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

Status
Not open for further replies.

NorthCyd

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 22, 2011
17,594
27,810
113
The governor's response (or lack thereof) is an inherent part of the discussion of the coronavirus response in iowa. Thinking you can have a thread on COVID19 in iowa that ignores that response or doesnt criticize it when it is lacking, is simply wanting a safe space for your own political biases, meaning that it is you that actually seeks to alter this thread politically.
You have zero idea what my political ideology is. I am no fan of Reynolds. I don't have a huge problem with her response to the virus but that has nothing to do with politics. If you don't believe me you can find plenty of posts where I am highly critical of Trump. While I know there are many on here that are incapable of this I can look beyond party affiliation to form my opinions.

I understand some discussion or disagreement is warranted. Discussing and criticizing the response is fine. But the same cast of characters going on an endless Reynolds hate circle jerk, and the same responses to it, makes it impossible to discuss anything else in this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpokaneCY

isutrevman

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2007
7,372
9,948
113
36
Ames, IA
Well, isn’t it really about saving lives? In some areas at best that’s about getting the curve lowered. If Iowa can do better, do it!

Is there a cost too prohibitive to do that? I personally think so, but that cost isn’t based in political capital.
Yes it's about saving lives, but massive job loss also leads to lost lives. So, it's not as simple as doing every possible thing to stop the virus. If that were the case, we would just tell everyone to isolate at home for 3 weeks. No is allowed to leave the house. Not for medical care, not for food. No one is allowed in elderly care facilities, even workers. Every single person is isolated in an individual room to guarantee the virus dies out.

We all agree those measures would do more harm than good. So yes, we should be doing as much as possible to save lives, but there is a point where the shut down does more harm than good. No one knows what that point is, that's why there is such a big disagreement on what we should be doing. I had thought the prevailing idea was to shut down enough to limit the spread so hospitals don't get overrun. The current projections show that we are doing that, but people are still asking for further restrictions (I realize those are only predictions and they could be wrong). That's their opinion, it might also be yours and that is fine. My opinion is we should keep as much of the economy open as we can while not overburdening the medical system. We can "do better" but I believe that needs to come from individuals taking the responsibility themselves to wear masks, keep their distance and wash their hands more so than the Governor issuing more restrictions.
 

SpokaneCY

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
13,294
8,486
113
Spokane, WA
I think it's more of a placebo for a lot of people.

WA is shelter in place and today I changed my winter tires to summers at TireRama, stopped by the weed store, went to Jersey Mikes for a sub paying attention to the markers on the floor showing proper social distancing, used the hand sanitizer before putting my card in and again after they handed me my food. Tire place had lots of sanitizer and they stacked tires near the counter to enforce the distance.

And everything we/I did was under the terms of the shelter in place "order".

You guys back in Iowa can call it whatever you want - just maintain distance, wash your hands and provide a buffer to other people when / if you need to and stay at home whenever possible.
 

MartyFine

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2009
13,761
20,186
113
Warren Co., IA
You have zero idea what my political ideology is. I am no fan of Reynolds. I don't have a huge problem with her response to the virus but that has nothing to do with politics. If you don't believe me you can find plenty of posts where I am highly critical of Trump. While I know there are many on here that are incapable of this I can look beyond party affiliation to form my opinions.

I understand some discussion or disagreement is warranted. Discussing and criticizing the response is fine. But the same cast of characters going on an endless Reynolds hate circle jerk, and the same responses to it, makes it impossible to discuss anything else in this thread.

If her response has nothing to do with politics as you assert above, then shouldn’t we be allowed to discuss her response here?
 

Statefan10

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
May 20, 2019
19,986
24,835
113
Yes it's about saving lives, but massive job loss also leads to lost lives. So, it's not as simple as doing every possible thing to stop the virus. If that were the case, we would just tell everyone to isolate at home for 3 weeks. No is allowed to leave the house. Not for medical care, not for food. No one is allowed in elderly care facilities, even workers. Every single person is isolated in an individual room to guarantee the virus dies out.

We all agree those measures would do more harm than good. So yes, we should be doing as much as possible to save lives, but there is a point where the shut down does more harm than good. No one knows what that point is, that's why there is such a big disagreement on what we should be doing. I had thought the prevailing idea was to shut down enough to limit the spread so hospitals don't get overrun. The current projections show that we are doing that, but people are still asking for further restrictions (I realize those are only predictions and they could be wrong). That's their opinion, it might also be yours and that is fine. My opinion is we should keep as much of the economy open as we can while not overburdening the medical system. We can "do better" but I believe that needs to come from individuals taking the responsibility themselves to wear masks, keep their distance and wash their hands more so than the Governor issuing more restrictions.
Again, I would like you to point out one poster on here that is advocating for these measures.
 

AuH2O

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2013
11,169
17,066
113
Fauci would put Reynolds into a pretzel when it comes this issue. What's Fauci suppose to say to her? He has no power in that conversation whatsoever and it wouldn't matter what he suggested for her to do, she wouldn't listen because she has her own data and metrics to follow. I can assure you that he was not 100% agreeing with her as he doesn't even 100% agree with Trump either.

I mean, what he could say is a week ago when he was talking about states without SIP as if they were all operating business as usual, he clearly was not counting Iowa, because at that very moment one could go online and compare what was actually mandated closed, enforced and suggested in Iowa vs. NY, the Epicenter of US-COVID-19, and see there was and is almost zero difference.

