Today’s Results on COVID-19 Testing From the County of Humboldt

Humboldt County Public Health Lab ReportPress release from the County of Humboldt:

March 24 Results

30 people tested:

  • 2 positive
  • 28 negative
  • 1 positive reported by commercial laboratory

People tested before the Public Health Laboratory came online March 7:

  • 6 tested by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or California Department of Public Health

Positive tests confirmed by commercial laboratory:

  • 1

People whose tests were run by the Public Health Laboratory:

  • 140

Results Summary to date for the Public Health Laboratory:

146 total patients tested:

  • 3 positive
  • 1 positive, cleared
  • 1 inconclusive, cleared
  • 141 negative

Current test capacity:

  • After receiving additional supplies, the Public Health Laboratory currently has a capacity of approximately 500 tests and can process about 30 samples a day with an approximate turnaround time of 48 hours.


  • DOJ wants to suspend habeas corpus. Lincoln did it, and Bush Jr. did it.

  • They said everything should be OK by Easter. Didn’t say what year.

    • Oh that was funny. It’s good to laugh.

      Hope this helps:

      • 🤣🙌🏻🙌🏻

      • Did you notice that Fauci has been the head of an agency for 40 years that is part of the system you claim (and frankly he claimed too) failed to meet the needs to fight a pandemic? Like Bolton, he’s to be made of use in bashing Trump, no matter that he’s part of the problem. A temporary hero of convenience for sleazy reasons.

        • Did you notice that Sully Sullenburger spent years in the Air Force, and the Air Force was part of the failed Vietnam escapade, but Sully saved 155 souls that were bound to death if anyone else had been at the controls of flight 1549, in 2009?

          You might want to learn more about Fauci.

          I know you have an innate sense to defend the indefensible Trump, but you just failed again, by attacking the only thing Trump has done right; keeping Fauci.

      • “No, Mr. President, stop putting your foot in there! It could infect you with coronavirus!

  • So, maybe its been a long day, but that confused the crap out of me.

    Is there 7 positive cases?

    Is that from 146 tests or 176 tests?

    They need to clean their PR up, or I need some sleep.

    • That’s called a dog n pony show. Really, those test numbers are irrelevant in the big picture, even for humboldt. Too little too late, but yeah, it’s a start. Do the math, we have 140,000 people in humboldt times 500 a day test with only 30 a day to process. That will take years. NOW! Do the math of 2 out of the 30 that were tested were positive as of today….. sleep well, I’m off to bed.

  • If they tested a bunch of people that were on the plane with that group- they were just exposed and probably won’t test pos for at least a day or 5 if they do have it.

    • The flight was either on the 16th or 18th per records. Infections among those exposed should be showing up by now.

  • If COVID-19 Killed 1.4% of People With Symptoms in Wuhan, the Overall Fatality Rate Is Likely to Be Much Lower Than People Feared
    The big unknown is how many people are infected but aren’t counted in the official numbers because their symptoms are mild or nonexistent.
    JACOB SULLUM | 3.20.2020 2:10 PM

    A new study of COVID-19 cases in Wuhan, China, estimates that the death rate among people who were infected and developed symptoms was 1.4 percent. That is far lower than the crude case fatality rate (CFR) produced by dividing total deaths into total confirmed cases (4.5 percent) and far lower than the global CFR initially calculated by the World Health Organization (3.4 percent). The study, reported yesterday in Nature Medicine, suggests that the overall CFR—including people who are infected but do not develop symptoms—will prove to be much lower in the United States than many people feared.

    During congressional testimony last week, Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, estimated that the overall CFR in the United States would be about 1 percent. The worst-case scenario sketched by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) imagines 214 million infections and 1.7 million deaths, which translates into a CFR of about 0.8 percent, similar to the crude CFR in South Korea, which has a much more robust testing program than the U.S. has managed. But all of these estimates exclude people infected by the coronavirus who have no symptoms or symptoms so mild that they never register in the official numbers.

