We should test as many as possible but sets of test run with different criteria should be interpreted differently. If 90% of those are asymptotic it should be interpreted differently than if 10% of them are asymptotic.
Coronavirus Coronavirus: In-Iowa General Discussion (Not Limited)
- Thread starter Jer
- Start date
- Status
Which is a little mind boggling. Testing that many people in a general group gives that much more good info on what kind of % we're looking at for cases in real time.
And then relaying that information can help to give a base for where things are, and where they need to get to potentially actually open up a bit more. You could also get an idea for what kind of space was available to work in, if a specific amount of space was less risky, etc.
Color me doubtful, but I sort of doubt they are testing people with no symptoms at Tyson's.
Yes, it may give good info on herd immunity. If 10% (pulling numbers out of the air) showed signs but 70% tested positive. It could show we have 7X the amount of people who show positive tests with it, and can most likely ratchet that number up for those who have recovered and have antibodies but never showed symptoms. While this is not a good situation at these plants, it may give us some useful data possibly.
- Linn, 63
- Marshall, 42
- Polk, 40
- Scott, 36
- Washington, 35
- Louisa, 35
- Muscatine, 31
- Tama, 28
- Black Hawk, 26
- Johnson, 20
Yeah and it's also a good chance to let the general public know where they stand and what the next steps are.
Seems like some easy questions for one of our local journalist to ask. Unfortunately, I'm certain we'll get "for privacy reasons....XYZ" or "well, right now all we have is the number of positive tests and that data hasn't been communicated to us (or analyzed yet)".
In my opinion, the number of reported cases is next to meaningless. I would be shocked if the actual number of cases is not at least 10x higher than the report number. Pay attention to the number of deaths and the number of hospitalizations. Those aren't perfect either but will give a better interpretation to how much the virus is still spreading.
I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that 2-3% of people in Iowa have had, or currently have the virus. That's around 60,000.
I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that 2-3% of people in Iowa have had, or currently have the virus. That's around 60,000.
2 weeks after the case count starts to drop according to Federal recommendations. Probably extended to mid May to start.
With all these plants and care facilities getting nailed, it could be quite some time before we consistently see drops here.
The Waterloo plant and the Columbus Jct plant are both 50+ miles from Linn Co.
The most likely answer is an unannounced outbreak at a different plant in CR.
I think Memorial Day becomes the target - extending it past May becomes untenable.
If cases keep going up or don’t decline by Memorial Day, you can’t just say **** it and open it all up at once. I’m guessing there will be a good amount of states that keep things shutdown through June.
correct. The problem being that the federal guidance on”reopening” is tied to confirmed cases, which disincentives ramped up testing, which is needed and will undoubtedly find more cases that were previously not detected.
that added to the political pressure from DC to reopen is a bad combination that doesn’t encourage the needed actions.
- Status
