Show me where you have posted facts because all I see is opinions by you.
Also, you say Ohio has done a better job then Iowa can you expand on that? Ohio has 33 deaths per million where Iowa is 19.
Coronavirus Coronavirus: In-Iowa General Discussion (Not Limited)
- Thread starter Jer
- Start date
- Status
Also, you say Ohio has done a better job then Iowa can you expand on that? Ohio has 33 deaths per million where Iowa is 19.
We should definitely all wear masks in public when things open up. I don't know when we open up but when we do it must be with masks required.
Taiwan pretty much beat this thing despite being densely populated and everyone wears masks everywhere and even has there temperature taken at restaurants. Been talking to a friend there.
At a minimum, masks and efforts to keep people apart are going to be conditions for being out and about for a good while. Especially in areas where the threat is higher and people can't be avoided, like urban areas.
But there isn't going to be one standard for all areas and the Karens out there are going to have to deal with that. The local PD isn't going to be willing to respond to calls that people are to close in line at Fareway.
There's over 18 million, millionaires in our country.
If there were even just a one time injection of X amount, there could be ample funding for plenty of people to be able to get by for at least a while.
It's likely not very well liked because of that 's' word and it doesn't solve the issue with production for food if people are getting sick, but if JJ Watt can raise over $40 million for a hurricane, and we can pay athletes hundreds of millions to people to play sports, and there's funding for big expensive state of the art locker rooms for amateur athletes, and there's this many people out there with this money tied to their name, there IS money out there that could help people out during the pandemic.
Going forward, there's steps that people could take to save hundreds of billions of dollars, so maybe it's available for actual needs but that would require valuing health to begin with.
Using net worth is not a great dynamic to go by. There are a load of millionaires in Iowa.
First many people add the value of their house into that amount. Where I really disagree with Ramsey, don't add your house into net worth. So many people talk about a million net worth with a 500-600k house as the basis of that. Then they have 300k in retirement and 100 here and there in vehicles and miscellaneous stuff. Many people put their household furnishings down at levels of 30-50k (because that is what they paid for it). From having been around that stuff you have 1-3k of value in household furnishings if you sold EVERYTHING in your house.
120 acres will get you there pretty easily. That 120 at 220/acre rent will net you 180 after property taxes. Net of 20,700 before income taxes.
The question has never been is there money, it’s what do they get for redistribution of their wealth. Who gives a **** about hourly workers and less fortunate when “you” and your network have millions?
Perhaps we need a COVID19 induced depression, with widespread unemployment and disruptions to our way of life, for the country to remember why giving those paycheck-to-paycheck more of a paycheck (to immediately spend) is good. Millionaires need a strong country and economy for their money (or property) to make money for them. It would be one thing if we didn’t already spending trillions more than we have. We’re the family in the suburbs buying boats, while needing to eat Ramen at the end of the month
It’s only going to get worse as the AI/automation/internet economy takes over.
Last edited:
More related to people that think they need to go to their 2nd home in the north woods and think they're fine since they don't feel sick, but I have a former co-worker friend who has a cottage in northern WI, and her town up there sent a letter to her directing her to NOT come up.
I've read the same thing from fishing guides and entire counties. These are places that rely on visitors for their economy, and I'm sure there's plenty that are all for opening up (we all are, just with different ideas on how and when to do it), but if a bunch of people from other areas infest the north woods with this thing, their (very few) hospitals and medical centers won't be able to handle it.
The hope is transmission lessens with warmer weather and people being spread out naturally so there's at least some form of supplement up there and other areas.
The problem is you are claiming we need to take strong enough action to stop the spread long enough for something like Remdesivir to be proven. I think that is unrealistic and potentially more damaging than the current course.
The headlines are really overplaying this. Saying it had "great success" is simply not true. I am not in the medical field, but I've been on many papers published in scientific journals. The drug may work, but the studies were garbage and in normal circumstance would have no prayer of getting published. They are poorly done with no legitimate controls. On top of it, 25% had severe side effects along the lines of things that people at risk due to underlying medical conditions would likely not tolerate. Don't like my take, here's a more authoritative one:
Here's a quote: ' “The data from this paper are almost uninterpretable,” Stephen Evans, a professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, told Bloomberg. “There is some evidence suggesting efficacy, but we simply do not know what would have happened to these patients had they not been given the drug.”
A realistic assessment of Remdesivir is that with a poorly executed study there is some hope that it might be effective in helping some patients with COVID-19, but the side effects are such that many of those most likely to die from COVID-19 aren't going to be able to tolerate the side effects. Figuring out IF it works and to what extent, who can tolerate it, what dosages, duration, etc. is going to take months. I am hopeful this or something else works, but determining action based on these tests is not sound decision-making.
My opinion is there is a good chance this drug will help some people, but by the time it can be proven and administered, mass exposure to the virus will have already happened unless you start closing down activities to the point that critical supply chains are crippled, mass numbers of people are unemployed, and there could be massive economic damage that leads to major health and safety problems.
Well...this is kind of my point on a societal view. Are people living within their means? Are big houses necessary? Newest greatest cars and accessories? I drove by a house the other day--they have a full on tennis court and basketball court in their yard. I get it: they earned the money, and they can spend it how they wish. But what's needed?
It's rare to see a subdivision full of $500,000 houses that look even remotely necessary vs. space needed.
Regardless, could many of these people afford to donate a good chunk and still have these accessories? There's been a few notable donations I've seen from some that were up around $1 million. Apparently they were comfortable with that. Are there more in that category? I'd bet so.
-Hygiene practices being used now should be implemented forever
-Masks should be worn once things open up by everybody for at least a few weeks
-We need to permanently adopt the cultural norm in many Asian countries that if you have any symptoms of any sickness you stay home if at all possible and if you have to go out wear a mask
Only 40% of local restaurants closing seems optimistic. I think the majority of small, locally owned bars and restaurants will end up closing before all is said and done. It’s hard to imagine a business plan for any bar to survive in the medium term until there is a vaccine.
Here’s my thing with the masks. I find them irritating to wear. I also find I am more prone to touch my face if I were to wear one. I’m not sure culturally The US can wear masks regularly. If you are sick absolutely wear one but I’m not fully on board for seemingly healthy people.
you really seem to dislike science.
first, if you actually wore a mask for a while you’d get used to it.
second, how many times must people be told you can have this and “seem fine”.
third, you personally seem to assume every precaution is not necessary and/or will always be a thing. The post you responded to mentioned wearing masks for a while after things reopen. That seems reasonable. And if you don’t like it, you are free not to go out.
Yes, it's an adjustment, but I think in general being conscious of how much we touch our face and getting out of that habit, with or without a mask, is one of those things we need to take away from this.
Here is the summary of a report on antibody testing that just came out of Santa Clara County, California. Basically, the number of people who had antibodies was 50-85 times higher than the number of reported cases in the county. Based on a sample of 3,330 people.
I thought the actual number of cases was probably 10-15 times higher than what's been confirmed. 50-85 times higher is significant.
That would be either bad news, or good news. Bad because it means we have under tested by way more than most people would have predicted, and the virus has infected way more people that previously though. Good, because it means the mortality rate is significantly lower than what has been "confirmed" so far, and the fact that a lot of people already have antibodies will help slow the spread. If 15% of the population are immune, it doesn't stop the virus, but it does slow the infection rate significantly.
Studies in other countries have produces similar results. We should be watching closely as more of these studies come out throughout the U.S.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1
I thought the actual number of cases was probably 10-15 times higher than what's been confirmed. 50-85 times higher is significant.
That would be either bad news, or good news. Bad because it means we have under tested by way more than most people would have predicted, and the virus has infected way more people that previously though. Good, because it means the mortality rate is significantly lower than what has been "confirmed" so far, and the fact that a lot of people already have antibodies will help slow the spread. If 15% of the population are immune, it doesn't stop the virus, but it does slow the infection rate significantly.
Studies in other countries have produces similar results. We should be watching closely as more of these studies come out throughout the U.S.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1
- Status
