ATL Bear said:

---

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.

---

Yeah, and that's just more reason for individuals to protect their remaining power to make their own decisions.

Any group which thinks they have the right to tell another group what they are "allowed" to do, and what rights to have, is - if not elected - fascist by definition and they may all go rot in hell for that desire to rule over other people.

bear2be2 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.

---

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.

---

If you need to stop seeing your kids or grandkids, you stop doing it for how ever long it takes. If your kids or grandkids are stuck with you as a caretaker, then their stuck in quarantine with you. They are doing this at nursing homes across the country. Zero visitation, or waiving from behind a window.

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

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.

---

Yeah, and that's just more reason for individuals to protect their remaining power to make their own decisions.

Any group which thinks they have the right to tell another group what they are "allowed" to so, and what rights to have, is - if not elected - fascist by definition and they may all go rot in hell for that desire to rule over other people.

---

It's happening as we speak. In Georgia we just had a quarantine for the elderly and medically vulnerable specifically. Not everyone else. It then reverted to a full shelter in place.

The concept of shared misery is a decidedly communist ideal. No exceptionalism, just shared burden.

EDIT: There are restrictions on freedoms by group or circumstance that occur even without a pandemic in full swing.

bear2be2 said:

---

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.

---

Wide-spread testing is essential. If someone has antibodies against COVID, what is the rationale for restricting their movement?

bear2be2 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.

---

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.

---

Totally agree. Why punish those who have recovered and/or have the antibodies? Cut them loose and keep grandma out of the way.

ATL Bear said:

---

bear2be2 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.

---

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.

---

If you need to stop seeing your kids or grandkids, you stop doing it for how ever long it takes. If your kids or grandkids are stuck with you as a caretaker, then their stuck in quarantine with you. They are doing this at nursing homes across the country. Zero visitation, or waiving from behind a window.

---

I do part-time senior care work at an independent living facility. I know what's happening.

But that's a temporary fix, not a long-term solution. That's a demographic that would be damaged irreparably by long-term isolation, which is what you'd be dooming them to by sending everyone but them back to their everyday lives.

As a society, we can wait the two months necessary to put this behind all of us. It will be inconvenient for all of us and painful for some. But it's for the greater good.

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

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.

---

Wide-spread testing is essential. If someone has antibodies against COVID, what is the rationale for restricting their movement?

---

I agree completely. The more data we can amass, the closer we'll be to returning to normal.

bear2be2 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

bear2be2 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.

---

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.

---

If you need to stop seeing your kids or grandkids, you stop doing it for how ever long it takes. If your kids or grandkids are stuck with you as a caretaker, then their stuck in quarantine with you. They are doing this at nursing homes across the country. Zero visitation, or waiving from behind a window.

---

I do part-time senior care work at an independent living facility. I know what's happening.

But that's a temporary fix, not a long-term solution. That's a demographic that would be damaged irreparably by long-term isolation, which is what you'd be dooming them to by sending everyone but them back to their everyday lives.

As a society, we can wait the two months necessary to put this behind all of us. It will be inconvenient for all of us and painful for some. But it's for the greater good.

---

If we're still sheltering in place in 2 months society will have broken down. We've already created unnecessary competition for resources amongst ourselves. We now have people in the supply chain dying which is creating issues on a multitude of levels, including greater hysteria. But it's one thing to worry about toilet paper and hand sanitizer, it's something totally different when it's bread, milk, eggs, and vegetables. Rationing could be shortly on the horizon as they further restrict the ability to get food. We have mass fights on Black Friday for electronics. Just think what happens when it's food for your family.

EDIT: And how would we be dooming the most vulnerable by specifically creating restrictions to protect them? What about a law that requires them to wear a mask when they go out in public?

bear2be2 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

bear2be2 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.

---

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.

---

If you need to stop seeing your kids or grandkids, you stop doing it for how ever long it takes. If your kids or grandkids are stuck with you as a caretaker, then their stuck in quarantine with you. They are doing this at nursing homes across the country. Zero visitation, or waiving from behind a window.

---

I do part-time senior care work at an independent living facility. I know what's happening.

But that's a temporary fix, not a long-term solution. That's a demographic that would be damaged irreparably by long-term isolation, which is what you'd be dooming them to by sending everyone but them back to their everyday lives.

As a society, we can wait the two months necessary to put this behind all of us. It will be inconvenient for all of us and painful for some. But it's for the greater good.

