On 6/28/2020 10:14 AM, Bod wrote:
On 28/06/2020 16:03, Muggles wrote:
On 6/28/2020 10:01 AM, Bod wrote:

The Latest: Tulsa reports record spike in COVID-19 cases

https://apnews.com/245057f1c2211c7ea2fc7b0e9d6e5686



So?Â* People STILL aren't dying by the thousands, here.Â* The numbers only
reflect more testing. No one here really cares about infections because
the majority of people don't even know they've had it.


Tulsa Health Department Director Bruce Dart says the new cases have been
linked to gatherings such as funerals, weddings and people going to
bars. He says because the incubation period is anywhere from two to 14
days, the virus could be spread for weeks after that by anybody exposed
during Saturdays rally.


So?? We STILL don't have thousands dying, here. People are going to be
social and that's just life in a FREE country. There's just more
testing going on, and the funny thing about that is it hasn't even been
suggested for anyone that I know to GET tested.

--
Maggie

On 6/30/2020 9:32 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 6/28/2020 10:14 AM, Bod wrote:
On 28/06/2020 16:03, Muggles wrote:
On 6/28/2020 10:01 AM, Bod wrote:

The Latest: Tulsa reports record spike in COVID-19 cases

https://apnews.com/245057f1c2211c7ea2fc7b0e9d6e5686



So?Â* People STILL aren't dying by the thousands, here.Â* The numbers only
reflect more testing. No one here really cares about infections because
the majority of people don't even know they've had it.


Tulsa Health Department Director Bruce Dart says the new cases have been
linked to gatherings such as funerals, weddings and people going to
bars. He says because the incubation period is anywhere from two to 14
days, the virus could be spread for weeks after that by anybody exposed
during Saturdays rally.


So?? We STILL don't have thousands dying, here. People are going to be
social and that's just life in a FREE country. There's just more
testing going on, and the funny thing about that is it hasn't even been
suggested for anyone that I know to GET tested.


Consider yourself VERY lucky so far. 35 states are currently growing in
cases, up from 20 a week or so ago. Including your state.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...rus-cases.html

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 11:32:09 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 6/28/2020 10:14 AM, Bod wrote:
On 28/06/2020 16:03, Muggles wrote:
On 6/28/2020 10:01 AM, Bod wrote:

The Latest: Tulsa reports record spike in COVID-19 cases

https://apnews.com/245057f1c2211c7ea2fc7b0e9d6e5686



So?* People STILL aren't dying by the thousands, here.* The numbers only
reflect more testing. No one here really cares about infections because
the majority of people don't even know they've had it.


Tulsa Health Department Director Bruce Dart says the new cases have been
linked to gatherings such as funerals, weddings and people going to
bars. He says because the incubation period is anywhere from two to 14
days, the virus could be spread for weeks after that by anybody exposed
during Saturday’s rally.


So?? We STILL don't have thousands dying, here. People are going to be
social and that's just life in a FREE country. There's just more
testing going on, and the funny thing about that is it hasn't even been
suggested for anyone that I know to GET tested.

According to you, it's not a problem until thousands are dying in your
city. The 128,000 who have already died aren't of any concern because most
of them didn't live in your city. The 500,000 who have died globally aren't
of any concern because 3/4 of them lived in different countries, and you
don't have enough care to go around.

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.


https://www.politicususa.com/2020/06/29/oklahoma-seeing-100-percent-positive-test-rate-for-covid-19-following-trumps-tulsa-rally.html

Oklahoma Is Seeing 100% Positive Test Rate For COVID-19 Following Trump’s
Tulsa Rally

quote
Even though Donald Trump’s rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma quickly became a
laughingstock after only about 6,000 people showed up, it may be having an
impact on the spread of coronavirus in the state.

As MSNBC’s Chris Hayes pointed out on Monday, 100 percent of coronavirus
tests in Oklahoma came back positive over the past two days.

“Yesterday in Oklahoma, they tested 352 people for the coronavirus, and
every single test came back positive,” the MSNBC host said. “Today they
tested another 178 people, and all those tests came back positive, too.”

“If you can’t do the math in your head, that’s 100% positive rate,” he
added.

end quote

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.

brought next idea :
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 figures that you would get somethng like that from something not
even saying that.

On 6/30/2020 12:56 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
brought next idea :
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 figures that you would get somethng like that from something not even
saying that.

I had a hard time believing that 100% number when Chris said it. There
is only one hit googling for it, referring to the Chris Hayes report. I
suspect he was punked on this one.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:56:18 -0400, FromTheRafters
wrote:

brought next idea :
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 figures that you would get somethng like that from something not
even saying that.

