about testing.

As for worldometer's methodology, credibility and sourcing, you can read about all on the site. It's realtime information is based on statistical models/projections and corrected by sourced data, so it's not 100 percent accurate all the time, but as I posted in the original post, it has tended to be pretty reliable so far.

https://www.worldometers.info/about/

Age of Coronavirus Deaths
COVID-19 Fatality Rate by AGE:
*Death Rate = (number of deaths / number of cases) = probability of dying if infected by the virus (%). This probability differs depending on the age group. The percentages shown below do not have to add up to 100%, as they do NOT represent share of deaths by age group. Rather, it represents, for a person in a given age group, the risk of dying if infected with COVID-19.

DEATH RATE
all cases
80+ years old
14.8%

70-79 years old
8.0%

60-69 years old
3.6%

50-59 years old
1.3%

40-49 years old
0.4%

30-39 years old
0.2%

20-29 years old
0.2%

10-19 years old
0.2%

0-9 years old
no fatalities

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You don't get to deny one part of the nation their rights, just because you want to give help to someone else.

---

I'm not advocating a law. I'm advocating that Boomers help their kids and grandkids by self quaranting so the youngsters, who don't need to quarantine, can go back to work.
Seems like that is a request, like Texas' stay at home directive, that would help Boomers. Youngsters aren't faring badly due to the virus. Their economic futures are being irretrievably damaged.

---

Go take a flying leap. No sign of the virus means no reason to penalize working citizens. Boomers looking at retirement need to work even more than young kids.

You do not get to order other citizens around.

Again, you can take your fascist "request" and shove it up where the rest of that idea came from.

Osodecentx said:

---

Age of Coronavirus Deaths
COVID-19 Fatality Rate by AGE:
*Death Rate = (number of deaths / number of cases) = probability of dying if infected by the virus (%). This probability differs depending on the age group. The percentages shown below do not have to add up to 100%, as they do NOT represent share of deaths by age group. Rather, it represents, for a person in a given age group, the risk of dying if infected with COVID-19.

DEATH RATE
all cases
80+ years old
14.8%

70-79 years old
8.0%

60-69 years old
3.6%

50-59 years old
1.3%

40-49 years old
0.4%

30-39 years old
0.2%

20-29 years old
0.2%

10-19 years old
0.2%

0-9 years old
no fatalities

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

---

Deaths aren't as important for younger demographics as hospitalizations in the "returning to work" conversation, as it will ultimately be our ability to treat sick patients without overwhelming our facilities that will determine when we're ready to get back to life as we knew it. And the data from several European nations has suggested that those younger demographics, while not adding substantially to the mortality rate, are still likely to put some degree of strain on our medical resources.

Unfortunately, there's no good answer here. But the sooner we can figure out who has/has had the virus with some reliability, the better off we'll be.

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You don't get to deny one part of the nation their rights, just because you want to give help to someone else.

---

I'm not advocating a law. I'm advocating that Boomers help their kids and grandkids by self quaranting so the youngsters, who don't need to quarantine, can go back to work.
Seems like that is a request, like Texas' stay at home directive, that would help Boomers. Youngsters aren't faring badly due to the virus. Their economic futures are being irretrievably damaged.

---

The problem with this is that most of the vulnerable people who have fallen victim to this virus were already self-quarantined to a large degree. COVID-19 was brought to them by their kids and grandkids -- or other asymptomatic/pre-symptomatic carriers in a younger demographic. That's the danger here. It's not to the younger individuals. It's to the vulnerable folks that younger generation might infect while returning to everyday life and to our medical infrastructure, which isn't equipped to handle the number of cases a burn-through strategy or herd immunity period would produce.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You don't get to deny one part of the nation their rights, just because you want to give help to someone else.

---

I'm not advocating a law. I'm advocating that Boomers help their kids and grandkids by self quaranting so the youngsters, who don't need to quarantine, can go back to work.
Seems like that is a request, like Texas' stay at home directive, that would help Boomers. Youngsters aren't faring badly due to the virus. Their economic futures are being irretrievably damaged.

---

Go take a flying leap. No sign of the virus means no reason to penalize working citizens. Boomers looking at retirement need to work even more than young kids.

You do not get to order other citizens around.

Again, you can take your fascist "request" and shove it up where the rest of that idea came from.

---

We are ordering citizens around right now. In fact we're ordering around economic, personal, and private behavior.

BTW, New York has passed Italy in cases.