    John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist and biostatistician at Stanford University, notes that the CFR among passengers and crew on the Diamond Princess cruise ship—”the one situation where an entire, closed population was tested”—was 1 percent, but “but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher.” Given the age structure of the general U.S. population, he says, “the death rate among people infected with Covid-19 would be 0.125%.” But since that estimate is based on a small sample of just 700 people, Ioannidis suggests that “the real death rate could stretch from five times lower (0.025%) to five times higher (0.625%).” Taking into account delayed deaths, he says, “reasonable estimates for the case fatality ratio in the general U.S. population vary from 0.05% to 1%.”

    That’s a very wide range, highlighting the weak empirical basis for aggressive, economically ruinous COVID-19 control measures. If the CFR is as low as 0.05 percent, which is half the estimated CFR for the seasonal flu, the number of deaths in the CDC’s worst-case scenario would be 107,000, meaning the projection is off by a factor of 16. If a third of the population is ultimately infected, rather than the 65 percent assumed in the CDC’s worst-case scenario, the number of deaths plummets from 1.7 million to about 55,000. It is impossible to assess the cost-effectiveness of mass interventions such as statewide or nationwide “shelter in place” orders in the face of such uncertainty.

    The Nature Medicine study confirms that COVID-19 death rates vary widely by age. The estimated fatality rate in symptomatic cases was 2.6 percent among patients 60 or older, compared to 0.5 percent for patients in their 30s, 40s, or 50s, and 0.3 percent among patients younger than 30. To put it another way, patients in the oldest age group were about five times as likely to die as those in the middle age group and more than eight times as likely to die as those in the youngest age group.

    The researchers caution that the symptomatic CFR for Wuhan cannot necessarily be extrapolated to other parts of China, let alone other countries. “Given that Wuhan is no longer the only (albeit the first) location with sustained local spread, it would be important to assess and take into account the experience from elsewhere, both domestically in mainland China and overseas,” they say. “These secondary epicenters, having learned from the early phase of the Wuhan epidemic, might have had a systematically different epidemiology and response that could impact the parameters estimated here.”

    The study’s main symptomatic CFR calculation assumes that half of the people infected by the COVID-19 virus develop symptoms. If that’s true, the number of infections is at least twice as high as the number of known cases, and that’s assuming everyone with symptoms gets counted, which is certainly not the case, since people with mild symptoms may never seek medical attention or testing. But that factor alone means that the overall CFR is dramatically lower than it appears to be based on reported cases and deaths.

    “One largely unknown factor at present is the number of asymptomatic, undiagnosed infections,” the researchers note. “Estimates of both the observed and unobserved infections are essential for informing the development and evaluation of public health strategies, which need to be traded off against economic, social and personal freedom costs. For example, drastic social distancing and mobility restrictions, such as school closures and travel advisories/bans, should only be considered if an accurate estimation of case fatality risk warrants these interventions, which seriously disrupt social and economic stability.”

    • From the actual study:

      Perhaps the most important target of mitigation measures would be to ‘flatten out’ the epidemic curve, reducing the peak demand on healthcare services and buying time for better treatment pathways to be developed.

      In due course, but almost certainly after the first global wave of infections, vaccines may also be available to protect against infection or severe disease. Although our estimates of sCFR are concerning, these could be reduced if effective antivirals were identified and widely adopted for the treatment of severe cases. 


      However, despite a lower sCFR, COVID-19 is likely to infect many more (given emerging evidence of presymptomatic transmission14,15and growing evidence of extensive community spread in numerous countries16), thus ultimately causing many more deaths than SARS and MERS. Compared with the 1918 and 2009 influenza pandemics, our estimates are intermediate but substantially higher than 2009, which was generally regarded as a low-severity pandemic. 


