• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Coronavirus testing in Texas plummets as schools prepare to reopen

CaughtInThe

CaughtInThe

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
93,387
Reaction score
84,551
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Texas coronavirus testing plummets as schools plan reopening | The Texas Tribune


"The number of Texans being tested for the coronavirus has fallen sharply in recent weeks, a trend that has worried public health experts as officials consider sending children back to school while thousands more Texans are infected each day.

In the week ending Aug. 8, an average 36,255 coronavirus tests were administered in Texas each day — a drop of about 42% from two weeks earlier, when the average number of daily tests was 62,516.

At the same time, the percentage of tests yielding positive results has climbed, up to 20% on average in the week ending Aug. 8. Two weeks earlier, the average positivity rate was around 14%."


That seems really smart. Less testing right before schools open.
 
CaughtInThe said:
Texas coronavirus testing plummets as schools plan reopening | The Texas Tribune


"The number of Texans being tested for the coronavirus has fallen sharply in recent weeks, a trend that has worried public health experts as officials consider sending children back to school while thousands more Texans are infected each day.

In the week ending Aug. 8, an average 36,255 coronavirus tests were administered in Texas each day — a drop of about 42% from two weeks earlier, when the average number of daily tests was 62,516.

At the same time, the percentage of tests yielding positive results has climbed, up to 20% on average in the week ending Aug. 8. Two weeks earlier, the average positivity rate was around 14%."


That seems really smart. Less testing right before schools open.
Click to expand...
Yep. Saw this earlier, and considered starting a thread. Thanks for saving me the effort.

There ya' go. Positive test rate is the clearest indicator of community spread. Despite their testing less, resulting in fewer positives, their positive test rate increase shows they are getting worse. 20% is high!

Was any reason given for curtailing their testing?
 
Chomsky said:
Yep. Saw this earlier, and considered starting a thread. Thanks for saving me the effort.

There ya' go. Positive test rate is the clearest indicator of community spread. Despite their testing less, resulting in fewer positives, their positive test rate increase shows they are getting worse. 20% is high!

Was any reason given for curtailing their testing?
Click to expand...

i don't think so.
 
Chomsky said:
Yep. Saw this earlier, and considered starting a thread. Thanks for saving me the effort.

There ya' go. Positive test rate is the clearest indicator of community spread. Despite their testing less, resulting in fewer positives, their positive test rate increase shows they are getting worse. 20% is high!

Was any reason given for curtailing their testing?
Click to expand...

testing is not mandatory..
 
Last edited:
Thom Paine said:
?? -shrug- I don't know; don't really care.
For nearly all, testing is free.
Don't know if it's free for me. If not free,
IF I test, I'll pay ....
It is what it is.
good day atcha' for your side of the pond !
Click to expand...


From what I've read, it covers those with insurance. There are MANY without any insurance coverage, who do not qualify for gov. sponsored insurance.

"Nearly all" is fully inaccurate.
 
holbritter said:
From what I've read, it covers those with insurance. There are MANY without any insurance coverage, who do not qualify for gov. sponsored insurance.

"Nearly all" is fully inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Well in the middle of all this the Trump administration is in the courts trying to gut ACA coverage for tens of millions of Americans. Unbelievable. You can’t make this stuff up.
 
holbritter said:
From what I've read, it covers those with insurance. There are MANY without any insurance coverage, who do not qualify for gov. sponsored insurance.

"Nearly all" is fully inaccurate.
Click to expand...

-shrug-
I iterate:
I really don't care.
but ..
I do wish for you a good day
 
ataraxia said:
Well in the middle of all this the Trump administration is in the courts trying to gut ACA coverage for tens of millions of Americans. Unbelievable. You can’t make this stuff up.
Click to expand...

that sham (not Affordable care) should be torpedoed..
good day to ya' A
 
Thom Paine said:
that sham (not Affordable care) should be torpedoed..
good day to ya' A
Click to expand...

Why is it a sham? The number of uninsured in this country is below 10% for the first time in its history.
 
ataraxia said:
Why is it a sham? The number of uninsured in this country is below 10% for the first time in its history.
Click to expand...

The cost of the insurance itself. The income limitations for subsidies. The decreased earnings to stay within limitations to start.
you might check into some of the negatives; it probably will surprise you.
 
Thom Paine said:
The cost of the insurance itself. The income limitations for subsidies. The decreased earnings to stay within limitations to start.
you might check into some of the negatives; it probably will surprise you.
Click to expand...

I will readily grant you those. But it was a critically important first step. It could use some reform and further work, not a complete gutting. In the middle of a pandemic.

And where is that beautiful Trump healthcare plan that was supposed to cover everyone?
 
ataraxia said:
I will readily grant you those. But it was a critically important first step. It could use some reform and further work, not a complete gutting. In the middle of a pandemic.

