No New Positive COVID Tests Reported Today, June 9

Press release from Humboldt County COVID19 – Joint Information Center:

 

Public Health Lab report

Humboldt County’s COVID-19 case count stands at 105 as no new cases were confirmed today. Two previous cases that had been under investigation were determined to be acquired through community transmission.

Humboldt County has seen three new cases attributed to community transmission this month alone. “These are individuals without a history of travel or exposure to a known case,” Humboldt County Health Officer Dr. Teresa Frankovich said. “This just points to the fact that virus is circulating in our community and will increase as we ease out of shelter in place and become more interactive again. Prevention measures will become increasingly important.”


New confirmed COVID-19 cases: 0

  • Total confirmed cases: 105
  • Total recovered cases: 93
  • Total deaths: 4
  • Total hospitalizations: 13

Transmission information for all known cases

  • Contact to a Known Case: 61
  • Travel-Acquired: 24
  • Community Transmission: 20
  • Under Investigation: 0

Number of tests run since last report

  • Public Health Laboratory: 32
  • OptumServe public testing site: 118

Total tests run to date

  • Public Health Laboratory: 3,519
  • OptumServe public testing site: 3,055

Public Health Laboratory testing Information

  • Supply capacity: Approximately 2,000 tests
  • Testing capacity: 60 samples per day
  • Turnaround time: 48 to 72 hours

For the most recent information about COVID-19, visit CDC.gov or CDPH.ca.gov. For local information, visit humboldtgov.org, call 707-441-5000 or email [email protected].

 

Redheaded Blackbelt’s most recent stories about COVID-19, click here.
Earlier test results:

Facebooktwitterpinterestmail

Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules

Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

20 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DaPisan
Guest
DaPisan
3 years ago

It’s no longer deserving of a reply.

Numbers shnumbers
Guest
Numbers shnumbers
3 years ago

Still nobody addresses that the state count is different for Humboldt County

Matt
Guest
Matt
3 years ago

Then…why reply?

observer
Guest
observer
3 years ago

so basically having Humboldt county shutdown and people hiding at home is pointless? got it. i’m enjoying the lack of traffic though.

Bushytails
Guest
Bushytails
3 years ago
Reply to  observer

And how, exactly, did you come to that conclusion? The press release even points out the ongoing community transmission.

gunther
Guest
gunther
3 years ago
Reply to  Bushytails

Herd immunity is brought about by community transmission. Relax.

Bushytails
Guest
Bushytails
3 years ago
Reply to  gunther

Lots of dead people is brought about by community transmission. Based on our current numbers, approximately 400 humboldt residents would die. I happen to like my family, how about you?

Free estimates
Guest
Free estimates
3 years ago
Reply to  Bushytails

I don’t understand bushytails. Could you explain how our 20 infections by community transmission equals 400 deaths?

Bushytails
Guest
Bushytails
3 years ago
Reply to  Free estimates

4 people locally have died so far. Local antibody testing has shown that about 1% of people have been infected so far. With that small of a sample size (4 deaths), it’s a very approximate number, but one that shouldn’t be ignored if you care about others.

Free estimates
Guest
Free estimates
3 years ago
Reply to  Bushytails

I’m sorry, but you are using the statistics incorrectly. First of all we are not counting antibody testing, we’re testing for infections and counting those numbers. From the article we can see that 6,574 tests have been completed to date. 105 confirmed infections out of 6,574 tests is a 1.5% infection rate out of those tested, not the county population. The Humboldt county population is ~130,000. If we assume that these tests are unique and not individuals tested multiple times (because we have to), we get a 5% testing rate for the county (6574/130000). By extrapolating that rate to the death total number so far (4 deaths times 20, as 5 is 1/20 of 100) we would get 80 deaths. 80 deaths out of 130,000 people is 0.06%. I do care about others, but I don’t see that number as being significant. It seems benign if 99.94% of people survived. What do you think?

Bushytails
Guest
Bushytails
3 years ago
Reply to  Free estimates

How am I using statistics incorrectly? What makes you think that I can not look at antibody counting just because you’re not looking at antibody testing?

You can not assume those tests are unique individuals. Quite the opposite – I suspect most are repeats. We’ve even had posters here say they get tested every month for work. Nor does a negative test mean there won’t be a positive test in the future. If we’d tested six months ago (yes, I’m aware of the impossibility of this), 0% of tests would have been positive – so obviously no one would ever die. Negative tests for current infections can not be used the way you’re using them. This is using statistics horribly incorrectly, and is not a useful calculation of any kind.

Furthermore, how many deaths are acceptable? Is this virus an ok way for people to be killed, while other ways are not ok? If the government decided that they wanted to execute 400 people, or 80 people, because they didn’t like them, would that be benign? What if I grabbed my rifle and started dealing with the republican infestation? If I only remove 0.06% of them, it’s perfectly OK, right?

EDIT: To make it more clear to other people reading this, I’ll clarify what you’re doing. Aside from individuals being tested more than once, you’re mixing two fundamentally incompatible numbers. You’re using “Person X is not currently infected” (a negative test result) as “Person X will never be infected”. This is, obviously, not true.

Free estimates
Guest
Free estimates
3 years ago
Reply to  Bushytails

The article is about infections, not antibody testing. You’re using antibody stastics to extrapolate death totals. That has no correlation or causation. That’s how you’re misusing the statistics.

We have to assume the tests are unique because we are not privy to the actual records. It is understood that a negative test now could be a positive test later, but that would you increase the number of tests overall and decrease the percentage of infected per tested. Which , in turn, would be a continuance in disproving your original claim. I’m not going to address the rest of that paragraph, as it is nonsense.

Your appeal as to how many deaths are acceptable is arbitrary. The number for me is different from yours. The methodology of death is irrelevant outside of our discussion of covid. The fact that you would even think of killing others based on their political beliefs is atrocious. You’re obviously emotionally upset. I hope you don’t own a firearm. You don’t seem to be mentally fit to posses one.

Your “edit” is proposing a claim I never made and therefore is irrelevant.

Your emotional reactions don’t support logical positions. Please try again if you can add to the conversation on how current numbers on infections are proposing “large” numbers of future deaths. Otherwise, enjoy your day.

Bushytails
Guest
Bushytails
3 years ago
Reply to  Free estimates

You made the claim by the calculations you made for number of deaths. The math and conclusion you gave assumes negative tests are people who will never be infected. This is simply false. I don’t know how to put it more simply. The math you used is not valid.

So 80 people being killed by a lunatic with a gun is atrocious, but 80 people being killed by a virus is OK? That is the point I’m making.

Free estimates
Guest
Free estimates
3 years ago
Reply to  Free estimates

The math I used is valid. You don’t know if those who tested negative will remain negative either. I was using actual recorded metrics, not unknowns within the raw data. You can’t prove your point with facts, which is why you’re attacking my methodology.

I said that I think it’s atrocious if you would kill another person based on their political beliefs. I already stated that the amounts or vector of death was irrelevant to the conversation. You’re changing the goalposts again because your argument is weak. You can’t argue logically, so you use emotion to “validate” your claims. I think you have proven my points. Thanks for playing.

Bushytails
Guest
Bushytails
3 years ago
Reply to  Free estimates

Just because you used actual numbers doesn’t mean the math you did with the numbers makes sense. The math you did is wrong to where I’m not sure how to explain it if you’re not understanding why.

Kym, you’re better at explaining things than I am, want to help me explain why you can’t draw any predictions from the number of negative tests?

I’m trying to think of scenarios to give to make it clearer. Let’s say we’d been much less incompetent at testing, and so far we’d tested 50,000 county residents, or at least performed 50,000 tests, and still found the same number of positives. By your logic, we’d do 4 * 1/(50000/130000) and get a prediction of 10 deaths. Or we were really proactive, and did 100,000 tests, and you’d predict 5 deaths. Or, since that number includes duplicate tests, let’s say we tested every person in the country twice… and your math would predict 2 deaths. But nothing has actually changed. A negative test has close to zero predictive ability of whether someone will be infected or die in the future.

Hrmm, I’ll try again…

Let’s say there’s a wildfire in a forest of 130,000 acres, and there’s a house on each acre. Every day we stand on top of a small hill and look around, trying to see how much the fire has spread and mark burned areas on our map, but it’s pretty hard to see through the smoke and fog, and all we can see is if there’s flames coming from a small part of the forest and not much else. So far we’ve seen fires on 105 acres, with 4 of the acres burned so badly that we weren’t able to save the houses on them, but we’ve seen that 6500 acres weren’t burning when we were able to see them. What does this tell us about how many acres and how many houses will burn in the future? Absolutely nothing at all. Those 6500 acres could burn tomorrow, even though they weren’t burning when we last saw them. All 130,000 acres could burn tomorrow if a good wind picks up. We certainly can’t say that since we know 6500 of the 130,000 acres weren’t burned when we looked at them, that it somehow allows us to predict how many houses will burn in the future.

The only thing we can say with the information we have is that since we lost 4 houses out of 105 acres we saw burning, if all 130,000 acres burns, we might lose 4900 houses if the entire forest burns.

However, let’s say we got access to a satellite image, which showed that about 1% of the forest had already burned, even if we weren’t able to see the acres burning. And, let’s say we thought that once an acre had already burned, there wasn’t enough fuel left on it to burn a second time. Now this is useful information! We now know we only lost 4 houses out of those 1300 acres that burned (even though we were only able to see 105 of them burning from where we were standing), which lets us hope that if the entire forest does burn, we’ll probably only lose 400 houses.

Knowing that some part of the forest is not on fire at a given time doesn’t tell us anything about what might burn in the future. We certainly might learn things from it, like that a river slowed the spread of the fire, or a dozer line was jumped, or things like that, and use that information to inform further firefighting efforts… But we just can’t use the number of acres that weren’t burning when we looked at them to predict what will burn later.

Hrmm…

Let’s say there’s 130,000 cars driving on a long highway. From the car we’re in, we’ve passed 105 crashes so far, four of them with coroner’s trucks parked next to them. But, we’re also passed 6500 cars that hadn’t crashed yet. (Sounds about right for a drive down south!) Does that 6500 cars that we saw let us predict how many of the total cars on the freeway will crash? Heck, every car we saw could have ran into a tree the second it dropped out of sight in our mirror.

Ok, I’ve spent like an hour trying to write these, I need to go back to working on things… Please think about the examples I gave, and how they apply to the math you used. You just can’t use the number of negative tests to predict anything about the future. Even if you do math using real numbers, it doesn’t automatically mean the result of that math is a valid number.

In my 1911 I trust
Guest
In my 1911 I trust
3 years ago
Reply to  Bushytails

Post the link to the numbers for antibody testing in Humboldt County please.

Bushytails
Guest
Bushytails
3 years ago

It’s been on several news sources, and I believe is on the front page of one of the actual paper newspapers today, at least from when I glanced at the paper box as I was getting gas…

Here’s one source:
https://www.times-standard.com/2020/06/02/1-of-early-humboldt-county-coronavirus-tests-show-antibodies/

NorCalNative
Guest
NorCalNative
3 years ago

@Kym, what’s the story with the pencil-thin comments?

Really hard to read

NorCalNative
Guest
NorCalNative
3 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Thanks, I use a phone. It’s random, but once or twice a week it happens.

Suddenlink internet service was really bad or I’d be using my Macbook.