      Public health control measures widely imposed in China since the Wuhan alert have also kept case numbers down elsewhere, so that their health systems are not nearly as overwhelmed beyond surge capacity, thus again perhaps leading to better outcomes


      Given that we have parameterized the model using death rates inferred from projected case numbers (from traveler data) and observed death numbers in Wuhan, the precise fatality risk estimates may not be generalizable to those outside the original epicenter, especially during subsequent phases of the epidemic.

      • Bingo. The wild card of asymptomatic infection rates is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, a higher asymptomatic rate would lower the death-per-infection rate. On the other hand, the higher asymptomatic rate means that less infectious people are going to be treated and isolated, giving the virus more opportunity to spread to people who would be seriously affected by it. So the lower death-per-infection rate would be offset to some degree by higher a rate of spread with more asymptomatic infections.

        It seems a reasonable inference, given the severe suppression effort and widespread testing in Hubei province, that their detection rate is unlikely to be duplicated anywhere. And it’s paying off at the epicenter, with no new cases or suspected cases reported in Hubei between 19 and 22 March.. If anything, we’re likely to see a higher CFR as a result of a lower detection rate, and much fuzzier numbers on asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic infections. And that’s not even considering the meltdown underway in New York.

    • That last paragraph says it all. “One largely unknown factor at present is the number of asymptomatic, undiagnosed infections.” There is something about this virus that is not understood. The asymptomatic cases, the wide range of immune reactions, the communicability. There are either wide mutations, some kind of genetic predisposition to get the disease, Or some kind of environmental influence that causes some people to be defenseless against it. Until this is COMPLETELY understood, be fucking careful everybody!

    • In my 1911 I trust

      To Ullr, one thing that article fails to note, which I personally find quite interesting, is the number of people who were actually quarantined on the Diamond Princess. There were 3800 people on that boat( yes I am using round numbers for sake of easy math), and about 800 tested positive for coronavirus. So basically in a closed environment, where the virus was allowed to run rampant, and was found to live in cabins for 17 days, only 21.05% actually contracted the disease. Of those 800 that were tested, 47.3% were completely asymptomatic. I find that very interesting that all 3800 people did not contract the disease. You can find this info on and the WHO website.

      • The diamond princess, so far, is the only controlled experiment for infection. It has its own problems to extrapolate to 7 billion people, but has very valuable information.

        • In my 1911 I trust

          I agree, what I find interesting is the R0 on that ship, considering 3800 people were quarantined and only 800 people caught it. What I take away from that is it is not as contagious as first thought.

          • There must be some hard data on how it was handled, but I assume most people were confined to their cabins and there was very little intermingling once the cat was out of the bag.

  • 🕯🌳Always misleading people FOG,the bill passed the Senate Wednesday. The only problem the Democrats were having with it was the Republicans where trying to sneak in loans to ” not my potus “and his family and certain members of the Senate. 🖖

    • That’s not quite how I heard it went down. The original bill had large bipartisan support until the Democratic leadership decided to take the opportunity to load an alternative bill with financing pork pet projects.

      The coronavirus-relief package proposed by House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) is 1,432 pages long. Many of those pages have nothing whatsoever to do with abating the pandemic that has ground our nation to a halt, nor with aiding industries forced to lay off workers due to frozen demand. Instead, the package spends a shocking amount of ink on the arcane ideological projects of the most progressive members of Pelosi’s caucus.

      Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D., S.C.) told fellow his fellow House Democrats last week that COVID-19, which has killed more than 17,000 people around the world and is threatening to leave the country in financial ruin, represented a “tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.”

      Pelosi and her caucus apparently took note, as the latest proposal from House Democrats reflects a deliberate attempt to “restructure” everything from corporate boardrooms to the diversity of businesses’ supply-chains. Here is a sampling of the bill’s most egregious provisions.

      • So willy watches msnbc and ullr watches fox. Guess what? They’re both full of shit. If either of you thinks the Republican or Democrat parties are “good” and the other is “bad” you’re trippin. Both are total shitshows. Msnbc, fox, cnn all total bullshit. Not sure why every thread on here ends up being about politics.

