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

Status
Not open for further replies.
As a said before by others, the number of cases and ability for it to spread is going to of course be more prominent in higher density population areas. However, if some of the more rural areas are not cautious, it could be terrible, as they have limited access to much ICU capacity. So I think for rural communities the outcome could be one extreme or the other.

Yeah... from what I've gathered through my rural Iowa friends, they aren't taking social distancing nearly as seriously as they should be. Those rural county hospitals are NOT equipped to handle this.
 
Isn't that ok though? I mean, the whole idea of "flatten the curve" isn't to eliminate the virus, it's to keep the rate of infection consistent, so the number of people requiring hospitalization is consistent and hopefully below the threshold for what hospitals can handle.
Yes I would agree with that.
 
Yes Quaker Oats is essential and must operate but they're an example of how it's continuing to spread in work environments. And how do you suppose cracking down on singular companies? How would that work? Lol the only way for that to happen would be for some sort of mandate.

And I'm not for making people stay in their homes. That's incredibly extreme. That's not how a lot of states are operating. Most allow you to leave for essentials, go on walks / exercise, etc. It's about limiting the amount of people in certain areas. I can guarantee you there are work places that have more than 10+ people interacting with one another.
Because a shelter in place by its nature is to restrictive and frankly doesn’t allow for people to go for walks.

Part of it is a terminology issue but what I think we should do is a targeted order mandating WFH when possible. Enforcing that may be hard but that’s what is needed. It can get those places like your job to stop forcing people to come into the office while not enforcing restrictive policies.
 
Isn't that ok though? I mean, the whole idea of "flatten the curve" isn't to eliminate the virus, it's to keep the rate of infection consistent, so the number of people requiring hospitalization is consistent and hopefully below the threshold for what hospitals can handle.

My question is when do we know when to peel back restrictions if there's data that shows a flattened curve. Doesn't that curve need to stay flat or stay low for quite a while? It can't just be 'well, we had less reported cases 3 days in a row, get back to work!'.

I wish it were that simple.
 
For those of you needing TP, be sure to check out the different dollar stores. They sell out quickly like everywhere else, but sometimes you can get lucky. Also, when driving past places (assuming you're out) look for trucks doing drop-offs. Perfect time to get in.
 
Because a shelter in place by its nature is to restrictive and frankly doesn’t allow for people to go for walks.

Part of it is a terminology issue but what I think we should do is a targeted order mandating WFH when possible. Enforcing that may be hard but that’s what is needed. It can get those places like your job to stop forcing people to come into the office while not enforcing restrictive policies.
I would 100% be all for that. And you're right. I'm probably being a little bit more aggressive due to my current situation. I just don't want to be the one to catch this thing and bring it home to my wife or someone who could end up being hospitalized.
 
My question is when do we know when to peel back restrictions if there's data that shows a flattened curve. Doesn't that curve need to stay flat or stay low for quite a while? It can't just be 'well, we had less reported cases 3 days in a row, get back to work!'.

I wish it were that simple.

It all comes back to widespread testing availability. If you have testing then you have results to respond to. Be it loosening or tightening restrictions. This is a little over simplified but you can isolate/quarantine confirmed individuals and those with negative results can go back to "business as usual". So to speak.
 
My question is when do we know when to peel back restrictions if there's data that shows a flattened curve. Doesn't that curve need to stay flat or stay low for quite a while? It can't just be 'well, we had less reported cases 3 days in a row, get back to work!'.

I wish it were that simple.

Exactly. We really only have two scenarios where we can go back to true "normal life" - a vaccine or that the virus doesn't spread in warm weather like the normal flu. Other than that, we'll be dealing with this in some form or fashion.

And for the people screaming for a shelter in place here. Why? We have controlled the spread of this as best we can and especially compared to other places. Now if we get more data to show its spreading quicker like in NY, then yes let's go to shelter in place. But why now?
 
I would 100% be all for that. And you're right. I'm probably being a little bit more aggressive due to my current situation. I just don't want to be the one to catch this thing and bring it home to my wife or someone who could end up being hospitalized.
I also think it’s important to push back on restrictions to make sure they aren’t to restrictive to people.

I’ve already said I probably get the best outcome by being as restrictive as we can. What is best for me however isn’t always best for society as a whole. We need people pushing on both ends to get the optimal outcome but that’s because we come to some middle ground.
 
It all comes back to widespread testing availability. If you have testing then you have results to respond to. Be it loosening or tightening restrictions. This is a little over simplified but you can isolate/quarantine confirmed individuals and those with negative results can go back to "business as usual". So to speak.

When do we reach a point where it's safe letting negatively tested people head back out though?

I'd think people that show they've developed antibodies would be the better bet for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cytasticlone
Exactly. We really only have two scenarios where we can go back to true "normal life" - a vaccine or that the virus doesn't spread in warm weather like the normal flu. Other than that, we'll be dealing with this in some form or fashion.

And for the people screaming for a shelter in place here. Why? We have controlled the spread of this as best we can and especially compared to other places. Now if we get more data to show its spreading quicker like in NY, then yes let's go to shelter in place. But why now?

I get what you're saying but while there's no proof that it's currently spreading that quickly, there's no proof that it isn't.
 
My question is when do we know when to peel back restrictions if there's data that shows a flattened curve. Doesn't that curve need to stay flat or stay low for quite a while? It can't just be 'well, we had less reported cases 3 days in a row, get back to work!'.

I wish it were that simple.

It all comes back to widespread testing availability. If you have testing then you have results to respond to. Be it loosening or tightening restrictions. This is a little over simplified but you can isolate/quarantine confirmed individuals and those with negative results can go back to "business as usual". So to speak.

Especially if once you've been exposed you have immunity, which they don't have a real grip on yet right now. Herd immunity is considered to take place at around 60% exposure. We are nowhere near that yet.
 
I get what you're saying but while there's no proof that it's currently spreading that quickly, there's no proof that it isn't.
And we don't know if we've curbed the spread of this considering we don't test for people unless they perfectly fit the criteria.
 
I get what you're saying but while there's no proof that it's currently spreading that quickly, there's no proof that it isn't.
Look at the numbers, There is proof. Don't give the time of day to morons who politicize a pandemic.
 
When do we reach a point where it's safe letting negatively tested people head back out though?

I'd think people that show they've developed antibodies would be the better bet for that.

Honestly, I have no idea what that point is. But, if we are able to test, quarantine, trace, and isolate we might be able to start "controlling" or minimizing the spread more easily and some restrictions may be able to be loosened for some. Right now we just don't know and I guess that's my main point. We're being overly cautious because we just don't know and social distancing and isolating the general population is the only way to minimize the spread.
 
Same. I work for Principal, I can WFH, work with super-sensitive info all the time (like, HIPPA stuff, health info, etc), it's double-hyper encrypted whatever. For whatever reason Wells Fargo still likes the "big building" concept, it seems.

Also, we got a notice yesterday that someone with a confirmed case of Coronavirus was in our building, so we've gone from "recommended WFH" to "mandatory WFH" for at least 14 days. Not sure if that's the whole building, or just my group.

Easier to keep the rest of us out, you know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Help Support Us

Become a patron