Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Coronavirus Coronavirus: In-Iowa General Discussion (Not Limited)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Statefan10 said:
I'm done being vocal about wanting her to clamp down more, or turn the dial up, but I do think it's at least a little bit interesting she's doing her press conference today at 11 am instead her usual 2:30. 11 am would most likely be too early to give an update on the numbers from today.

That's not me saying she's going to do anything else today.. I'm just wondering if there is any reason to her speaking 3.5 hours earlier the day after we had the worst day.
Click to expand...

They did announce this time change last week. I wonder if it's to get ahead of the daily updated totals.
 
Statefan10 said:
I'm done being vocal about wanting her to clamp down more, or turn the dial up, but I do think it's at least a little bit interesting she's doing her press conference today at 11 am instead her usual 2:30. 11 am would most likely be too early to give an update on the numbers from today.

That's not me saying she's going to do anything else today.. I'm just wondering if there is any reason to her speaking 3.5 hours earlier the day after we had the worst day.
Click to expand...
They announced that the time is changing to always be at 11. This has been about when the numbers come out anyway. I’m guessing she will announce them instead of them kind of coming out randomly.
 
DSMCy said:
This sort of goes hand in hand, but a treatment will also help hospitals keep up.
Right now, if patients are admitted they could be in the hospital for up to 2 weeks. That's far too long and causes hospitals to get backed up.
If a treatment can be developed that lowers that to say 5 days, then you can get more people in, treated, and out.
Click to expand...


The hydroxychlorowhatever medicine seems to be working. That's good news.
 
Ms3r4ISU said:
Honestly though, won't it always be around in some version? Similar to flu - yes we have a "new" vaccine each year, but that's because the organism causing the flu has not disappeared. It just adapts.
On a slightly different note, I've read several places (from true legitimate sources although I can't remember even one right now) that another ongoing question in the whole statistics approach is whether deaths are "from" COVID-19 or something else and the person also had COVID-19. I imagine we'll never know the answer for many deaths because the post-mortem testing is not a high priority or even possible due to insufficient supply of the tests, at least for a while.
Click to expand...

I think this is another semantics thing. Covid can cause pneumonia in people, and they can die from that pneumonia. They technically may die from pneumonia, but they likely wouldn't have had that pneumonia had they not gotten Covid.

This will probably be the argument from people that will stick to the thought that this is nothing more than just another flu, even though flu can do the same thing.
 
CyJack13 said:
They both are poor ways to communicate, and obviously Trump's message is a whole different level of bad, agreed. This is also not something that can be communicated on a national level, the virus is spreading at different rates around the country, this is not going to be the worst week in many places. You simply can't have one timeline for the entire country which seems like the message they are relaying. People will start to tune it out as it quickly turns into an office space like every week is the worst week of your life type of message.
Click to expand...

I'm fixated on two states because of the people I love.

It's not always as different as people think. If you live in the most populated state it's 9 deaths per million so far. If you live in Iowa it's 7 deaths per million so far. (not that different) If you live in New York it's 212 deaths per million. (very different)

California had to take pretty extreme and early measures to be roughly as safe as Iowa is right now, it didn't just happen naturally. If my governor just said, "hey look we're as safe as Iowa, let's message more happy", we wouldn't be as safe.

I worry that Iowa is tempting fate in the few urban areas given that the virus isn't really any less lethal than it is in California right now. I think the way of life in rural Iowa can be a sort of insulator to an extent if people are even moderately careful. I don't think there's something special about Des Moines that makes it safer than suburban California or suburban New England.
 
ISUTex said:
The hydroxychlorowhatever medicine seems to be working. That's good news.
Click to expand...

Except for the people that have lupus or other conditions that need it for their treatment and may not be able to get it even though there's not concrete evidence that it's a go-to.

There'd better be actual ramping production if it actually works so those people that literally need it can continue to obtain it. It can't be like saying there's going to be a vaccine very quickly, the virus is under control, etc.
 
Ms3r4ISU said:
Honestly though, won't it always be around in some version? Similar to flu - yes we have a "new" vaccine each year, but that's because the organism causing the flu has not disappeared. It just adapts.
On a slightly different note, I've read several places (from true legitimate sources although I can't remember even one right now) that another ongoing question in the whole statistics approach is whether deaths are "from" COVID-19 or something else and the person also had COVID-19. I imagine we'll never know the answer for many deaths because the post-mortem testing is not a high priority or even possible due to insufficient supply of the tests, at least for a while.
Click to expand...

Agreed it does adapt.

I also agree that some of the deaths being reported under COVID should probably be listed under a different reason.

I've read numerous things that say "John Smith dies due to complimcations of COVID-19" You actually read the article and realize that John Smith has COPD and was on oxygen.
 
Ms3r4ISU said:
On a slightly different note, I've read several places (from true legitimate sources although I can't remember even one right now) that another ongoing question in the whole statistics approach is whether deaths are "from" COVID-19 or something else and the person also had COVID-19. I imagine we'll never know the answer for many deaths because the post-mortem testing is not a high priority or even possible due to insufficient supply of the tests, at least for a while.
Click to expand...

I read the Economist article bessereheimer referenced earlier, which basically said Covid was very likely causing a lot more deaths than the reported number in Spain and Italy. They are putting down heart failure or pneumonia, etc instead of Covid, as that is their process.

I also read that in the US, because of the way data is collected, any infectious disease will override other causes of death and become the "official" cause of death. Cannot recall where I read it though, maybe same article. So it should look a lot worse here than there, ceteris parabis.

I think it is tough in general since a lot of the deaths have serious comorbidity (age, heart & lung issues, immunodeficiency, et al). So if some 95 yo guy has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel to begin with, and then catches Covid (or just about anything else really) - which is really the cause of death? Is it the major underlying risk factor, or is it the virus that broke the camel's back? I'm sure we have a process for that, but capturing the reality of it seems challenging.
 
madguy30 said:
Except for the people that have lupus or other conditions that need it for their treatment and may not be able to get it even though there's not concrete evidence that it's a go-to.

There'd better be actual ramping production if it actually works so those people that literally need it can continue to obtain it. It can't be like saying there's going to be a vaccine very quickly, the virus is under control, etc.
Click to expand...


They are ramping up production. They have been for a while now. They also aren't giving it to infected people unless they get really sick. There have been several doctors interviewed that said they've been prescribing it, and that it is working. It would really suck to not use this medicine and have more people die because there aren't official clinical studies that confirm it yet. Especially when it's pretty obvious that it's working.
 
I'm very confused, because I've been assured for weeks now we were already sheltering in place by different terminology. Now I'm learning we hadn't been doing everything we can.

/collapses onto fainting couch
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom
Back