        • I don’t watch TV. Period.

          If you have additional information you should present it. Pretending to be apolitical is not a virtue. And I’m not GOP.

          • Ullr,

            I haven’t had a TV since ’97.

            But I still know and recognize the ideological footing of arguements made in these threads.

            You obviously have internet.

            So you don’t need a TV. Anything on TV is on the internet, and more.

            I’m sure you have radio too. I highly doubt its tuner is dialed to NPR. I would bet I know what it’s turned to.

            It’s cool. You still come here to RHBB to test that out in debate. And I appreciate that.


            • People can and do have similar beliefs because they use similar processes to arrive at them. Although, if the beliefs are foreign to you, you might think they were told what to think, that is not true.

              For example, if people enjoy fishing, they do not need to be brainwashed into thinking a fishing pole or living near water where fish are is a good idea. Similarly, if a person is perceptive enough to notice that a fair number of people do a fair number of stupid things, they might want to limit the affects of that stupidity by wanting as much freedom to act for themselves as possible. Simply because they trust their own thinking more than the thinking of others. They see things in terms of whether it gives them individual freedom to choose or takes that freedom away. But they still come up with the same ideas without being told because these ideas naturally lead to more freedom. And other ideas curtail freedom.

              Conversely a person who makes poor choices naturally, might prefer someone else provides thinking for them because they believe they will be better off than relying on their own. They also come up with similar ideas, whether that are told what to think or not. But in their case, they actually seek out comfort of others telling them what to think too because it’s part and parcel of wanting other’s to take care of things for them.

              It would be clear to the individualist which thoughts are his and which thoughts are not. He has the freedom of action test. In good times or bad. And if he has freedom of action and he fails, he has only himself to blame. The socialist has a harder time because his goal is to avoid individual impulses and only relies on whether the results support him or not. He blames others for his situation being bad but gives no credit to others for his situation being good because that is what he expects will naturally be provided.

            • I listen to NPR every morning… for the last 30 years. Traffic reports on KQED are my favorite part.

              I’m an information hog. I get information from wherever I can other than broadcast/cable/sat TV… because that’s entertainment and not geared to actual information.

        • 🕯🌳Actually I don’t watch that much TV either and when I do it’s PBS less cluttered, more truth. And the information I put out came off the web, sort of, LOC.GOV got to sit back and watch all the in house fighting on the Senate floor. 🖖

        • Ullr is right on this particular point. The House version was larded with pork barrel and “woke” bullshit. Those got left out of the bill that was passed.

          My opinion of James Clyburn went into the toilet over the past couple of days. My opinion of Pelosi was already in the toilet. They held relief hostage for a series of unrelated pet peeves, while Pelosi lied through her teeth that the House bill was purely focused on coronavirus relief. It’s like if the Republicans had put anti-abortion measures in a relief bill.

          • …And yet, it’s already causing the stock market to rebound, as opposed to everything Trump has done. One party predictably fucks up America, the other predictably fixes it. How in the FUCK is anyone dumb enough to vote Republican?

            • Why do you insist on big a partisan hack? The bill was largely bipartisan until some people saw an opportunity to inject riders for funding pet projects.

              • So in your opinion its less bipartisan now that BOTH parties have agreed on it? You live in fuckin’ bizarro world, dude.

                What “pet projects” do you object to? Diversifying the bailouts so all the money doesn’t go to just a few companies? Cutting Trump-owned businesses out of the bailout?

