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

[agcy68]

Am I the only one who really doesn't give two ***** about confirmed cases? The daily panic surrounding this number is baffling to me because it's so directly tied to testing. It's not based on some comprehensive survey of the population. We don't know, and may never know, the real number of infections, including those who were infected and recovered with little awareness. Is it reasonable to believe that a highly contagious virus in a connected society hasn't infected thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, in a state of 3.2 million?

I'm much more interested in the number of hospitalizations and deaths. Those are real numbers, as is the total population. So, in a state of 3.2 million, we have 3 dead (0.0001%) and 32 hospitalized (0.001%). Forgive my lack of panic over "confirmed cases."

In addition, I watch the number of new patients in hospitals. In the end, IMO, if we are trying to protect hospitals from being overrun, that is the number (growth) to watch.

 

[ClonesTwenty1]

64 new cases in Iowa today. Just keeps going up.

 

[BCClone]

64 new cases in Iowa today. Just keeps going up.

Not a big difference, but 63.

EDIT: Bigger number is 46 hospitalized. Running about 20% of the positive tests are being hospitalized at some point.

 

[psychlone99]

Had anyone seen a daily new and active hospitalizations figure for Iowa reported consistently anywhere? I've only seen this reported sporadically in various media reports.

 

[madguy30]

Had anyone seen a daily new and active hospitalizations figure for Iowa reported consistently anywhere? I've only seen this reported sporadically in various media reports.

I wonder if it's kinda hard to track...like maybe someone's only there for 2 days and then told to quarantine at home if they improved.

 

[BCClone]

Had anyone seen a daily new and active hospitalizations figure for Iowa reported consistently anywhere? I've only seen this reported sporadically in various media reports.

Kinda have to remember the day before number off the Iowa site. It was either 32 or 36 yesterday.

 

[CloneGuy8]

Not a big difference, but 63.

EDIT: Bigger number is 46 hospitalized. Running about 20% of the positive tests are being hospitalized at some point.

Isn't Iowa only testing people showing more serious signs of this? I think that's why the hospital rate seems high

 

[jdcyclone19]

Had anyone seen a daily new and active hospitalizations figure for Iowa reported consistently anywhere? I've only seen this reported sporadically in various media reports.

https://coronavirus.iowa.gov/

that site is about as good as it gets.

 

[isuno1fan]

64 new cases in Iowa today. Just keeps going up.

Again...we were told to expect that and it makes sense.

Isn't Iowa only testing people showing more serious signs of this? I think that's why the hospital rate seems high

Actually....isn't 20% of positives about what has been seen globally? 80% mild, 20% serious, 5% critical?

 

[jdcyclone19]

Not a big difference, but 63.

EDIT: Bigger number is 46 hospitalized. Running about 20% of the positive tests are being hospitalized at some point.

As another posted stated, this is mostly due to the test methodology used so far.

 

[jsb]

Not a big difference, but 63.

EDIT: Bigger number is 46 hospitalized. Running about 20% of the positive tests are being hospitalized at some point.

Which means we aren't testing enough which means we should not open things up.

 

[BCClone]

Isn't Iowa only testing people showing more serious signs of this? I think that's why the hospital rate seems high

To my knowledge. I agree the percentage is irrelevant. The daily increases mean more. IIRC yesterday was 32/36 hospitalized so that would mean 14/10 more than yesterday.

 

[Cyched]

Kansas has issued a stay at home. At this point I'm expecting it in Reynolds's presser tomorrow

 

[BCClone]

Which means we aren't testing enough which means we should not open things up.

So.......you think if we test more, we will have more hospitalized? I disagree with that. I believe the hospitilization (if thats a word) is more important than number of positive tests.

 

[ClonesTwenty1]

Kansas has issued a stay at home. At this point I'm expecting it in Reynolds's presser tomorrow

Not happening

 

[ISUAgronomist]

Kansas has issued a stay at home. At this point I'm expecting it in Reynolds's presser tomorrow

You'll be disappointed. Everything that would be closed under "stay at home" is already in place in Iowa.

 

[isuno1fan]

Kansas has issued a stay at home. At this point I'm expecting it in Reynolds's presser tomorrow

Pretty much what we already have in place. I don't see the point.

 

[ClonesTwenty1]

You'll be disappointed. Everything that would be closed under "stay at home" is already in place in Iowa.

She could order it and say the only reason you can leave your house is for essential needs.

 

[jsb]

So.......you think if we test more, we will have more hospitalized? I disagree with that. I believe the hospitilization (if thats a word) is more important than number of positive tests.

No. I'm saying if we tested more we would know who had it and where the hot spots were.

 

[madguy30]

So.......you think if we test more, we will have more hospitalized? I disagree with that. I believe the hospitilization (if thats a word) is more important than number of positive tests.

More positive tests will be useful if we're ever able to know how immune people are after imo. I'm not sure how they can even track that though.

The word of people testing positive twice is bad, but we also don't know then how bad their symptoms were the second time around, how contagious they are, etc.