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

  • After Iowa State won the Big 12, a Cyclone made a wonderful offer to We Will that now increases our match. Now all gifts up to $400,000 between now and the Final 4 will be matched. Please consider giving at We Will Collective.
    This notice can be dismissed using the upper right corner X button.
Status
Not open for further replies.

isufbcurt

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2006
25,649
39,119
113
44
Newton
These are commercial electricians and plumbers, the kind working on job sites, not, I have a problem with my sink. Fixing cars maybe, but they are also still selling new ones.
True Value is a essential businesses during a pandemic, what I have to get my yard ready to mow or need dog treats?

Like I said, it seems that small business is being hurt by this suggestion, and large factories like John Deere and others are doing their own thing.

I am not saying one way is better or necessary, we are past that now, how about we either close it all down for a week or two, or open it back up and try to get back to normal. No more of this half and half.
If I had a vote it would be to close it all down.

As I have stated numerous times:

1. You can't say these type of electricians and plumbers are essential but these aren't. Plus infrastructure, aka working on job sites, is considered essential by Homeland Security. Mainly because they don't want construction to stop.

2. Essential workers still need new and used cars to get to their essential jobs. I am going to my used car dealership client this afternoon, they are open, but their sales are way down.

3. True Value is a hardware store and thus is essential. It also provides supplies for essential workers such as plumbers and electricians. I know one of my Plumber clients uses the Ace Hardware in his town a lot because it's more convenient. And once again they aren't going to say Hardware store XYZ is essential but ABC isn't because they will get their asses sued
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: heitclone

Statefan10

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
May 20, 2019
19,936
24,720
113
Is that what Dr. Fauci said - that flattening the curve would possibly prevent the virus from coming back? I don't think he's ever said that, but if he has then I definitely stand corrected. I'd be interested in understanding the logic behind this, so if there is a report or news article where he discusses that I'd like to read it. I'm not asking this to call you out, just trying to learn more.

I agree with what you're saying now - the virus will come back, or more accurately never really leave and it will continue on long term. I'm just saying - flattening the curve is a measure that is meant to limit the damage and spread out cases over time so that our hospitals can keep up. That's all it does. It doesn't eliminate the virus, it just gives us time to implement our next phase of dealing with its effects.
Yeah I wasn't saying this virus would be eliminated nor was I saying Fauci said that. This virus will no doubt come back and will most likely be something we have to deal with forever, however in the future we will have drugs that greatly help and a vaccine so this will end up being not as big of a deal.
 

BCClone

Well Seen Member.
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
61,413
55,952
113
Not exactly sure.
As I have stated numerous times:

1. You can't say these type of electricians and plumbers are essential but these aren't. Plus infrastructure, aka working on job sites, is considered essential by Homeland Security. Mainly because they don't want construction to stop.

2. Essential works still need new and used cars to get to their essential jobs. I am going to my used car dealership client this afternoon, they are open, but their sales are way down.

3. True Value is a hardware store and thus is essential. It also provides supplies for essential workers such as plumbers and electricians. I know one of my Plumber clients uses the Ace Hardware in his town a lot because it's more convenient. And once again they aren't going to say Hardware store XYZ is essential but ABC isn't because they will get their asses sued


Regards to #3, using the local store when you hire people is generally more economical for you also. If the plumber has to go on a parts run 30 miles away versus 1 mile, they are not going do it for free. You will have a 50 dollar valve that costs a buck fity.
 

Cyched

CF Influencer
May 8, 2009
30,630
51,022
113
Denver, CO
Is that what Dr. Fauci said - that flattening the curve would possibly prevent the virus from coming back? I don't think he's ever said that, but if he has then I definitely stand corrected. I'd be interested in understanding the logic behind this, so if there is a report or news article where he discusses that I'd like to read it. I'm not asking this to call you out, just trying to learn more.

I agree with what you're saying now - the virus will come back, or more accurately never really leave and it will continue on long term. I'm just saying - flattening the curve is a measure that is meant to limit the damage and spread out cases over time so that our hospitals can keep up. That's all it does. It doesn't eliminate the virus, it just gives us time to implement our next phase of dealing with its effects.

Yeah the virus won’t go away until a vaccine is available. And even then there will be people that don’t get it, so it will still be lingering even then.

My understanding is that flattening/bending/waffle stomping the curve accomplished a few things:

1. Prevents hospitals from being overrun in the short term and limiting the number of unnecessary deaths.

2. Buy time to manufacture equipment and PPE for health care facilities.

3. Buy time to figure out what treatments of existing drugs, antivirals, and other medicine has activity against the virus and allows for treatment that can help with serious cases.

4. Buy time to catch up with testing so we can identify hotspots and perhaps implement targeted isolations

So while flattening the curve doesn’t eliminate the virus, if successful it can help make this situation more manageable until a vaccine is ready
 

Trice

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2010
6,855
11,203
113
So you won’t defend the model but will criticize Reynolds for saying it’s flawed?

I guess I’m not sure which models you are talking about that have been dismantled. I don’t get to watch the press conference very often so I only see bits and pieces.

Again people keep acting like there is some obvious playbook. Frankly there isn’t because this type of outbreak shouldn’t have gotten to where we are at without more planning. The feds got caught with their pants down and therefore the playbook has been thrown out.

You continue to insist on arguing against things I'm not saying in order to make your point. Whether I think the model is good or not is immaterial because it's the model that the government has cited in its decision-making and public communications efforts. If they're going to be using it then it's kind of important that they understand its strengths and weaknesses, work to ensure it is as accurate as possible, and communicate that honestly to the public.

Separate from this model, Reynolds has cited four data points that drive her decisions. I've criticized them for days and the ICPC wrote about them yesterday. I linked to it in my earlier post.
 

Acylum

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2006
12,782
13,113
113
Right right, so when you stay home you not only decrease the spread for that time period, (TRUE)but you also stop the spread from continuing on in the future. (FALSE)Say people are still out, we have a huge spike and hospitals get overrun, and we still don't do anything. That would mean this is still spreading and you could have another peak that ends up overrunning the hospitals later on. (FALSE)

When you flatten the curve, you do spread all of those cases out over a longer timeline, but because people are actively sheltering in place and not spreading this,(FALSE.
If you do truly believe this, it explains your adamant support for SIP at least. It's based on false information, but it does finally explain it.
 

Statefan10

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
May 20, 2019
19,936
24,720
113
You continue to insist on arguing against things I'm not saying in order to make your point. Whether I think the model is good or not is immaterial because it's the model that the government has cited in its decision-making and public communications efforts. If they're going to be using it then it's kind of important that they understand its strengths and weaknesses, work to ensure it is as accurate as possible, and communicate that honestly to the public.

Separate from this model, Reynolds has cited four data points that drive her decisions. I've criticized them for days and the ICPC wrote about them yesterday. I linked to it in my earlier post.
The Wash U model is not perfect, but Reynolds and her team completely throwing it out the window is a bit concerning. If that model ends up being even close to correct, Iowa's elected officials are going to have a ton of questions to answer.
 

AuH2O

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2013
10,957
16,693
113
The U of Washington/IHME model (covid19.healthdata.org) was updated again and now predicts 1,488 deaths for Iowa by August, up from 1,367 yesterday.

Since Trump and Reynolds have now both cited this model, I wanted to read more about its assumptions. This is a long post, but the short version is that Reynolds's claims that the model's assumptions are wrong are...let's be generous and say "misinformed."

Reynolds's comments on the model from today's press conference are in this video from 27:35 to 29:37 (Register coverage here). They downplay the high death count on the grounds that the model's assumptions do not reflect the mitigation efforts we have been undertaking. This is an argument people here have made as well.

Not surprisingly, Reynolds didn't mention that the model assumes all of those mitigation efforts are in full effect within seven days. Whether she didn't know that (a scary thought) or she's just intentionally trying to mislead is anyone's guess. Regardless, in reality the model assumes a fairly small window where the state is not exercising mitigation.

This tweet explains why the projections took such a big jump, from 777 two days ago to 1,367 yesterday. They just simply didn't have the data they needed (or enough data) before. So it appears not to have been a jump at all, so much as previous estimates having been artificially low.

The assumptions built into the model include whether a state has 1) implemented a stay at home order, 2) closed schools, 3) closed non-essential services, and 4) severely limited travel. Reynolds would say we've basically done three of those four things.

But the model's assumptions are based on the New Zealand government alert system, level 4, and it's clear we aren't anywhere near that level. We have no stay at home order with any teeth to it (I'm sorry, but the governor repeatedly begging people does not count when she openly admits she can do more and won't yet). We have not closed nearly enough businesses. And we are doing nothing to restrict travel. The one thing the model's assumptions really does get wrong is that we've closed schools - though oddly even in that instance Reynolds only recommended, not mandated, school closures and thankfully schools complied.

Further, because deaths like this one are not counted in state/official statistics, deaths and hospitalizations are likely undercounted even in the model's data.

The one weakness I can pick up on in these assumptions is that they seem to be a binary choice - a state has either closed almost all businesses, or they all remain open - and we're somewhere in between so the model can't account for that. But again, even those murky conditions only exist for seven days before the model assumes all mitigation efforts are strictly observed.

Reynolds's total failure to understand data, along with those ridiculous metrics she keeps talking about - this story from the Iowa City Press-Citizen details it further - are guiding her decisions. Nobody should be reassured that she knows what she's doing.

Who can you say has actual teeth to their shelter in place? Go to those places with supposed strict measures and it's not hard to find tons of pictures in places like NY with strict orders and there are hundreds of idiots out milling around shoulder to shoulder. Now of course official SIP sets the stage to enforce with some teeth, but nobody's doing it all that well now.

Not saying we shouldn't have SIP in Iowa, but I don't think for practical purposes there is going to be as huge a difference in people being out and about between the current guidance and proclamation of the SiP. Vast majority of businesses are going to be considered essential like they have been elsewhere.
 

Statefan10

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
May 20, 2019
19,936
24,720
113
If you do truly believe this, it explains your adamant support for SIP at least. It's based on false information, but it does finally explain it.
"but you also stop the spread from continuing on in the future"
If you were to stay home as told and you are not spreading this to anyone else, you are therefore breaking off of that chain of spread. You would not give it to someone else, who could potentially give it to someone else, and on and on and on. You say that's false.

To the last point about the hospitals overrunning again, you're right that is false, because at that point, we're already too late to do anything. If you let the hospitals get overrun, all of this was essentially for nothing. We're doing this to not have that happen. If our hospitals do get overrun here in Iowa, some people, including Governor Reynolds will revert to the argument "well imagine if we wouldn't have taken action at all, it would've been much worse! Good job Iowans!".
 

AuH2O

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2013
10,957
16,693
113
The U of Washington/IHME model (covid19.healthdata.org) was updated again and now predicts 1,488 deaths for Iowa by August, up from 1,367 yesterday.

Since Trump and Reynolds have now both cited this model, I wanted to read more about its assumptions. This is a long post, but the short version is that Reynolds's claims that the model's assumptions are wrong are...let's be generous and say "misinformed."

Reynolds's comments on the model from today's press conference are in this video from 27:35 to 29:37 (Register coverage here). They downplay the high death count on the grounds that the model's assumptions do not reflect the mitigation efforts we have been undertaking. This is an argument people here have made as well.

Not surprisingly, Reynolds didn't mention that the model assumes all of those mitigation efforts are in full effect within seven days. Whether she didn't know that (a scary thought) or she's just intentionally trying to mislead is anyone's guess. Regardless, in reality the model assumes a fairly small window where the state is not exercising mitigation.

This tweet explains why the projections took such a big jump, from 777 two days ago to 1,367 yesterday. They just simply didn't have the data they needed (or enough data) before. So it appears not to have been a jump at all, so much as previous estimates having been artificially low.

The assumptions built into the model include whether a state has 1) implemented a stay at home order, 2) closed schools, 3) closed non-essential services, and 4) severely limited travel. Reynolds would say we've basically done three of those four things.

But the model's assumptions are based on the New Zealand government alert system, level 4, and it's clear we aren't anywhere near that level. We have no stay at home order with any teeth to it (I'm sorry, but the governor repeatedly begging people does not count when she openly admits she can do more and won't yet). We have not closed nearly enough businesses. And we are doing nothing to restrict travel. The one thing the model's assumptions really does get wrong is that we've closed schools - though oddly even in that instance Reynolds only recommended, not mandated, school closures and thankfully schools complied.

Further, because deaths like this one are not counted in state/official statistics, deaths and hospitalizations are likely undercounted even in the model's data.

The one weakness I can pick up on in these assumptions is that they seem to be a binary choice - a state has either closed almost all businesses, or they all remain open - and we're somewhere in between so the model can't account for that. But again, even those murky conditions only exist for seven days before the model assumes all mitigation efforts are strictly observed.

Reynolds's total failure to understand data, along with those ridiculous metrics she keeps talking about - this story from the Iowa City Press-Citizen details it further - are guiding her decisions. Nobody should be reassured that she knows what she's doing.

While the model gives a little leeway with the "closed non-essential services" option, it is REALLY sensitive to shelter in place orders and makes that binary. If SIP has to be binary, what do you think reflects Iowa's reality of human traffic better - SIP like other states have implemented, or business as usual?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al_4_State

Statefan10

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
May 20, 2019
19,936
24,720
113
Who can you say has actual teeth to their shelter in place? Go to those places with supposed strict measures and it's not hard to find tons of pictures in places like NY with strict orders and there are hundreds of idiots out milling around shoulder to shoulder. Now of course official SIP sets the stage to enforce with some teeth, but nobody's doing it all that well now.

Not saying we shouldn't have SIP in Iowa, but I don't think for practical purposes there is going to be as huge a difference in people being out and about between the current guidance and proclamation of the SiP. Vast majority of businesses are going to be considered essential like they have been elsewhere.
Any state that has consequences in place for disobeying the rules has teeth. We have guidelines and our Governor is hopeful our citizens will follow them. It's like telling your kids not to do something, they do it, and you don't enforce a punishment.
 

isutrevman

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2007
7,372
9,948
113
36
Ames, IA
Any state that has consequences in place for disobeying the rules has teeth. We have guidelines and our Governor is hopeful our citizens will follow them. It's like telling your kids not to do something, they do it, and you don't enforce a punishment.
I think the majority of people are following the guidelines.
 

agcy68

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2007
2,551
786
113
76
Iowa
"but you also stop the spread from continuing on in the future"
If you were to stay home as told and you are not spreading this to anyone else, you are therefore breaking off of that chain of spread. You would not give it to someone else, who could potentially give it to someone else, and on and on and on. You say that's false.".

I have not seen any model that shows shelter-in-place eliminating the spread completely. It is to flatten the curve, IE delay the spread, not eliminate/stop the spread.

If it stopped the virus completely, everyone would agree to lock themselves up for 2 weeks and be done with it.
 

Acylum

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2006
12,782
13,113
113
I was paraphrasing the Imperial College Study but thank you for your enlightening input.
The best case scenario you refer to in the English study involves more drastic measures than any U.S. state or country that I know of has taken. It is basically extreme shelter in place until every living person can be vaccinated. If that's what you mean by wanting to shelter in place then you're correct in some regards.
 

Statefan10

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
May 20, 2019
19,936
24,720
113
I have not seen any model that shows shelter-in-place eliminating the spread completely. It is to flatten the curve, IE delay the spread, not eliminate/stop the spread.

If it stopped the virus completely, everyone would agree to lock themselves up for 2 weeks and be done with it.
Okay so I'm confused now.. If you don't spread the virus, the virus doesn't jump around, and therefore the virus is kept under control. Right? I mean the reality is that lots of people are going to get this over the next year, but if you nip it in the bud right away, everyone doesn't get it at one time, and then hospitals don't get overrun.

We're not going to eliminate the spread or stop the spread completely, that would only happen if we could put a pause button on everyone for like a month which is not possible.
 

Statefan10

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
May 20, 2019
19,936
24,720
113
The best case scenario you refer to in the English study involves more drastic measures than any U.S. state or country that I know of has taken. It is basically extreme shelter in place until every living person can be vaccinated. If that's what you mean by wanting to shelter in place then you're correct in some regards.
Yeah that was essentially the point of the article. The best way to stop this virus is not possible because it would shut down the world. The second best way is currently what some cities and states are doing. Our state is not at the second best way, rather currently hanging in the middle of the third best and second best. We're not doing nothing, but we're not doing everything possible within reason as well. So when Governor Reynolds says she is doing everything she can, that is simply not true.
 

Acylum

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2006
12,782
13,113
113
"but you also stop the spread from continuing on in the future"
If you were to stay home as told and you are not spreading this to anyone else, you are therefore breaking off of that chain of spread. You would not give it to someone else, who could potentially give it to someone else, and on and on and on. You say that's false.
I'm saying it's false because it is false. Are you saying everybody who practices SAH is suddenly immune?

To the last point about the hospitals overrunning again, you're right that is false, because at that point, we're already too late to do anything. If you let the hospitals get overrun, all of this was essentially for nothing. We're doing this to not have that happen. If our hospitals do get overrun here in Iowa, some people, including Governor Reynolds will revert to the argument "well imagine if we wouldn't have taken action at all, it would've been much worse! Good job Iowans!".
I think at some point we may see tighter restrictions here in Iowa. I'd put the chances at 60-40 to 70-30. However, do you see the benefit in waiting as long as possible to do that? The economical and psychological benefits of trying to shorten the time involved in a SAH situation? You've been clamoring for that for quite a while now, and so far it hasn't been needed. It may very well be needed at some point, but I'm glad we haven't reached that point yet.
 

AuH2O

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2013
10,957
16,693
113
The U of Washington/IHME model (covid19.healthdata.org) was updated again and now predicts 1,488 deaths for Iowa by August, up from 1,367 yesterday.

Since Trump and Reynolds have now both cited this model, I wanted to read more about its assumptions. This is a long post, but the short version is that Reynolds's claims that the model's assumptions are wrong are...let's be generous and say "misinformed."

Reynolds's comments on the model from today's press conference are in this video from 27:35 to 29:37 (Register coverage here). They downplay the high death count on the grounds that the model's assumptions do not reflect the mitigation efforts we have been undertaking. This is an argument people here have made as well.

Not surprisingly, Reynolds didn't mention that the model assumes all of those mitigation efforts are in full effect within seven days. Whether she didn't know that (a scary thought) or she's just intentionally trying to mislead is anyone's guess. Regardless, in reality the model assumes a fairly small window where the state is not exercising mitigation.

This tweet explains why the projections took such a big jump, from 777 two days ago to 1,367 yesterday. They just simply didn't have the data they needed (or enough data) before. So it appears not to have been a jump at all, so much as previous estimates having been artificially low.

The assumptions built into the model include whether a state has 1) implemented a stay at home order, 2) closed schools, 3) closed non-essential services, and 4) severely limited travel. Reynolds would say we've basically done three of those four things.

But the model's assumptions are based on the New Zealand government alert system, level 4, and it's clear we aren't anywhere near that level. We have no stay at home order with any teeth to it (I'm sorry, but the governor repeatedly begging people does not count when she openly admits she can do more and won't yet). We have not closed nearly enough businesses. And we are doing nothing to restrict travel. The one thing the model's assumptions really does get wrong is that we've closed schools - though oddly even in that instance Reynolds only recommended, not mandated, school closures and thankfully schools complied.

Further, because deaths like this one are not counted in state/official statistics, deaths and hospitalizations are likely undercounted even in the model's data.

The one weakness I can pick up on in these assumptions is that they seem to be a binary choice - a state has either closed almost all businesses, or they all remain open - and we're somewhere in between so the model can't account for that. But again, even those murky conditions only exist for seven days before the model assumes all mitigation efforts are strictly observed.

