They do provide enough information to identify the cities. You just have to read the actual paper and check their disclosures. I found it relatively easy to determine which two cities in my region were sampled.
I agree that 10 out of 10 allows the conclusion that it is pretty much everywhere. It also supports the conclusion that it is not actively transmissible between humans, yet.
These numbers actually only cover the period from March to July so current data could be different.
Most likely cities based on my reading of the report and then asking a computer model to verify (I grew up in TX)
Houston – Largest city in Texas (South Texas)
Dallas – Major city in North Texas
El Paso – Major city in West Texas
San Antonio – Major city in South Texas
Austin – Central Texas hub
Fort Worth – Large city in North Texas, close to Dallas
Corpus Christi – Major coastal city (South Texas)
Lubbock – Large city in West Texas
McAllen – Important city in South Texas (Rio Grande Valley)
Arlington – Substantial city in North Texas, near Dallas
I only checked a few before determining that all were easy to find if you looked at the report. With that said I think your list is close to correct but there is more than one incorrect.
You have to use the supplemental appendix from the paper [0] to figure it out. There are 23 samples, some of which come from the different treatment plants in the same city so that there are 10 cities represented.
The West Texas city (4 samples) is undoubtedly El Paso.
One of the North Texas cities is Wichita Falls.
I believe the other North Texas city is Lubbock.
There are four East Texas cities.
There is one Central Texas city. Three samples were taken and based on reported population served at the sample sites the city will either be Austin or San Antonio.
There are two South Texas cities.
So my list is
Wichita Falls - North Texas
Lubbock - North Texas
Both have excellent exposure to agricultural operations and lie along migratory bird flight paths.
El Paso - West Texas
This is the only city in West Texas large enough to have a wastewater treatment operation to serve the reported population numbers and it is also in an area with excellent exposure to agricultural operations.
Austin/San Antonio - Central Texas
This is a toss-up between these two since it could be either based on the population size reported for the wastewater treatment site and it is probably Austin based on designation as Central Texas city.
If San Antonio is considered a South Texas city then it will be one of the two South Texas sample locations. It makes sense for San Antonio and Austin to both be tested so it is likely that this paper places San Antonio in South Texas. I always considered it Central Texas (where I grew up) since it was just a short ride down I-35 and Laredo felt a lot more like South Texas. I'm probably wrong and it is indeed a South Texas city.
It's hard to guess the East Texas cities without digging into demographics and GIS data.
I suspect that Houston counts as East Texas though I always break things down differently since I lived there for a while. I consider it to be Rectal Texas. Just kidding, maybe.
It is likely that one of the East Texas cities sampled is Tyler since it is smack-dab in the middle of poultry country. Houston, classed as an East Texas city would be another. The other two could be suburbs of Houston or smaller towns in deep East Texas where there are a lot of cattle and chickens raised.
Not seeing high level of hospitalization due to H5N1 and the human cases that are reported do not share a common source genome I think is how they conclude that. Basically the humans that have contracted it and reported symptoms do not get it from a common source and there is no evidence of human to human transmission in the cases that are reported.
I agree that 10 out of 10 allows the conclusion that it is pretty much everywhere. It also supports the conclusion that it is not actively transmissible between humans, yet.
These numbers actually only cover the period from March to July so current data could be different.