How else do you explain a 100% positive rate. Does EVERYONE in
Oklahoma have Covid? If so this should be over for them in a few weeks
one way or the other.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:14:12 -0700, Bob F wrote:

On 6/30/2020 12:56 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
brought next idea :
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 figures that you would get somethng like that from something not even
saying that.

I had a hard time believing that 100% number when Chris said it. There
is only one hit googling for it, referring to the Chris Hayes report. I
suspect he was punked on this one.

Why would you believe anything an "entertainer" on MSNBC said? They
are worse than Fox. I would not have even addressed the comment if I
knew that.

Bob F used his or her keyboard to write :
On 6/30/2020 12:56 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
brought next idea :
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 figures that you would get somethng like that from something not even
saying that.

I had a hard time believing that 100% number when Chris said it. There is
only one hit googling for it, referring to the Chris Hayes report. I suspect
he was punked on this one.

That from the same camp which says there are so many false positive and
false negatives that the whole idea of testing is useless, now believes
that 100 percent 'any result' is even posible.

It defies logic.

brought next idea :
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:56:18 -0400, FromTheRafters
wrote:

brought next idea :
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 figures that you would get somethng like that from something not
even saying that.

How else do you explain a 100% positive rate. Does EVERYONE in
Oklahoma have Covid? If so this should be over for them in a few weeks
one way or the other.

I can't explain it, but the conclusion you jumped to is not the only
way to make statistics work for whatever agenda one might have. Maybe
the testing facility got contaminated, maybe somebody is fudging the
numbers. How can a test with a high purported false positive and false
negative propensity give any 100 percent result with a large enough
data set to be meaningful?

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.

On 6/30/2020 1:18 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.


yeah ... I'm not worried about it. Every year there's some new illness
out there. I'll live a happy life until such a time as my clock runs
out. That's life.

--
Maggie

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:14:12 -0700, Bob F wrote:

On 6/30/2020 12:56 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
brought next idea :
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 figures that you would get somethng like that from something not even
saying that.

I had a hard time believing that 100% number when Chris said it. There
is only one hit googling for it, referring to the Chris Hayes report. I
suspect he was punked on this one.

24 hours later, I haven't seen anything further, which is interesting in
itself. I'll try to keep an eye on it. Thanks for the heads up.

On 6/30/2020 11:18 AM, 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.


That was definitely the case early on. Not nearly the case now.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:56:18 -0400, FromTheRafters
wrote:

brought next idea :
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 figures that you would get somethng like that from something not
even saying that.
You expect anything better from Greg Fretwell???

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 20:25:22 -0400, FromTheRafters
wrote:

Bob F used his or her keyboard to write :
On 6/30/2020 12:56 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
brought next idea :
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 figures that you would get somethng like that from something not even
saying that.

I had a hard time believing that 100% number when Chris said it. There is
only one hit googling for it, referring to the Chris Hayes report. I suspect
he was punked on this one.

That from the same camp which says there are so many false positive and
false negatives that the whole idea of testing is useless, now believes
that 100 percent 'any result' is even posible.

It defies logic.

No it is logical on several levels.
First if the tests were perfect, it is saying everyone in Oklahoma, at
least those in a random sample are really positive ... not at all
likely.
Second If the tests are flawed, it is ridiculous to assume a random
number generator comes up with 100% of anything unless they always
come back positive. Then it is not a test.
Third They only selected people to test who were likely positive
anyway (not a random sample including asymptomatic cases).
Fourth and most likely considering the source, Rachels male persona
Chris was lying.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 20:25:22 -0400, FromTheRafters
wrote:

Bob F used his or her keyboard to write :
On 6/30/2020 12:56 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
brought next idea :
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 figures that you would get somethng like that from something not
even
saying that.

I had a hard time believing that 100% number when Chris said it. There
is
only one hit googling for it, referring to the Chris Hayes report. I
suspect
he was punked on this one.

That from the same camp which says there are so many false positive and
false negatives that the whole idea of testing is useless, now believes
that 100 percent 'any result' is even posible.

It defies logic.

No it is logical on several levels.

We'll see...

First if the tests were perfect, it is saying everyone in Oklahoma,
at least those in a random sample are really positive ...

It isnt anything even remotely like a random sample.

not at all likely.

Second If the tests are flawed, it is ridiculous
to assume a random number generator

It isnt anything even remotely like a random sample.

comes up with 100% of anything unless they
always come back positive. Then it is not a test.

Not a viable test, anyway.

Third They only selected people to test who were likely positive
anyway (not a random sample including asymptomatic cases).

Fourth and most likely considering the source,
Rachels male persona Chris was lying.

Or got it wrong.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 21:04:29 -0700, Bob F wrote:

On 6/30/2020 11:18 AM, 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.


That was definitely the case early on. Not nearly the case now.

I wouldn't bet anything about Joklahoma but it appears the whole story
is bull****.

On Wed, 01 Jul 2020 00:17:42 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:56:18 -0400, FromTheRafters
wrote:

brought next idea :
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 figures that you would get somethng like that from something not
even saying that.
You expect anything better from Greg Fretwell???

Yeah, when I see bull**** I point it out, not embrace it.

On 6/30/2020 9:46 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 21:04:29 -0700, Bob F wrote:

On 6/30/2020 11:18 AM, 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.


That was definitely the case early on. Not nearly the case now.

I wouldn't bet anything about Joklahoma but it appears the whole story
is bull****.


That is what I said earlier.

On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 14:45:22 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile pest's latest troll**** unread

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

expressed precisely :
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 20:25:22 -0400, FromTheRafters
wrote:

Bob F used his or her keyboard to write :
On 6/30/2020 12:56 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
brought next idea :
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 figures that you would get somethng like that from something not even
saying that.

I had a hard time believing that 100% number when Chris said it. There is
only one hit googling for it, referring to the Chris Hayes report. I
suspect he was punked on this one.

That from the same camp which says there are so many false positive and
false negatives that the whole idea of testing is useless, now believes
that 100 percent 'any result' is even posible.

It defies logic.

No it is logical on several levels.

Okay.

First if the tests were perfect, it is saying everyone in Oklahoma, at
least those in a random sample are really positive ... not at all
likely.

If things were different, then things would be different.

We have evidence that a small population can be positive for antibodies
or particles without having symptoms or have only mild symptoms. That
is, the ones who didn't get sick and/or die. Wasn't there a prison
population with around a thousand in the data set which resulted in a
large percentage of positives?

The larger the data set, the less likely this is to happen. The same
goes for the 'imperfect' tests with a large enough data set.

Second If the tests are flawed, it is ridiculous to assume a random
number generator comes up with 100% of anything unless they always
come back positive. Then it is not a test.

Okay, but that is what I said, you are not disagreeing. 100 percent
from real world testing is unlikely. Jumping to an intentional skewing
by selective testing is not logical when so many other things can cause
it. Not that you are necessarily wrong, but nothing in what he said
indicates bias in testing.

Third They only selected people to test who were likely positive
anyway (not a random sample including asymptomatic cases).

You didn't write "if". Can you show me the biased methodology they used
for selection?

Fourth and most likely considering the source, Rachels male persona
Chris was lying.

Yes, that is another likely reason for the 100 percent figure.

used his or her keyboard to write :
On Wed, 01 Jul 2020 00:17:42 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:56:18 -0400, FromTheRafters
wrote:

brought next idea :
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 figures that you would get somethng like that from something not
even saying that.
You expect anything better from Greg Fretwell???

Yeah, when I see bull**** I point it out, not embrace it.

The problem wasn't the spotting of the bull****, it was the adding some
of your own to it. You consistently assume someone is being dishonest,
in this case the people doing the purported testing. As others have
pointed out, it says more about you than it does about others.

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.

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.

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.

On Wed, 01 Jul 2020 05:24:20 -0400, FromTheRafters
wrote:

used his or her keyboard to write :
On Wed, 01 Jul 2020 00:17:42 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:56:18 -0400, FromTheRafters
wrote:

brought next idea :
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 figures that you would get somethng like that from something not
even saying that.
You expect anything better from Greg Fretwell???

Yeah, when I see bull**** I point it out, not embrace it.

The problem wasn't the spotting of the bull****, it was the adding some
of your own to it. You consistently assume someone is being dishonest,
in this case the people doing the purported testing. As others have
pointed out, it says more about you than it does about others.

When someone says something that defies logic, like 100% of the tests
come back positive, implying this is a random sample or even somewhat
inclusive, I feel it is necessary to say something. So What?

formulated on Wednesday :
On Wed, 01 Jul 2020 05:24:20 -0400, FromTheRafters
wrote:

used his or her keyboard to write :
On Wed, 01 Jul 2020 00:17:42 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:56:18 -0400, FromTheRafters
wrote:

brought next idea :
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 figures that you would get somethng like that from something not
even saying that.
You expect anything better from Greg Fretwell???

Yeah, when I see bull**** I point it out, not embrace it.

The problem wasn't the spotting of the bull****, it was the adding some
of your own to it. You consistently assume someone is being dishonest,
in this case the people doing the purported testing. As others have
pointed out, it says more about you than it does about others.

When someone says something that defies logic, like 100% of the tests
come back positive, implying this is a random sample or even somewhat
inclusive, I feel it is necessary to say something. So What?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor