Funny you should ask.
https://taxfoundation.org/unemployment-insurance-claims/
According to this Iowa has funds to cover unemployment for 13 more weeks. That seems to be pretty middle of the road nationally, ranking #19. Not bad.
Coronavirus Coronavirus: In-Iowa General Discussion (Not Limited)
- Thread starter Jer
- Start date
- Status
Funny you should ask.
https://taxfoundation.org/unemployment-insurance-claims/
According to this Iowa has funds to cover unemployment for 13 more weeks. That seems to be pretty middle of the road nationally, ranking #19. Not bad.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Ours, too.
Of the pastors whose announcement I've seen, only one was racing to open this weekend. That was a good thing to see.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
My mother and youngest sister work at a hospital in Sioux City. 60 year old mom just moved on from the ICU in March after almost 40 years and took a different position. They just had her work a shift in the ICU since they are getting slammed up there. This situation sucks and can't talk her into refusing to work on the Covid patients as she is way to caring.
Which myself and millions others have been getting from legislation passed to help. Now I have 0 choice whether or not to go back to work and interact with people of all walks of life. At a time that our states numbers are its highest and still growing, knowing full well that the odds of 1 of the hundreds I'll encounter are carrying the virus is pretty significant.
I don't disagree with you in the sense that the system is not sustainable (at least in the long-term) in its current form. But, in my opinion at least, it comes down to whether you want the burden to fall disproportionately upon individuals or on the state/society as a whole. The state has more resources to potentially raise revenue (even through potentially "unpopular" ways such as raising taxes, etc.) than a specific individual may, plus it would be more equitable for society by not implicitly forcing people back to work who feel uncomfortable working during a pandemic.
That said, there are definite limits to what states can do, and ideally support would come from the federal government which would have even more ways to raise revenue, not to mention the ability to run at a (even larger) deficit, if necessary.
I recognize that the status quo won't likely allow that in the near term. There aren't really many easy/quick/good answers as to what to do, but I do feel like putting the onus upon individuals to potentially choose between catching a disease and paying their rent in the midst of a pandemic is morally wrong.
For better or worse, I recognize that is a moral/economic/political calculation that everyone will likely make differently.
Sorry for the overly earnest post - I know it's not really the language of the internet
I think the issue is one that isn’t really addressed. The problem isn’t opening stuff back up to more individual decisions. The problem also isn’t in people not wanting to be forced by money to go back out there. We should be doing both for people. If people are not comfortable going back to work they should be able to remain on unemployment. At the same time we should be allowing limited (more limited than we are IMO) things to start to open.I don't disagree with you in the sense that the system is not sustainable (at least in the long-term) in its current form. But, in my opinion at least, it comes down to whether you want the burden to fall disproportionately upon individuals or on the state/society as a whole. The state has more resources to potentially raise revenue (even through potentially "unpopular" ways such as raising taxes, etc.) than a specific individual may, plus it would be more equitable for society by not implicitly forcing people back to work who feel uncomfortable working during a pandemic.
That said, there are definite limits to what states can do, and ideally support would come from the federal government which would have even more ways to raise revenue, not to mention the ability to run at a (even larger) deficit, if necessary.
I recognize that the status quo won't likely allow that in the near term. There aren't really many easy/quick/good answers as to what to do, but I do feel like putting the onus upon individuals to potentially choose between catching a disease and paying their rent in the midst of a pandemic is morally wrong.
For better or worse, I recognize that is a moral/economic/political calculation that everyone will likely make differently.
Sorry for the overly earnest post - I know it's not really the language of the internet
After six weeks of predicting a peak two to three weeks away, today they declined to commit to a timeframe.
They don't know, but then again they never did.
SIAP, but anybody notice their toes are all ****** up? Pics welcome.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/frostbite-toes-covid-19.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/frostbite-toes-covid-19.html
That's about how many flu infections they estimate every year. Which is how we end up with the total deaths around the same, perhaps slightly higher than the typical. But agreed, the total deaths are what matter and that is what the first graph was showing. We are looking at 50,000 to slightly more than 100,000 in the US. Hardly anything to warrant this type of response. Maybe initially before this data was really known but certainly not to continue.
I'll help them with this. The peak in cases will happen with the peak in tests. They've just been FAR behind the curve of actual infections.
Glad you found that funny Argent. I too find it funny how people can put price tags on other peoples lives. Although mine is more of a how-tf-can-people-be-this-insensitive kind of funny. Which really isn't that funny.
Probably when the majority of people have had it. Have you expected anything different?
Lmao you can't even figure out that the CDC is a government agency and you're still posting?
Liberate Menards!
I might go just to get a mask for $1 and leave.
I might go just to get a mask for $1 and leave.
So if I'm reading this right, Kansas will be back to normal as early as 1 June. Exception is any gathering greater than 90 people. But, schools, sports, all businesses, travel, tourism, and no masks required. Bold move for a state that is at the absolute bottom for tests per million people...but an easy decision...just ignore the virus and it will magically go away.I just realized the picture I added didn't come in.
Well the peak keeps getting pushed back later because people are staying home, slowing the spread. Staying at home doesn’t get rid of the virus, it slows it. So essentially, the more people stay at home, the longer it takes the peak to get here.
Its the same thing in Chicago. The Gov said Chicago was supposed to hit the peak in Mid April, now he pushed it back to mid May. It’ll probably get pushed back again in a couple weeks. The thing with hitting the peak is nobody knows when the peak is hit until we are already passed it.
- Status