---

Keeping the economy shut down for 2 more months would be the opposite of the greater good. You would start to see shortages and civil unrest. This will destroy a great number of businesses even more so than what we will see already. We need to reopen things ASAP in regions that are less effected by this. Texas should be business as usual in the next couple of weeks - imo.

bear2be2 said:

---

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/

---

I realize that, but you seem to young to have dementia, but you starting posting non-sensical about agendas and motives and how you're the only one with facts.

As I now have posted four times - if you want to talk testing, fine. But that does not prove Texas is mismanaging the situation. In fact, have far fewer cases than many larger states I would consider a win. Again, ask yourself why you cannot bring yourself to do that, fact boy.

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

I've gone into detail elsewhere about how the CDCs decision to develop a test was not the issue. Faulty tests or not, the CDC is not built for this. They are a high precision rifle and are ,in many cases, the gold standard for what they do, but we needed a shotgun. You can play sniper with things like Ebola, but not an airborne respiratory virus with infection rate this high. And they're so buried in rigid regulations and procedures that temporary compromise and rushed validations is just not in their DNA.

Simple question. Would you rather live in Texas or that ****hole called NYC?

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

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/

---

I realize that, but you seem to young to have dementia, but you starting posting non-sensical about agendas and motives and how you're the only one with facts.

As I now have posted four times - if you want to talk testing, fine. But that does not prove Texas is mismanaging the situation. In fact, have far fewer cases than many larger states I would consider a win. Again, ask yourself why you cannot bring yourself to do that, fact boy.

---

I challenge you to find a single post where I said Texas has mismanaged the situation. That's what I'm talking about. I don't know if you're attributing other people's thoughts to me or what, but I have made no commentary on Texas' handling of COVID-19 beyond to say that I think our state is doing as well as can be expected so far.

If you want to have a conversation, let's have one based on what's actually been said, not positions you're projecting onto me that I haven't actually taken.

syme said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

I've gone into detail elsewhere about how the CDCs decision to develop a test was not the issue. Faulty tests or not, the CDC is not built for this. They are a high precision rifle and are ,in many cases, the gold standard for what they do, but we needed a shotgun. You can play sniper with things like Ebola, but not an airborne respiratory virus with infection rate this high. And they're so buried in rigid regulations and procedures that temporary compromise and rushed validations is just not in their DNA.

---

Another reason to have used the WHO test which was available early.

^^^ The merciless perpetually ignorant dimcrat

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

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/

---

I realize that, but you seem to young to have dementia, but you starting posting non-sensical about agendas and motives and how you're the only one with facts.

As I now have posted four times - if you want to talk testing, fine. But that does not prove Texas is mismanaging the situation. In fact, have far fewer cases than many larger states I would consider a win. Again, ask yourself why you cannot bring yourself to do that, fact boy.

---

I challenge you to find a single post where I said Texas has mismanaged the situation. That's what I'm talking about. I don't know if you're attributing other people's thoughts to me or what, but I have made no commentary on Texas' handling of COVID-19 beyond to say that I think our state is doing as well as can be expected so far.

If you want to have a conversation, let's have one based on what's actually been said, not positions you're projecting onto me that I haven't actually taken.

---

Fair point. I absolutely may have misunderstood you, and I acknowledge when you went left failed and started talking motives, etc., I was triggered. My apologies.

I just felt like there were several posters - you included - that were dismissing Texas' relative success because "not enough testing." If that was not the case, I do apologize for misunderstanding.

Again - for the 1,000th time - I get without complete testing we'll never have complete data, but everyone is pretty much in the same boat, so we're comparing apples to apples. Cheers.

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

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/

---

I realize that, but you seem to young to have dementia, but you starting posting non-sensical about agendas and motives and how you're the only one with facts.

As I now have posted four times - if you want to talk testing, fine. But that does not prove Texas is mismanaging the situation. In fact, have far fewer cases than many larger states I would consider a win. Again, ask yourself why you cannot bring yourself to do that, fact boy.

---

I challenge you to find a single post where I said Texas has mismanaged the situation. That's what I'm talking about. I don't know if you're attributing other people's thoughts to me or what, but I have made no commentary on Texas' handling of COVID-19 beyond to say that I think our state is doing as well as can be expected so far.

If you want to have a conversation, let's have one based on what's actually been said, not positions you're projecting onto me that I haven't actually taken.

---

Fair point. I absolutely may have misunderstood you, and I acknowledge when you went left failed and started talking motives, etc., I was triggered. My apologies.

I just felt like there were several posters - you included - that were dismissing Texas' relative success because "not enough testing." If that was not the case, I do apologize for misunderstanding.

Again - for the 1,000th time - I get without complete testing we'll never have complete data, but everyone is pretty much in the same boat, so we're comparing apples to apples. Cheers.

---

Nice

Texas continues to be far behind other states in Wuhan Virus cases: 8,262 cases, < 2% of total. Still behind many smaller states. The OP seems more prescient every day.

Florda_mike said:

---

^^^ The merciless perpetually ignorant dimcrat

---

State health agencies, hospitals and other health care agencies/labs could have been given access to the WHO tests aside from the CDC. That has been my point. The CDC was an unnecessary bottleneck.

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

At 2500 cases and 34 deaths in Texas, you'd think there would be some praise on how it has been handled.

---

Yep. I can't speak for all Texas health systems and I'm not biased, but I can tell you some health systems in the DFW area have reacted very, very well.

At this point in the game, they have reacted as well as they should.

Once again, Texas Monthly is showing it's political agenda.

---

"The CEO of the Texas Hospital Association, which represents 450 hospitals and health care systems statewide, warned that more than 200,000 Texans could require hospitalization by mid-May, and hospitals would be overwhelmed as early as mid-April."

Again, the article attacks Abbott's delay in declaring a state of emergency and closing everything. It mentions nothing about testing (other than we don't have a full picture), but it does not demonstrate where other states chose WHO tests and Abbott did not thus terrible mis-management.

Although I hate myself for falling for the red herring:
Total testing:
Texas - 96.258
Illinois - 75.066
Louisiana - 76.640

That was fun.

Texas continues to be far behind many states with smaller populations. New York, Michigan, Louisiana, Florida, New Jersey, Illinois are states with more cases and smaller populations.

We should pat ourselves on the back for a thoughtful and so far relatively successful approach.

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Texas continues to be far behind many states with smaller populations. New York, Michigan, Louisiana, Florida, New Jersey, Illinois are states with more cases and smaller populations.

We should pat ourselves on the back for a thoughtful and so far relatively successful approach.

---

Well, hoarding toilet paper has definitely helped

Unfortunately, we have passed Georgia, but overall Texas continues to be behind other small states in terms of Wuhan virus cases.

For those that want to distract with the testing red herring, we have tested 10 people for every positive result.

By today's count: Texas has 435 more total cases than Georgia, but Georgia has 1935 more current cases than Texas and 179 more deaths. Texas has 1955 more recovered cases than Georgia.

The thoughtfulness of the OP continues: Texas still behind smaller states such as Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana ... neck and neck with Georgia much like Dallas vs. Atlanta.

No hospital crises.
Testing continues at a rate of 10 tests / positive.

Glad to know we're still behind.

TexasScientist said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Texas still behind Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania in addition to the biggies.

I guess the OP is right - we are behind.

---

We're behind in testing, we're behind in knowing the true extent and distribution of the virus, and we're behind in preparedness. We already know that some hospitals have more patients than the State is publishing. We'll eventually catch up in numbers.

---

Texas continues to lag behind other states. Neck-and-neck with Georgia ... behind New York, New Jersey, Mass, Penn, Michigan, Louisiana, California, Connecticut, Illinois, and Florida. Let's hope we continue to trail other states.

Flaming Moderate said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

At 2500 cases and 34 deaths in Texas, you'd think there would be some praise on how it has been handled.

---

That's about where New York was 12 days ago, except they had half as many deaths.

---

A city like New York is prime for a virus spread. People living on top of each other reliant upon public transportation. I'm willing to bet Texas won't get nearly as bad given measures taken thus far, and that infected people won't be crammed on buses and subways on their way to and from the hospital.

---

It has flummoxed me that cities will not shut down public transportation. I am not a clinician, but that seems like a pretty significant means to spread any virus, especially one that can live outside the body on metal surfaces. Worse too, it de-localizes the spread. Most people usually go out close to home, but public transportation spreads it across the entire region. Dallas for example is still running DART, which means an infected person in South Dallas and spread it to Plano and vice versa.

---

A lot of things in the shut down do not make sense.

Target can sell clothing but shops cannot?
I can ride public transportation but I can't get my hair cut?
I can stand in line at Kroger and mingle with people in the narrow aisles but I cannot go other stores that have items I need and want?
Government contruction can continue but private construction cannot.
Some factories are open and some are closed.

Why are universities in CA running antibody testing studies and UT TAMU are not?

Seems the obvious thing to do. Can't imagine UT TAMU lack the funding and know how that Stanford has displayed.

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Texas continues to lag behind other states. Neck-and-neck with Georgia ...

---

Neck and neck in total cases, but Georgia is much higher in deaths and current cases.

Jacques Strap said:

---

Why are universities in CA running antibody testing studies and UT TAMU are not?

Seems the obvious thing to do. Can't imagine UT TAMU lack the funding and know how that Stanford has displayed.

