Sunday afternoon I asked for people to respond if they knew some that has Covid. This was not a scientifc study, just .
an anecdotal poll.

There were 1,272 views of the post.

There were 9 confirmed cases of someone actually knowing a person that has or had Covid. That means .7% (7 tenths of one percent) knew someone that is Covid positive.

No one reported a fatality.

Not bad odds.

Sunday afternoon I asked for people to respond if they knew some that has Covid. This was not a scientifc study, just .
an anecdotal poll.

There were 1,272 views of the post.

There were 9 confirmed cases of someone actually knowing a person that has or had Covid. That means .7% (7 tenths of one percent) knew someone that is Covid positive.

No one reported a fatality.

Not bad odds.

While the odds are low - they are especially low for this test group (those who frequent TFF), so the poll results are biased as well. Most of us, myself included, do not live in inner city Houston or DFW, nor are we in nursing homes. The lifestyle that most of us lead is nothing like what the hot-spot residents have, and that further lowers our risk.

If you had a poll that used test subjects equally representing each county by per-capita population, your results would have been far different. The poll results are anecdotal because of the test group flaws.

In Texas there are 14,000 cases and 29M people so that's a .05% of people that are positive. So your number is probably pretty accurate on people that know someone.

Now the problem is we are still on an exponential growth pattern in the US. A month ago we had 51 cases in Texas. Now we have 14K. That's 274x growth in a month. If we stayed on this growth pattern, we'd have 3.8M in another month. Now we can and will curb exponential growth, but don't let numbers mean too much until you start to flatten an exponential growth curve. Also when we put out 51 cases a month ago we really had several hundred or more. We just were barely starting to test so I doubt that 274x growth is accurate. It's less than that probably more like 100x. But still it's easy to see if we don't flatten the curve we'll be in 100s of thousands or more in a month. So numbers early in an exponential growth curve are almost irrelevant as the growth is so fast. What matters is how quickly you can flatten that curve. The scientist that have been harping this are doing it for a reason. Pandemics get out of control fast if you don't do something to stop them.

I'm no expert but I was a microbiology major and stpositudied these situations some in college. Been 35 years but the math hasn't changed.

While the odds are low - they are especially low for this test group (those who frequent TFF), so the poll results are biased as well. Most of us, myself included, do not live in inner city Houston or DFW, nor are we in nursing homes. The lifestyle that most of us lead is nothing like what the hot-spot residents have, and that further lowers our risk.

If you had a poll that used test subjects equally representing each county by per-capita population, your results would have been far different. The poll results are anecdotal because of the test group flaws.

Your growth curve is interesting but may be an inaccurate representation of the numbers. What you call a growth curve is actually a reporting of the ability to test for Covid. Going from 51 cases in Texas to 14K is an increase, but you can't call it growth curve. As the ability to test for Covid became easier, and more available, the reported number of cases increased. However, that information does not indicate the growth curve.