Two Additional Positive COVID-19 Cases on June 26

Press release from Humboldt County COVID-19 – Joint Information Center:

Public Health Lab report

Humboldt County’s COVID-19 case count rose to 129, as two additional cases were reported today.

The following information is based on the most recent data available for all confirmed cases:

  • Contact to a Known Case: 74
  • Travel-Acquired: 27
  • Community Transmission: 23
  • Under Investigation: 5
  • Positive cases by region:
    • Northern Humboldt: 22
    • Greater Humboldt Bay Area: 103
    • Southern Humboldt: 4

June 26 - County Map with Regional Data

  • Males: 42%
  • Females: 58%
  • Mean age: 45
  • Age Range
    • 0-19: 13
    • 20-29: 21
    • 30-39: 26
    • 40-49: 23
    • 50-59: 13
    • 60-69: 22
    • 70-79: 4
    • 80+: 7
  • Estimated testing rates per 100,000 residents:
    • Humboldt County: 7.87%
    • California: 9.25%
    • United States: 8.87%
  • Estimated rate of confirmed cases:
    • Humboldt County: 95 per 100,000 residents
    • California: 504 per 100,000 residents

Humboldt Test Results by the Numbers

For Redheaded Blackbelt’s most recent stories about COVID-19, click here.

Earlier test results:



  • I thought all 9 people from two days ago were from a Southern Humboldt grow. That is on your website with Dr. Frankovich. Then, it was stated that some of the five from yesterday were related to these individuals. Yet, today, none of the statistics show a growth in Southern Humboldt? I’m missing something here.

    • Cases are counted in the area where they reside, not in the area where they work. It’s a bit confusing. It seems to me in the case of a significant workplace outbreak like this there is sufficient public interest to identify it in public updates. It’s an industrial “incident” and should be treated seriously.

      • Correct on facts. It was addressed in one of the recent entries here.

        I also agree with the opinion. People deserve information as long as privacy is respected.

    • Fast Freddy, you missed the part where Dr. Frankovich said that if someone works in one area and resides in another, their infection would count in their residence area. So judging from the numbers jumping from 85 last week to 103 this in the Greater Humboldt Bay Area, that is where they resided.

      I’m not sure where you got the idea that some of the five positive cases announced yesterday were connected to these individuals. We don’t know that. All we know is “four were acquired through contact with a known case,” according to yesterday’s press release. They could have been related to some earlier case not this one.

      • It would be good to know if these cases are related.

      • From SoHum Or Go Home

        Let me get this straight, all the nine cases and the following five were all residents from The Greater Humboldt Bay Area? None from So Hum.?

        I would gather from those facts that the So. Hum. Grow was associated with the 12 or so out of area sick residents, not the other way around.

        Big difference.

        Those Bozos,(Can I say Bozos, Kym), have been bringing it here, not getting it here.

        So. Hum. is getting a bad rap again.
        We’ve been framed. I know the feeling.

        I think a retraction is in order here.
        At least a correction.
        Gonna be tough now, the genie is out of the bottle.

        • That info was clearly stated in the opening paragraph. Here’s what I said, “However, we have learned from an anonymous source that the nine additional COVID-19 positive cases which were confirmed yesterday were connected to one Southern Humboldt cannabis farm but those infected did not reside (or at least most did not reside) in the Southern Humboldt area.”

          • Thank you.

          • From SoHum Or Go Home

            Still seems to imply they were “infected” at the so hum grow. The part about
            “or at least most did not reside” (a wobbler) in the So Hum area would seem to imply a So Hum vector, and that the nine cases were contracted in So Hum by someone from (Connected to one So Hum cannabis farm) makes someone from the area sound responsible.
            Without a connection to a previously known case associated with the area, they could have all (at least most😉) shown up at the same time in the same van and brought the virus to the area, instead of getting it at the area.
            As it turns out ‘all’ those nine additional infected did not reside in So Hum.
            The case count in the So Hum area has not changed in some time.
            That there were nine infections at the farm. I will buy that.
            That the nine were infected due to being exposed at the farm by someone from So Hum? (most at least😉)
            Not so much.
            They all came from somewhere else, The greater Humboldt Bay Area. Based on the admittedly limited information it suggests only that the virus came from there as well, not So Hum.
            My point is that So Hum being held responsible for these exposures and their contacts with previous reported cases with what we now know, is dubious at best, and is an undeserved tarnish on our reputation and a risk to our health and well being.
            It appears to have been brought here from elsewhere by others. Talk about a sick scene. Nine positive? Out of how many tested from there?
            That’s way, way out of control.

            • SoHum did not magically become a vector for the disease. Obviously, it came from somewhere else originally.

              I did not think that the people were infected at the grow. So I don’t understand how you got that they were infected there.

              I have no idea how “or at least most did not reside” implies that there was a SoHum vector. I was just qualifying that I didn’t know if all of those infected came from out of the area or if some of those who were infected lived in SoHum. At that time I wrote that I was unsure.

              You say, “My point is that So Hum being held responsible for these exposures” as if SoHum were being painted as a villain for having a connection. There was no blame attached. I was warning SoHum that though residents and particularly growers might feel they were far from the infection, people who are connected to the cannabis industry and connected to SoHum have the disease and those in the industry and in SoHum should take precautions.

              Since we don’t know the extent of the patients’ interaction in and around SoHum, it seems reasonable to suppose that there might be a good chance of the disease spreading. And, that’s the point I felt needed to be made–people should wear masks, stay physically distant, and get tested.

              Also, I’m curious. Several people mention something like your statement that those infected showed “up at the same time in the same van.” That never came from me. Where did you learn that? I’d like to see if this has a grain of truth by tracking it back.

              • From SoHum Or Go Home

                I think that the burning questions on people’s minds are these:
                Where did it come from?, Where is it now?, Where will it go?, And, if possible, how does one steer clear of it?
                There was another article about a possible
                … exposure at a grow…
                I, too, was unsure.
                If I gathered that the jist of it was that people were getting sick there as opposed to people getting there sick, that is a nuance, and it was a 50/50 chance.
                It is still unknown.
                That they were all from up North at least doesn’t suggest there is an unknown source lurking in SoHum.
                That was one of my concerns.
                Look, your doing a great job.
                The information from Dr. F is way vague.
                It causes running in circles, and all possible scenarios are hypothetical at best.
                You admirably try to ferret out more facts for people to work with.
                After Dr. F’s limited info, and at the outset of your investigative reporting, I was already trying to adjust my strategy to avoid any additional risk. I admittedly jumped to the wrong conclusion at that point and thought that the place to avoid was So Hum and I should frequent the north for a while. Maybe others did as well. No, the GH Bay Area has had over 25 times the cases and currently is the place to avoid with 18 new cases. The most likely source. I think I will give So Hum a few days and shop there. A perfect illustration of why Dr. F witholding information leads to additional risk and unnecessary uncertainty.
                It’s maddening to think that so much uncertainty could so easily be alleviated by simply tallying cases by area with every daily update. What could it hurt? Fridays cases are included in Fridays tally so WTF?
                I suggested that long ago.
                Would that be a waste of one of your two questions for them?
                It’s already difficult to ascertain which way one should turn or where to avoid.
                I know… PPE, PPE, wash,wash, social distancing, etc.

                I start looking for subtle cues and not so subtle clues to stay safe.
                When I recently started seeing 10 passenger vans packed shoulder to shoulder with unmasked individuals clearly from far and wide loitering in front of Sentry again, looking for work, I know it’s time to lay low, avoid the area and a large local outbreak will likely be forthcoming. It’s just a matter of time. If they were hired they could have all arrived pre exposed.
                Speculation? Yes.
                But I would say within the realm if not a likely scenario.

                For all I know all 9 could be on the MET team and got it at an eradication action from workers hanging their old masks on their plants. Less likely.

                Please forgive me for my defensive nature. So Hum has been holding up it’s end of the bargain with only 4 positives.
                Having careless people come here and jeopardizing that effort gets stuck in my craw.
                In retrospect, if people avoid So Hum, it actually works in my favor.
                All 9 reside up north. If people avoid that area as well, even better.
                Keep up the good work, I will try to avoid jumping to too many conclusions.
                Thanks for keeping us informed, it keeps us all safer.

  • 🕯🌳Almost all these new cases are under the age of 35.🖖👁

  • It is so frustrating to read news releases but not get the information that is important. Not a comment on RHBB, but a complaint about what ends up feeling like deliberate obfuscation by the health dept. We don’t need names but WTH. How old is the new hospitalization? A senior? A resident of a care home? A caregiver or a public sector employee? This reductionism has become problematic. We want to be supportive of our public health agency but it’s hard when we need facts and information and we get doublespeak and avoidance.

    • Obfuscation is Dr Frankovich’s specialty.

    • I agree. Well said. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

    • Why would it possibly matter to you what age the person is that is currently hospitalized or if they worked in a particular sector? That’s not information you need to know.

      If you want to know general statistics on age & hospitalization rates, look to the state or national level. A larger sample size gives a clearer picture.

      • We were told we needed to flatten the curve here locally so our hospitals didn’t get overwhelmed. We are being kept in the dark by the local authorities on whether that is happening. That is disgraceful on Dr Frankovich’s part. She has been very deceptive in the way she answers questions. Having her staff pick through and reword questions to her liking before she answers breeds mistrust. She is not trustworthy.

  • Good morning everyone.
    The latest on how asymptomatic Covid persons are not secretly hiding death germs and probably will not kill you if you have contact.

    • The report is from mid May and not the latest, concludes that, after a study of 35 asymptomatic mostly cardiac patients turned up no cases of severe respiratory illness in their contacts, “the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak, although some contacts did develop infections.

      This is a very small study that indicates that the aerosolization in non symptomatic people might not be as likely to spread the virus as a symptomatic person but that is a far cry from saying they don’t spread the virus at all. It is clear that they do.“This%20study%20reminds%20us%20that%20asymptomatics,rare%20for%20asymptomatic%20people%20to%20spread%20the%20virus.

    • Huh. Pubmed is posted pre peer review? In “Related Articles” just below this one

      “Rapid Asymptomatic Transmission of COVID-19 During the Incubation Period Demonstrating Strong Infectivity in a Cluster of Youngsters Aged 16-23”

      The volume of conflicting papers right now is staggering. It is a testament to the absolute failure of all the various disease agencies, from WHO, to the country level CDC’s. You have a disease that hits certain people very hard and leaves other without a clue, there is clearly a specific factor(s) for this. There is no standardized collection of basic data, out of millions of patients if this was going on the meta-data would be showing you the patterns of what is going on. it is obviously about vaccines, therapies and money. Do you know why hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work? It is an off patent generic that costs 10cents, no money in that!

  • 🕯🌳56,000 in 14 days 5.7% are in the age group of 18 to 40. Newsom just started locking down southern California again and has his eye on 14 other counties. Beware. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🚑

  • All worried about where the cases are in Humboldt ? Well, at some point it will be
    in your part regardless ! Please ware a mask to protect us all from that .

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.