I don't see the problem with calling the revised d

I don't see the problem with calling the revised definitions as probable cases.
Now we know that Trump does not want tests because that results in more cases.
He thinks that is "bad' for him. So it is possible that if the Commissioners are Republicans then they want to keep the case count down to please Trump.
That's not political, its fact that Trump has all the Republicans in tow. Fact.
And you asked why these revised definitions.

Now we all know the State of Texas and most other states have experience severe budget costs from fighting CV19, and the President saying it is not his responsibility.
There are lots of truth in humor, so when the President says, "I told them to slow the testing down *(said twice - second time said he was trying to be funny) there is still truth in it.

Why is the State of Texas revising definitions?
They get more money from Medicare for treating CV19 cases.
The more who qualify the more money the State and local hospital gets.
They don't care if its not an accurate count because the system works against that.
The Feds don't even pretend to distribute the monies fairly. Favored states get more.
I don't blame the states for broadening the definitions. Its allowed.. Its an unfair system starting at the top with no national leadership. So where is the hoax? At the top or at the bottom? Take your pick.

Coronavirus relief: How federal funding failed to match each state's coronavirus crisis - Samuel Stebbins and Evan Comen 24/7 Wall Street


The COVID-19 pandemic is a public health crisis of historic magnitude – and it has ushered in an unemployment crisis of a scope not seen since the Great Depression. To reduce the severity and longevity of the economic fallout, the federal government authorized the disbursement of $3 trillion to protect the U.S. economy. For comparison, Washington spent about $1.8 trillion over the course of five years in response to the Great Recession of 2008.

The relief and recovery packages have provided relatively timely support to Americans and will certainly help stave off longer-term economic damage. The legislation has also been widely criticized for flaws such as prioritizing industries over workers, inadequate funding for health care, and potentially hindering people who do not typically file tax returns from applying for one-time payments.

More generally, the distribution of the funds to states has appeared especially crude – as many of the hardest hit states have not received federal funding commensurate to the severity of their public health or economic crises.

24/7 Wall St. compared federal funds allocated to each state relative to the state's number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 and to total unemployment claims since mid-March. States are ranked from those that received the most funding relative to the scope of their problems to those that received the least. We included in our analysis funds paid to state, local, and tribal governments, as well as those distributed to individuals and businesses.

To gauge the federal government's response in proportion to each state’s problems, we broke down the aid into two categories: money for COVID-19 testing and treatment and money for economic relief. In Alaska, a state with only 513 known cases of the virus to date, federal medical aid comes to about $2.7 million per case of the coronavirus. Meanwhile, in New York, a state with more than 375,000 cases, federal funds come to just $43,000 per case.

Similarly, in Wyoming, the state with the fewest unemployment claims since mid-March, economic stimulus money to the state comes out to about $38,000 per unemployment claim. In Georgia, a state with over 2 million unemployment claims over the same time, stimulus comes out to only about $10,000 per claim.