This pandemic has exposed just how widespread innumeracy and an inability to read even basic graphs is amongst the American public
I can bet you that, in 10 years, there will still be 100s of new cases EVERY SINGLE DAY. Same with the flu. You are deceiving yourself if you think this is going away for the rest of this planet's lifespan. Just throwing that out there. It is here forever. A vaccine won't end it, either.
My point was, with all the niggling over what's in and what's out, nothing substantial, and verifiably real has changed locally since about early April, and probably won't for some time. Substantial ...no new cases locally, or very few locally, or triple cases locally, would a substantial change. Yes, that may never happen. Meahwhile, unless we go off the chart in increase or decrease, it's just people arguing on the internet about faulty data. Mostly, trying to confirm their biases.
Urge your state senator to vote NO on SB 1102. This bill proposes wresting authority from local authorities and handing it over to the Governor during health emergencies. In my opinion mayors have a better understanding of local conditions on the ground versus one person applying one size fits all across the state. Additionally Mayors are held to account by the folks they serve and are less susceptible to national pressure or lobbyists.
Saw a very interesting story on NBC Nightly News how cities are closing streets to let restaurants have more outdoor seating . Could this work in Bricktown? Just have street car access for free?
As far as “% positives of all tests”, we should be expecting a decrease anyway as more testing is being opened up to anyone who wants testing. In the past you had to have had pretty significant clinical symptoms, often combined with a significant exposure history, to even get a test done. So with that high focus on highly probable clinical cases being tested we would expect a higher percentage of those tests to result in positive tests.
Now we are doing a lot more surveillance testing, which includes wider testing of people who are not suspected of having the disease to begin with to identify asymptomatic carriers. You can call up a number and drive down to the fairgrounds to get tested. It’s easy for contacts to get tested even if there is minimal likelihood of transmission.
So yes, lower percentages of positive cases can be the result of spread being contained. It can also very easily be the result of expanding testing from only testing people who are most likely to have the disease to testing anyone and everyone who wants a test and increased surveillance testing. It’s certainly a combination of both factors.
Updated for Saturday:
How many of the 151 were from the Plant this time? I know more testing means numbers will go up but not liking the fact we are over 100 a day now.
That is the good question? I think it's somewhere? How many more test are being processed in a day? Still seems like to me this is a limit to how many they can do in a day? If that is the case does the more test me higher numbers really come into play? If you process 3,000 a test a day and 150 come back positive and the next day you process 3,000 test again and 200 are positive how can you say more testing are leading to higher numbers?
Looks like it's 5000ish/day the last few days. That better than Colorado, which is testing about the same numbers. Texas had a goal of 25k per day but their numbers vary wildly - though it looks like OK is doing better per capita.
I’ve been proposing this idea. It makes so much sense. It creates a lot of space. For example, consider the Plaza and Paseo Districts closed off. Parking spots could be tables. Streets could allow more space for walking. Yes, it’ll be harder to get there, but the trade off is worth it.
There are currently 106 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 106 guests)
Bookmarks