And where is that beautiful Trump healthcare plan that was supposed to cover everyone?
Click to expand...

It's not gutted yet and I suspect some things will be carried over (like existing conditions) ..
for me ...
dunno' about a new Healthcare for All plan; I'm hoping one does not happen.
when did the populace come to need a daddy (government) to take care of them cradle to grave ?
 
Thom Paine said:
It's not gutted yet and I suspect some things will be carried over (like existing conditions) ..
for me ...
dunno' about a new Healthcare for All plan; I'm hoping one does not happen.
when did the populace come to need a daddy (government) to take care of them cradle to grave ?
Click to expand...

When the idea of basic human rights was spearheaded by the US back in 1948. This included the right to food, water, shelter, a basic education, and access to healthcare. One of the reasons for guaranteeing such basic dignity and security for all human beings was to create a more stable society, both economically and politically. This is, of course, to lay aside any consideration of a sense of humanity- an idea which I know has become less popular and carries less cache in recent decades in favor of social Darwinism. So I won’t even try to defend it on those grounds. It is, though, for some of us old fashion types, a strong consideration.

So why wasn’t healthcare such a big issue before, for example in the days of the founding fathers? Because there was no such thing as healthcare back then. The average life expectancy was around 30 years old. But to have the technology to be able to improve the public health of the nation and provide such a fundamental need, but to make it contingent on being able to afford it, only by the wealthy, seems unconscionable to some of us today.
 
ataraxia said:
When the idea of basic human rights was spearheaded by the US back in 1948. This included the right to food, water, shelter, a basic education, and access to healthcare. One of the reasons for guaranteeing such basic dignity and security for all human beings was to create a more stable society, both economically and politically. This is, of course, to lay aside any consideration of a sense of humanity- an idea which I know has become less popular and carries less cache in recent decades in favor of social Darwinism. So I won’t even try to defend it on those grounds. It is, though, for some of us old fashion types, a strong consideration.

So why wasn’t healthcare such a big issue before, for example in the days of the founding fathers? Because there was no such thing as healthcare back then. The average life expectancy was around 30 years old. But to have the technology to be able to improve the public health of the nation and provide such a fundamental need, but to make it contingent on being able to afford it, only by the wealthy, seems unconscionable to some of us today.
Click to expand...

this seems to reduce to two beliefs..
I believe and practice personal responsibility.
You believe in a collective ..
The twain shall not meet
but I seriously appreciate your polite arguments..
oh, I have a question.. for a different thread...
what is social Darwinism .. (another thread another time)
:peace
 
Thom Paine said:
this seems to reduce to two beliefs..
I believe and practice personal responsibility.
You believe in a collective ..
The twain shall not meet
but I seriously appreciate your polite arguments..
oh, I have a question.. for a different thread...
what is social Darwinism .. (another thread another time)
:peace
Click to expand...

Thanks Thom, I enjoy the cordial exchange of ideas with you as well.

I am not sure but I am as pessimistic about coming to common understanding as to think that the “twain shall never meet”.

I think it comes down to some basic assumptions of how life and the world work. It seems to me that those who think that it should always come down to personal responsibility seem to believe that this is a just world, that everyone gets what they deserve, and that if someone hits hard times it must be because they are doing something wrong, or if someone is doing well it must be because they must just be so smart and hard working. Not always. Those are important things, of course. But I am not sure they are even the most important. Based on my experience in life, from myself and from seeing many others, I can guarantee you that’s not how life works. There are many very good people, hard-working, moral, respectable people, who can hit very hard times through no fault of their own. Life can be very cruel and unjust There needs to be some basic, bare bottom safety nets so it’s not a final cracking of their skull when they hit rock bottom like that. It is not only the humane thing to do, but we all benefit if they can get back on their feet. If they cannot get back on their feet, when they have to face such heartrending situations and make such desperate choices that no human being should ever have to make, that’s when bad things really start to happen to them...and to the rest of society: crime, riots, all sorts of other issues, social and economic instability, cycles of poverty and generational psychopathology, etc...

This is not a just world. It was not made that way. Just a look at the jungle is enough to convince us of that. In the jungle there is total freedom. It is Darwinism at work: the survival of the fittest, nature red in tooth and claw. Social Darwinism, which you had asked about, is the belief that such an approach should be implemented at the level of civil society as well. We should not try to protect the week, the vulnerable, that only propagate weakness. It should be survival of the fittest there as well. But we humans, through elaborate, artificial, and man-made systems and policies of law, order, justice, and civilization, have been able to mitigate the worst of these injustices and desperate situations of nature. The protection of basic human rights, as outlined in the Universal declaration of human rights from 1948, is one such measure.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom