I was paraphrasing the Imperial College Study but thank you for your enlightening input.None of this is correct. Absolutely none of it Just stop.
I was paraphrasing the Imperial College Study but thank you for your enlightening input.None of this is correct. Absolutely none of it Just stop.
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.
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.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.
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
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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 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.
"but you also stop the spread from continuing on in the future"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.
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.
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.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.
I think the majority of people are following the guidelines.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.
"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.".
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.I was paraphrasing the Imperial College Study but thank you for your enlightening input.
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.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.
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.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.
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."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!".
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.
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.