                • Here’s a few:
                  Amending FIRREA to Protect Financial Institutions Operated by Women

                  Establishment of a “Minority Bank Deposit Program,” Federal Diversity Reporting Requirements

                  Diversity Reporting Requirements for Businesses Receiving Federal Aid

                  Aid Recipients Must Allow Labor to Appoint One-Third of Corporate Board Members

                  Amending the Help America Vote Act to Require States to Accommodate Same-Day Registrants

                  Prohibiting Institutions of Higher Learning from Disclosing the Immigration Status of Students

                  Reauthorization of Money Follows the Person

                  Grant Program for “Sustainable Aviation Fuel”

                  Mandatory Carbon Offsets for Airlines

                  Details here:

                  Given the current climate do you really think the addition of these riders is appropriate?

      • The stimulus legislation prohibits federally elected officials and their immediate relatives from obtaining funds from the Treasury Secretary’s $500 billion program, according to a draft copy of the bill text.

        The legislation includes a prohibition on distributing funds to businesses that are owned or partly owned by “the President, the Vice President, the head of an Executive department, or a Member of Congress; and the spouse, child, son-in-law, or daughter-in-law.” The legislation says that it applies to anyone with a 20% or greater stake in a business.

        This was a key provision for Democrats concerned that Trump would provide funds to his personal businesses in the stimulus package.

        • And it was immediately agreed to by Senate Republicans and Trump, along with greater oversight of relief disbursement on on a par with TARP back in 2009. The drama was not necessary.

          • I don’t think there was drama.

            It’s the largest legislative deal in history and it was done in very little time comparatively.

            When we talk about unlimited money at zero interest, we should add a few caveats like the above.

            This is for rescue, not for profits.

            ***not yet! There may be more fixing ahead:

            Three GOP senators say “a massive drafting error in the current version of the coronavirus relief legislation could have devastating consequences: Unless this bill is fixed, there is a strong incentive for employees to be laid off instead of going to work.” 

            “We must sadly oppose the fast-tracking of this bill until this text is addressed, or the Department of Labor issues regulatory guidance that no American would earn more by not working than by working,” Sens. Tim Scott, Ben Sasse and Lindsey Graham said in a written statement. 

  • In my 1911 I trust

    The year is 2025, coronavirus has killed the majority of life on planet earth. Only those who survived the great [edit] Flu epidemic of 2016 had the antibodies to survive covid-19. All normies are dead. [edit]s now rule the planet with jacked Bob Weir as our leader. Money is obsolete. The only currency is now garlic grilled cheese, nitrous, or some floor space. Every weekend kicks off with free dose Friday. Life is good.

    • Play Darkstar, man!

    • Macalister Clyde Crowl

      Year of the LORD 2025…
      why in Sam hell America continued to trade with China after the insignificant
      Wuhan flu “pandemic”(scary word) of 2020 was determined to have been a wholly media driven panic,
      created when the SOCIALIST DEMOCRATs and U.S. MS.MEDIA COLLUDED with the CHI-COMM state run media…

      Will forever remain a mystery.
      And the USA, simply a MEMORY.

    • In my 1911 I trust

      Why was this comment edited? Kinda ruined the joke….

      • Wook is a derogatory term I don’t allow on my website.

        • This? From urban dictionary:

          A wook is a hippie without any ambition, motivation, or drive other than drugs and image. They’re generally in their twenties, college students (or dropouts) at small-town liberal colleges (such as Appalachian State University) and dependent on an income other than their own.

          I’ve seen a lot of people who fit this definition to a tee. Not really derogatory as much as it is accurate.

      • It doesn’t really read as a joke so much as inflammatory virus fan fiction.

  • 🕯🌳I agree that the House’s version of the Bill was full of bullshit but when McConnell got a hold of it they tried to slip in loans for himself and ” not my potus “‘s family as well that’s one of the bickering points they had.🖖

  • Macalister Clyde Crowl

    So….. IF…..
    Expect confirmed cases to exponentially double daily….
    So ….if the first WUHAN FLU was confirmed late February…
    Day 1…1
    Day 2…2
    Day 4….8
    Day5….16. .
    ..32…64….128… 250+….500+….1000+….20000+…4000…8000…16…
    Where IN SAM HELL are the PREDICTED 30,000+ ?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.