Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Jeremy, Mar 12, 2020.
Make sure you get a prince albert too. Don’t half ass it.
Yes the Prince Albert is very important don’t forget to get that!!
Kind of seems like this shelter in place suggestion is weak at best. Mail is still being delivered, my oldest son the commercial electrician is still working, almost all eating places are still open drive up only. Hobby Lobby is still open, both hardware stores in town are still open. Auto parts stores, car dealerships still open, so outside of small retail stores, just what exactly is closed.
I can see grocery stores and gas stations, but it kind of like, If we have not specifically told you to close, schools, barbershops ect, you can do what you want.
Reading articles about ventilators. Illinois wanting as many as New York. Suppose to have 9400 good ventilators and 2100 that need work. I understand NY getting 4000. One concern I had about being a later developing concern state is that others (like Illinois requested) would try to hoard critical things and we would be scrambling.
Looks like the Suck Cut!
Just shave it. No one's going to see you for another month. It'll grow back by then.
Article in Gazette this morning says UofI hospital currently has 6 inpatients with Covid19 , they have had a total of 14 . Also said they are ordering their own tests that can be done there but that they currently have an adequate amount of tests to deal with symptomatic patients . Said they have tested over a thousand with about 7% positive
I agree it’s week in the sense it isn’t a shelter in place but the only thing you listed that shouldn’t be essential is Hobby Lobby. All of those other places need to really stay open. Hardware stores need to stay open so people can fix their homes. Electricians and plumbers need to be able to fix their things for people. Car places need to be open to fix cars for people who still need to drive.
Yes, this is a weak shelter in place.. It's actually one of the weakest approaches in the entire nation. There are plenty of businesses that are still open that are entirely non-essential. Obviously, there are businesses that need to stay open due to the supply chain, like Governor Reynolds talked about, but this current order is watered down.
A lot of people are still not taking it seriously. That adds to the spread and also adds to the length of time we're going to continue this. If we continue along these lines and later on open everything back up, most of these measures could have been for little or nothing.
Yeah those types of places will continue to stay open. We're not going to close everything, because frankly we don't need to. But we do need to close businesses that are truly not essential.
This got me to thinking some on the length of it with people out and about. Aren't we trying to get people to stay at home to keep the spread from hitting as fast so the hospitals don't get overloaded. People have talked that we will all probably get this to some level, so wouldn't that mean that people being out and about may actually shorten the timeframe?
I think people shouldn't go out any more than they need to, but it got me thinking that the statement that people not obeying will make the situation longer may actually be false.
So yesterday, Nevada issued a formal stay at home order. Before, it was merely informal and pertained mostly to Las Vegas, but it now covers the entire state.
12 states are left that have not issued a formal stay at home order for the entire state, while 5 states have yet to issue a formal stay at home order for any portion of the state. Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and Arkansas are those 5 states.
If there is a shorter time frame, that means more people got it at one time, hospitals have an increased potential of being overrun, and more people die from the virus or because they were not able to be properly treated.
By continuing to not obey the guidelines or enforce more measures, not only does this timeline continue to stretch out, but the peak ends up getting pushed farther into the future as well. Say all these mitigations get lifted in a month but there's no more measures taken here. Because of the long incubation period, many people may not know they have it and will pass it on and it creates another chain. If people are out and about and we start getting back to "normal", the virus would not have been slowed down as much and could pop back up again in another big wave and we could potentially have to start this thing all over again.
That's what that study in England was talking about when showing the 3 different situations that could happen depending on the measures taken. The one showed absolutely no measures taken, the hospitals were overrun very quickly, and a lot of people died. The second measure was what we currently have, the hospitals might still get overrun, but the potential of this popping back up in a big way was incredibly high. The next measure was all of the steps taken, and in about two weeks the curve flattened.
This map seems to show that overall as a state we aren’t doing bad. It’s not perfect and hard to completely judge when there is a lot of livestock and grain being hauled in this state right now. My small town is pretty much a ghost town except for the grocery stores and gas stations. One of our health clinics even closed until June 1st due to a large number of cancellations. Now people have to drive 20 miles to this companies main clinic if they want to see their doctor.
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.
Yes, you repeated some things I said. I understand that. Many times I like to look at several different scenarios. I will reword it a different way. I kept reading that by flattening the curve we will not have less people get it, but we will just allow hospitals to serve people better. It will push the peak out. I looked at the bell curve and it is flatter but it is pushed out timewise.
So all I'm asking is, by staying home and only going out when needed (which is done to save lives), to flatten the curve; does that actually make the statement that people make saying that by staying home we actually shorten the virus infactual.
Lastly Doctors weighed in on if Iowans are doing enough to flatten the curve. "We have much more people out than we should be. The chain of transmittion is invisible and the chain can only be cut if we shelter in home," said Dr. Rosa.
Hmmmm I wonder why people would be out and about more than they should be..
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.
Your confusion is warranted. People saying "stay home so we can get this through this quicker" are being contradictory.
Right right, so when you stay home you not only decrease the spread for that time period, but you also stop the spread from continuing on in the future. 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.
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, not only do the hospitals not get overrun, but there would be a low chance of this popping up in a big way later on in the future.