Reynolds's total failure to understand data, along with those ridiculous metrics she keeps talking about - this story from the Iowa City Press-Citizen details it further - are guiding her decisions. Nobody should be reassured that she knows what she's doing.

Also, if you look at the Press-Citizen article it cites the COVIDactnow model as the basis to say Iowa hospitals will be over capacity by late April, their description of shelter in place is very close to what is happening in Iowa. On a continuum between "Shelter in place" and "Delay/distancing" they use, what is currently happening in Iowa is much closer to SIP. Despite idiots being out milling around in Iowa (just like states with SIP), most people are staying home.
I've been pretty well hunkered down and advocating for the same, including telling my employees that they must work from home, even though it is not nearly as productive.
I would like much stronger wording from the governor, and maybe even SIP. But I don't agree with the predictions using "No" in the SIP assumption when reality on the ground in Iowa fits a SIP description much better than the next available option.
 

agrabes

Well-Known Member
Oct 25, 2006
1,665
493
83
The U of Washington/IHME model (covid19.healthdata.org) was updated again and now predicts 1,488 deaths for Iowa by August, up from 1,367 yesterday.

Since Trump and Reynolds have now both cited this model, I wanted to read more about its assumptions. This is a long post, but the short version is that Reynolds's claims that the model's assumptions are wrong are...let's be generous and say "misinformed."

Reynolds's comments on the model from today's press conference are in this video from 27:35 to 29:37 (Register coverage here). They downplay the high death count on the grounds that the model's assumptions do not reflect the mitigation efforts we have been undertaking. This is an argument people here have made as well.

Not surprisingly, Reynolds didn't mention that the model assumes all of those mitigation efforts are in full effect within seven days. Whether she didn't know that (a scary thought) or she's just intentionally trying to mislead is anyone's guess. Regardless, in reality the model assumes a fairly small window where the state is not exercising mitigation.

This tweet explains why the projections took such a big jump, from 777 two days ago to 1,367 yesterday. They just simply didn't have the data they needed (or enough data) before. So it appears not to have been a jump at all, so much as previous estimates having been artificially low.

The assumptions built into the model include whether a state has 1) implemented a stay at home order, 2) closed schools, 3) closed non-essential services, and 4) severely limited travel. Reynolds would say we've basically done three of those four things.

But the model's assumptions are based on the New Zealand government alert system, level 4, and it's clear we aren't anywhere near that level. We have no stay at home order with any teeth to it (I'm sorry, but the governor repeatedly begging people does not count when she openly admits she can do more and won't yet). We have not closed nearly enough businesses. And we are doing nothing to restrict travel. The one thing the model's assumptions really does get wrong is that we've closed schools - though oddly even in that instance Reynolds only recommended, not mandated, school closures and thankfully schools complied.

Further, because deaths like this one are not counted in state/official statistics, deaths and hospitalizations are likely undercounted even in the model's data.

The one weakness I can pick up on in these assumptions is that they seem to be a binary choice - a state has either closed almost all businesses, or they all remain open - and we're somewhere in between so the model can't account for that. But again, even those murky conditions only exist for seven days before the model assumes all mitigation efforts are strictly observed.

Reynolds's total failure to understand data, along with those ridiculous metrics she keeps talking about - this story from the Iowa City Press-Citizen details it further - are guiding her decisions. Nobody should be reassured that she knows what she's doing.

Without knowledge of how this model works, doesn't it seem possible or even likely that the model is highly sensitive to these assumptions? The model assumes that for the next 7 days people will be fully out and about as if nothing was wrong. That seems like a very large opportunity for spread that doesn't truly exist. I can also buy the argument that for models like this you don't know how the true rate of spread is different based on say Wisconsin's quarantine measures vs. Iowa's so adding tons of nuance and different rates is not meaningful so it's better to be overly conservative.

Reading that Press-Citizen article does point out the flaws in Reynolds' current criteria though. If we wait until people start dying in large numbers, it's already too late.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h-man64
Status
Not open for further replies.