---

Do we really want to aggy-up the response?

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

At 2500 cases and 34 deaths in Texas, you'd think there would be some praise on how it has been handled.

---

That's about where New York was 12 days ago, except they had half as many deaths.

---

A city like New York is prime for a virus spread. People living on top of each other reliant upon public transportation. I'm willing to bet Texas won't get nearly as bad given measures taken thus far, and that infected people won't be crammed on buses and subways on their way to and from the hospital.

---

It has flummoxed me that cities will not shut down public transportation. I am not a clinician, but that seems like a pretty significant means to spread any virus, especially one that can live outside the body on metal surfaces. Worse too, it de-localizes the spread. Most people usually go out close to home, but public transportation spreads it across the entire region. Dallas for example is still running DART, which means an infected person in South Dallas and spread it to Plano and vice versa.

---

A lot of things in the shut down do not make sense.

Target can sell clothing but shops cannot?
I can ride public transportation but I can't get my hair cut?
I can stand in line at Kroger and mingle with people in the narrow aisles but I cannot go other stores that have items I need and want?
Government contruction can continue but private construction cannot.
Some factories are open and some are closed.

---

To quote John Wiley Price - you can get your pet's hair cut but not yours. Part of why I have not been able fully to take this seriously is this kind of thing - they same people wanting to stay locked down defend keeping public transportation open, which pretty much experts agree is the single biggest spreader of the disease.

Same with take out - if the virus can live outside the body, getting takeout is about as dangerous as going to a restaurant. Same with the free lunch programs continuing. Or I can buy lottery tickets, weed, and booze but not garden seeds. Somebody is using personal agendas to drive lockdown decisions.

---

There are good reasons for most of these policies. Pet haircuts and takeout involve less person-to-person contact. Free lunch programs feed people. Keeping liquor stores open reduces strain on the healthcare system in the short term. There's no expert agreement that public transportation is a particularly big problem compared with other spreaders of the disease. In fact the opinion is to the contrary. Public transportation is also important for keeping grocery and medical services in operation.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

At 2500 cases and 34 deaths in Texas, you'd think there would be some praise on how it has been handled.

---

That's about where New York was 12 days ago, except they had half as many deaths.

---

A city like New York is prime for a virus spread. People living on top of each other reliant upon public transportation. I'm willing to bet Texas won't get nearly as bad given measures taken thus far, and that infected people won't be crammed on buses and subways on their way to and from the hospital.

---

It has flummoxed me that cities will not shut down public transportation. I am not a clinician, but that seems like a pretty significant means to spread any virus, especially one that can live outside the body on metal surfaces. Worse too, it de-localizes the spread. Most people usually go out close to home, but public transportation spreads it across the entire region. Dallas for example is still running DART, which means an infected person in South Dallas and spread it to Plano and vice versa.

---

A lot of things in the shut down do not make sense.

Target can sell clothing but shops cannot?
I can ride public transportation but I can't get my hair cut?
I can stand in line at Kroger and mingle with people in the narrow aisles but I cannot go other stores that have items I need and want?
Government contruction can continue but private construction cannot.
Some factories are open and some are closed.

---

To quote John Wiley Price - you can get your pet's hair cut but not yours. Part of why I have not been able fully to take this seriously is this kind of thing - they same people wanting to stay locked down defend keeping public transportation open, which pretty much experts agree is the single biggest spreader of the disease.

Same with take out - if the virus can live outside the body, getting takeout is about as dangerous as going to a restaurant. Same with the free lunch programs continuing. Or I can buy lottery tickets, weed, and booze but not garden seeds. Somebody is using personal agendas to drive lockdown decisions.

---

There are good reasons for most of these policies. Pet haircuts and takeout involve less person-to-person contact. Free lunch programs feed people. Keeping liquor stores open reduces strain on the healthcare system in the short term. There's no expert agreement that public transportation is a particularly big problem compared with other spreaders of the disease. In fact the opinion is to the contrary. Public transportation is also important for keeping grocery and medical services in operation.

---

It's time to revise those lockdown policies. Past time, in fact.

I don't understand the obsession with justifying the ability to go load up on liquor at Spec's, but the plain fact is that almost all - if not all - of the benefits we are seeing come from people distancing and wearing masks, and not from shutting down businesses which had less people coming in than Home Depot or Walmart does now.

It's time to stop making decisions out of fear, and listen to the new data about effective treatments and listen to people who are suffocating under the dictatorial actions of politicians who - still - do not impose any of their rules on themselves.

Government workers stay home with full pay

Small business private workers stay home with no pay