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

Status
Not open for further replies.
There were grades that were posted for each state and how they're handling testing. Iowa got a D, along with 3 or 4 other states. So we've been one of the worst states so far regarding that. I read somewhere that many states are not far behind New York as far as "the curve" goes, and the inadequate testing Iowa has done so far is just going to continue us down that path.

I wonder how much the crowding on the subway system affects their numbers? Seems like that's a wonderful way to spread infections. Similar to an airplane.
 
There were grades that were posted for each state and how they're handling testing. Iowa got a D, along with 3 or 4 other states. So we've been one of the worst states so far regarding that. I read somewhere that many states are not far behind New York as far as "the curve" goes, and the inadequate testing Iowa has done so far is just going to continue us down that path.
Is there a link to that? Trying to keep politics out but I’m not a fan of the governor but thought we’ve done a good job.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: aauummm
Is there a link to that? Trying to keep politics out but I’m not a fan of the governor but thought we’ve done a good job.

It's weird that they've done grading like that...everyone imo is collectively behind on this.

I'm hopeful for the next month or so for testing to ramp up.
 
Is there a link to that? Trying to keep politics out but I’m not a fan of the governor but thought we’ve done a good job.


I'm not saying this is our Governor's fault either. I'm sure getting tests and reporting them is much harder than simply asking for more.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: aauummm
There were grades that were posted for each state and how they're handling testing. Iowa got a D, along with 3 or 4 other states. So we've been one of the worst states so far regarding that. I read somewhere that many states are not far behind New York as far as "the curve" goes, and the inadequate testing Iowa has done so far is just going to continue us down that path.

How are we supposed to do more testing if we don't have the ******* tests?

EDIT: I'm not a fan of the governor's either, but I highly doubt we're sitting on a pile of tests and going "NAH".
 
I wonder how much the crowding on the subway system affects their numbers? Seems like that's a wonderful way to spread infections. Similar to an airplane.
Yeah I'd assume NYC's numbers are going to keep increasing exponentially due to that.. That's why their governor is highly considering a shelter in place protocol for the entire state.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: cowgirl836
How are we supposed to do more testing if we don't have the ******* tests?

EDIT: I'm not a fan of the governor's either, but I highly doubt we're sitting on a pile of tests and going "NAH".

I don't know how many times I had to explain this to my dad (no internet for him, lack of information in general outside of local news and rural word of mouth). I told him how I was directed to self quarantine, and he couldn't understand why if I didn't test positive, why I can't still go out and about or why I can't just go get tested.

If only it were that easy.
 
I would assume not reporting = not having the tests to report, which may not be our fault at all if we're not receiving enough tests.

I recall seeing those state grades and it wasn't just about availability of tests, it was also based on accuracy of results (false positives, etc). So perhaps some states are better at administering the tests than others.

I would argue the state's response has been poor even aside from the testing debacle, but I won't belabor that in this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Statefan10
Let's say we had 200 million tests available tomorrow (or last week).

You have symptoms and you go to the hospital/drive up for a test. A few days later you find out you're positive so you self quarantine.

You have symptoms and you go to the hospital/drive up for a test. A few days later you find out you're negative. So at this point do you just live your life as normal or also quarantine?

If you have no symptoms, I assume you don't take the test? So at this point do you just live your life as normal or also quarantine? Or do you take the test today and if it shows that you're negative, do you just live your life normally even though you could get it tomorrow?

It sounds like kids rarely show symptoms that warrant a test but they are carriers. What to do with them?

Lets say the test show that 5% of the people being tested are positive. Is this a good number? What about 1%? 20%. Doesn't it make a difference on who is actually getting tested?

Also, we have no way to track people that have this.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: isutrevman
I wonder how much the crowding on the subway system affects their numbers? Seems like that's a wonderful way to spread infections. Similar to an airplane.

Yeah, Montana could probably do the least and still come out ahead of NY. Damn, trying to deal with this in NYC is going to be the worst regardless of a response plan. I mean, how could it not?
 


I'm not saying this is our Governor's fault either. I'm sure getting tests and reporting them is much harder than simply asking for more.

She has said that private testing companies are not required to share number of tests, only positive tests.
I'm assuming she could mandate that they share all tests completed though. Agree with you that is probably easier said than done.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Statefan10
Let's say we had 200 million tests available tomorrow (or last week).

You have symptoms and you go to the hospital/drive up for a test. A few days later you find out you're positive so you self quarantine.

You have symptoms and you go to the hospital/drive up for a test. A few days later you find out you're negative. So at this point do you just live your life as normal or also quarantine?

If you have no symptoms, I assume you don't take the test? So at this point do you just live your life as normal or also quarantine? Or do you take the test today and if it shows that you're negative, do you just live your life normally even though you could get it tomorrow?

It sounds like kids rarely show symptoms that warrant a test but they are carriers. What to do with them?

Lets say the test show that 5% of the people being tested are positive. Is this a good number? What about 1%? 20%. Doesn't it make a difference on who is actually getting tested?

Also, we have no way to track people that have this.
In theory, you test everyone regardless of symptoms.
If it comes back positive, those people quarantine for 2 weeks. Then they aren't spreading it around.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: isutrevman
South Korea figured this out. It could be done with competent leadership.
South Korea had extreme measure in place already including the ability to track people's movement through their cell phones and security cameras throughout cities. Basically, every time someone tested positive, they tracked their phone GPS records of everywhere they had been and tried to find everyone they came in contact with and forced all those people into quarantine. It's not some simple procedure. I don't believe the U.S. government could even do what they are doing from a legal, constitutional standpoint. I'm guessing most of their citizens also followed the guidelines they were told unlike 50% of the U.S. population seem to be doing.

I've read that Singapore had similar systems in place, but they are on the verge of not being able to keep up with the spread any longer and may have to go into shut downs like most other countries.
 
In theory, you test everyone regardless of symptoms.
If it comes back positive, those people quarantine for 2 weeks. Then they aren't spreading it around.

Yeah kind of an organized sort of herd immunity just the other way around.

But problems with getting everyone tested, and then keeping those that do test positive to oblige pose more problems. There's a few stories out there of positively tested still going out.

upload_2020-3-19_10-37-24.jpeg
 
  • Agree
Reactions: DSMCy
Let's say we had 200 million tests available tomorrow (or last week).

You have symptoms and you go to the hospital/drive up for a test. A few days later you find out you're positive so you self quarantine.

You have symptoms and you go to the hospital/drive up for a test. A few days later you find out you're negative. So at this point do you just live your life as normal or also quarantine?

If you have no symptoms, I assume you don't take the test? So at this point do you just live your life as normal or also quarantine? Or do you take the test today and if it shows that you're negative, do you just live your life normally even though you could get it tomorrow?

It sounds like kids rarely show symptoms that warrant a test but they are carriers. What to do with them?

Lets say the test show that 5% of the people being tested are positive. Is this a good number? What about 1%? 20%. Doesn't it make a difference on who is actually getting tested?

Also, we have no way to track people that have this.
South Korea's curve says ask them. They tested extensively and flattened the curve like no other nation thus far.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: BigCyFan
Status
Not open for further replies.

Help Support Us

Become a patron