Coronavirus Coronavirus: In-Iowa General Discussion (Not Limited)
- Thread starter Jer
- Start date
- Status
That's not what a shelter in place is. It means something totally different. Every state declaring "shelter in place" then has to go and define what that means because they are using the term in a way it was never intended.
For sure there is a terminology problem, but Iowa's problem is not simply one of terminology.
I'd read somewhere (I'll never find it so I won't bother) that they want to get away from the term "shelter in place" because that's meant for school shooting-type situations with a more urgent/immediate need. But for better or worse it's taken hold during coronavirus.
For the record, I think she needs to implement a stay-at-home order.
In her presser today the metrics were brought up and she said something along the lines of "we're close" on some of the metrics. What does that mean? Will it be too late if we wait to hit certain metrics? Those are the questions arising.
What's more disheartening is I'm seeing this turn into a political "take sides" debate, which is the worst thing possible for a situation like this.
Yes, and it means exactly as it sounds. In an emergency situation find the closest safe spot and don't move until the all clear is given. That is not what anyone is going to propose. Even in the hardest hit areas they are not literally locking people in their homes and they never will. People have to get essentials and I guarantee the government is not going to provide it to everyone. And of course every state is going to have a little different take on what is and isn't essential. What staff are and are not essential. So the term is pointless in this situation because every state is going to detail how they handle that differently and if they are going to even really try and enforce anything. Our state has mandated certain things be shut down and is recommending everyone stay home as much as possible. That could be described as a sort of shelter in place order. So in the end it comes down to people just wanting her to say some words that really have no real meaning.
I guess at this point I can only admit that I’d like to live in your utopian world where everything is black and white, no decision has any repercussions, we can see into the future, and diseases are cured by rainbows and unicorns.
Yeah that's quite fascinating.. And our situation is much different than those back then obviously. And I mentioned this above, but I could care less what she calls it. She can make up her own phrasing for all I care.. From what I've read, this extensive measure is one of the ways to flatten the curve the best. The quicker we do that, the quicker we get back to normalcy, the spread stops, lives are saved, etc.
Or we could be in the 6% of states not doing the most to help stop / prevent the spread of this virus and say we're all going to be okay in the end.. oh wait, that's what we're doing.
You’re buying in to the fallacy that “flattening the curve” equates with saving lives. It doesn’t, assuming hospitals don’t reach the point of being overrun.
I don't know the right answers to what should and shouldn't be done. I know I am only leaving the house for groceries once a week and that's it beside going for walks or runs. Pretty much everyone I know is doing the same. It's anecdotal, but I believe most people are doing what needs to be done and we will flatten the curve as much as possible. It's going to be a rough ride no matter what.
I disagree. While the purpose of flattening the curve is to minimize the burden on the healthcare system, the recommendations will also result in less people being exposed to the virus.
While this is highly infectious, 100% of the population is not going to contract it. The fewer people who do, the fewer people who get sick, and the fewer people who die.
Tell me how many of the deaths in Iowa have occurred because of the current measures in place. Would you say people being exposed and recovering and developing 90%+ immunity right now is a good thing or bad thing?
Flattening the curve means not overrunning hospitals. If that happens, more deaths happen. You put extreme measures into place to not have that happen. If you wait until after hospitals are overrun you then you've defeated the entire purpose of all of this.
Do we know yet that immunity is a thing for sure? From what I've seen it's still in question.
Your first paragraph is incorrect. All the models you look at, whether doing nothing, social distancing, or more stringent measures, involve the exact same number of infections. By extrapolation, you end up at the same number of deaths assuming consistency of care.
You think stuff like this helps your argument and it only makes you sound more ridiculous. You have to argue against things nobody is saying because it's the only way your arguments make sense.
- Status