I love Fauci, but the fact that he's an expert in his field doesn't make him like some all-seeing eye that knows everything about every place like you want to believe
 

alarson

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 15, 2006
54,253
62,572
113
Ankeny
Where did I say that?

You came in here crying about politics when all that was being discussed was reynolds's response, indicating you don't think it is ok for that to be a topic of discussion. It isnt that hard to see your intent.
 

Statefan10

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
May 20, 2019
19,986
24,835
113
I didn't make that claim, that wasn't the point of what you bolded.
You said it's impossible to do "whatever it takes" without some sort of repercussions. If there weren't any consequences, we'd lock everyone home for weeks and wouldn't allow them to do literally anything.

No one, other than obvious lunatics on Twitter, are advocating for these sorts of measures. 99% of us would like more to be done. Today was a step in the right direction albeit a week or two late. However, what some people are arguing is our governor's stance as well as people who support her stance, in which they say she and her team are doing everything that's necessary. That would not be true and we clearly saw that today.

Last week there were folks on here saying "what more could we possibly shut down". Welp, Governor Reynolds just added about 30 things to that list. So she obviously has more measures ready to be taken, but the original argument here was that she was being reactive to the data presented to her.
 

WhoISthis

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2010
5,602
3,557
113
You said it's impossible to do "whatever it takes" without some sort of repercussions. If there weren't any consequences, we'd lock everyone home for weeks and wouldn't allow them to do literally anything.

No one, other than obvious lunatics on Twitter, are advocating for these sorts of measures. 99% of us would like more to be done. Today was a step in the right direction albeit a week or two late. However, what some people are arguing is our governor's stance as well as people who support her stance, in which they say she and her team are doing everything that's necessary. That would not be true and we clearly saw that today.

Last week there were folks on here saying "what more could we possibly shut down". Welp, Governor Reynolds just added about 30 things to that list. So she obviously has more measures ready to be taken, but the original argument here was that she was being reactive to the data presented to her.
Don’t bother with him. He can’t respond without using fallacies and making up contentions no one has made.
 

isutrevman

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2007
7,372
9,948
113
36
Ames, IA
You said it's impossible to do "whatever it takes" without some sort of repercussions. If there weren't any consequences, we'd lock everyone home for weeks and wouldn't allow them to do literally anything.

No one, other than obvious lunatics on Twitter, are advocating for these sorts of measures. 99% of us would like more to be done. Today was a step in the right direction albeit a week or two late. However, what some people are arguing is our governor's stance as well as people who support her stance, in which they say she and her team are doing everything that's necessary. That would not be true and we clearly saw that today.

Last week there were folks on here saying "what more could we possibly shut down". Welp, Governor Reynolds just added about 30 things to that list. So she obviously has more measures ready to be taken, but the original argument here was that she was being reactive to the data presented to her.

Necessary for what? I think that is where the disagreement comes from.
 

Statefan10

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
May 20, 2019
19,986
24,835
113
Don’t bother with him. He can’t respond without using fallacies and making up contentions no one has made.
I have no problem with having discussions with those who disagree with me. I'm trying to understand their viewpoint and I do agree with some of it.

I think there are people on both sides who try to polarize the other, which happens in every single thing that has to do with politics. It's illogical to assume we should open everything back up anytime soon and return back to normal. It's also illogical to assume the majority of people want to be locked into their homes using martial law.
 

Acylum

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2006
12,960
13,343
113
You said it's impossible to do "whatever it takes" without some sort of repercussions. If there weren't any consequences, we'd lock everyone home for weeks and wouldn't allow them to do literally anything.

No one, other than obvious lunatics on Twitter, are advocating for these sorts of measures. 99% of us would like more to be done. Today was a step in the right direction albeit a week or two late. However, what some people are arguing is our governor's stance as well as people who support her stance, in which they say she and her team are doing everything that's necessary. That would not be true and we clearly saw that today.

Last week there were folks on here saying "what more could we possibly shut down". Welp, Governor Reynolds just added about 30 things to that list. So she obviously has more measures ready to be taken, but the original argument here was that she was being reactive to the data presented to her.
Why do you say the measures taken today are a week or two too late?
 

NorthCyd

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 22, 2011
17,594
27,810
113
"I don't have a huge problem with her response to the virus but that has nothing to do with politics."
Yep, me saying my opinion of the response is not influenced by politics is not the same as "her response has nothing to do with politics". Nice try though.
 

Statefan10

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
May 20, 2019
19,986
24,835
113
Necessary for what? I think that is where the disagreement comes from.
Ever since Governor Reynolds has been giving these press conferences, she's said "We're doing everything necessary to make sure we protect all Iowans and especially Iowans that are most at vulnerable."

If she continues to ramp up restrictions, you're obviously not doing whatever it takes, within obvious reason, to protect all Iowans.
 

Statefan10

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
May 20, 2019
19,986
24,835
113
Why do you say the measures taken today are a week or two too late?
Are you saying you believe bowling alleys, malls, and adult sex shops should not have been shut down sooner than today?
 

Clonefan32

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2008
21,846
22,882
113
For the record, it would not be that hard to have a "No Politics" thread about Coronavirus. It would look like this thread did at the beginning-- an update on numbers, data, available programs, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.