You don't need exact numbers to post approximate values. They still argue past numbers from earlier pandemics. I told you where the numbers I used came from. If you don't like them then don't use them.Ok, so you are basically confirming what I said.
For now, the numbers posted in reputable sources are good enough to use in discussions. I haven't argued any points that need exact numbers.
Here is a set of data points accurate enough for me.
https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/...01e8b9cafc8b83
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
Numbers are numbers and are represented and "approximated" in a variety of ways. That some choose one over another to be "good enough" to discuss usually means there is a political motivation behind it if they don't throw in the necessary caveats as to how and why they choose their "approximate" number.
Case, Infection, and crude(population) mortality rates are all valid "approximations" still at this point. And they can all be used to give wildly different perspectives and potential fear factors.
In the end, I still think regarding the OP, that the better question is whether Texas should have fully shut down in the first place, but regarding opening too soon, absolutely not when done based on hot spot monitoring.
PA is largely that same for large geographical areas. They never should have been shut down in the first place.