rbowman pretended :
On 07/01/2020 03:30 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
rbowman was thinking very hard :
On 06/30/2020 12:18 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 12:31:38 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:
Oklahoma does have a statistic to be proud of, though. Over the past
two
days, of the people who have been tested, 100% have been positive.
That's
the first time we've seen that.
All that tells me is they are only testing people suspected of having
the virus.
It's improving but this state had a shortage of test kits so testing
was only done on people who had been vetted by a health care
professional. The results were overwhelmingly negative.
Bad kits? Improper procedures? Who knows.
My sister has been tested twice and came up negative both times. This
was for clearance to have a procedure done. I assume I am not positive.
New Hampshire is doing remarkably well considering our proximity to hot
spots.
According to the radio this morning the county has stopped testing people who
are not exhibiting symptoms. Being cynical, I think they scared themselves
with the positive asymptomatic results from open testing.
Trump wants fewer tests so as to give lower numbers of newly found
infections so it doesn't look as bad as it is, but more testing is how
we decide to reopen, not lower newly found infected rates.
Last I heard the state was urging everyone to get tested. I'm just
waiting for my next appointment where they will probably require it.
I agree, they do seem less concerned about the factual numbers and more
concerned about the possibly detrimental effect the numbers will have
on reopening. Lowering the numbers artificially by reducing testing
does not help at all really.
Personally, I think they shouldn't 'lie to us for our own good' like
they have been known to do. All it does his make them less trustworthy.