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

[BCClone]

While the data is really noisy, I think if you look at confirmed cases, number of hospitalizations, and all the data that is available for Iowa and say we may now be below exponential growth. Again, too much noise in the data to be confident, but percent of growth was it's highest I believe on Friday. That's the first thing we are looking for - lowered percent increase of cases. We can handle increased absolute numbers of new cases for a time in most, if not all of Iowa for a while yet. Then obviously by the time we are at hospital capacity we need the absolute number of new cases to be less than those recovering and leaving the hospital.

Again, there's plenty to be alarmed about, but I think there is some reason for a little optimism. We really need to buckle down for these critical next few weeks and make sure everyone does what they can to minimize interaction with people.

I think people hospitalized is a bigger think to track now. People keep saying the more we test the more we will find. We are testing more, and we are finding more. Still at that 6% of tests are positive. Can’t go by positive cases if we test more and that skews the numbers. Those hospitalized won’t matter on how many are tested.

 

[cyclonespiker33]

https://kwwl.com/2020/03/30/state-b...i14-46-7HC4m7xqEPMtwrL-I-G1Tr8KM-9xa00ducYJr4

This model is predicting Iowa will not overload it's capacity if we maintain the current restrictions through the end of April.

So we can't loosen up for awhile, but the people who act like we're sailing into the apocalypse blindfolded just because the governor won't say some magic words aren't getting it.

I'm not sure what the deal is with that article. Everything from their source is much worse than everything said in the article. The article is from yesterday so I'm not sure why the numbers are so different.
https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

 

[ISUAgronomist]

I'm not sure what the deal is with that article. Everything from their source is much worse than everything said in the article. The article is from yesterday so I'm not sure why the numbers are so different.
https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

The model changed over night. Probably had more data come in for the state. Yesterday it had Iowa with less than 200 deaths and now the model is over 700.

 

[cyclonespiker33]

The model changed over night. Probably had more data come in for the state. Yesterday it had Iowa with less than 200 deaths and now the model is over 700.

Seems like a shift of 500 deaths could be reason to implement stricter guidelines...

 

[jkbuff98]

So is this model considering we have closed educational institutions or not ?

 

[Al_4_State]

I do see that model is using some not accurate information to make it's assumptions as well.

It says that Iowa doesn't have closed schools, for example. Well, it's not a state mandate, but literally every school in the state is closed. It says non-essential businesses are not closed. Um - yes, most of them are. It says travel isn't restricted. Maybe not technically, but road traffic has been cut in half.

 

[Al_4_State]

So is this model considering we have closed educational institutions or not ?

It considers our educational institutions open because there wasn't an official state level proclimation.

It seems skewed by semantics.

Every single school educational institution in Iowa has been closed for several weeks.

 

[jkbuff98]

It considers our educational institutions open because there wasn't an official state level proclimation.

It seems skewed by semantics.

Every single school educational institution in Iowa has been closed for several weeks.

that’s what I took from it too

 

[Acylum]

It considers our educational institutions open because there wasn't an official state level proclimation.

It seems skewed by semantics.

Every single school educational institution in Iowa has been closed for several weeks.

It might be a prime example of garbage in, garbage out.

 

[madguy30]

I do see that model is using some not accurate information to make it's assumptions as well.

It says that Iowa doesn't have closed schools, for example. Well, it's not a state mandate, but literally every school in the state is closed. It says non-essential businesses are not closed. Um - yes, most of them are. It says travel isn't restricted. Maybe not technically, but road traffic has been cut in half.

I think the next week will tell us a lot about how things really are, or are going to be.

The numbers in Linn County worry me as that's where my highest concerns are (family).

 

[Trice]

I do see that model is using some not accurate information to make it's assumptions as well.

It says that Iowa doesn't have closed schools, for example. Well, it's not a state mandate, but literally every school in the state is closed. It says non-essential businesses are not closed. Um - yes, most of them are. It says travel isn't restricted. Maybe not technically, but road traffic has been cut in half.

Even if some of the underlying assumptions are wrong, as long as those assumptions were held constant from yesterday to today, then it had to have been some other factor that drove that big shift in numbers. Nobody should take it as gospel but that shift alone is worth watching.

 

[ISUAgronomist]

Even if some of the underlying assumptions are wrong, as long as those assumptions were held constant from yesterday to today, then it had to have been some other factor that drove that big shift in numbers. Nobody should take it as gospel but that shift alone is worth watching.

If you look down further into the the deaths/day, the model is forecasting an odd peak of 11 today and then drop back down. I wonder if the nursing home spread in Cedar Rapids is what shifted the model.

 

[BCClone]

It might be a prime example of garbage in, garbage out.

Many of these models have number of new cases as part of them. Of course the numbers will jump when we test more. So it is a bad metric to use.

 

[Trice]

If you look down further into the the deaths/day, the model is forecasting an odd peak of 11 today and then drop back down. I wonder if the nursing home spread in Cedar Rapids is what shifted the model.

Could be.

And another question for those who are more quantitatively inclined than me. Even if that model is built on some faulty assumptions (like school closures) that might make future results look artificially bad, wouldn't that effect be at least partially offset by the fact that mitigation measures are already in place and (presumably) keeping numbers down in the present and near future?

 

[ISUAgronomist]

Could be.

And another question for those who are more quantitatively inclined than me. Even if that model is built on some faulty assumptions (like school closures) that might make future results look artificially bad, wouldn't that effect be at least partially offset by the fact that mitigation measures are already in place and (presumably) keeping numbers down in the present and near future?

Correct. The model adapts over time to the data that is coming in daily.

 

[Al_4_State]

Even if some of the underlying assumptions are wrong, as long as those assumptions were held constant from yesterday to today, then it had to have been some other factor that drove that big shift in numbers. Nobody should take it as gospel but that shift alone is worth watching.

I don't disagree, and I support the shut down of any currently open yet non-essential business.

My issue is just that the people who are clamoring for a stricter order in Iowa don't seem to realize that the main difference between what they're advocating and the current situation is mere words. The list of what is considered essential is lengthy, and stricter orders won't shut down much more than what is already shut down. On top of that, there's ample evidence from other states with these orders in place that there isn't much enforcement of gathering in public spaces either.

This idea that Kim Reynolds uttering a few more words is the difference between an apocalypse and everything coming up roses seems more grounded in emotion than reality.

Iowa's testing has exploded in the past week, and our case number is going up with it. The rate of positive tests has remained fairly constant too. What this tells me is less that the virus is spreading rapidly, but more that the extent of it's spread is greater than we have data to show. This means we need to continue down the path of relative shut down and heavy social distancing for awhile.

 

[Al_4_State]

I think the next week will tell us a lot about how things really are, or are going to be.

The numbers in Linn County worry me as that's where my highest concerns are (family).

Those include an outbreak in a particular care facility, correct? As unfortunate as that is, it seems easier to contain and shut down spread from.

 

[madguy30]

Those include an outbreak in a particular care facility, correct? As unfortunate as that is, it seems easier to contain and shut down spread from.

Yeah but I think numbers have been going up quickly there as it is.

 

[Statefan10]

I don't disagree, and I support the shut down of any currently open yet non-essential business.

My issue is just that the people who are clamoring for a stricter order in Iowa don't seem to realize that the main difference between what they're advocating and the current situation is mere words. The list of what is considered essential is lengthy, and stricter orders won't shut down much more than what is already shut down. On top of that, there's ample evidence from other states with these orders in place that there isn't much enforcement of gathering in public spaces either.

This idea that Kim Reynolds uttering a few more words is the difference between an apocalypse and everything coming up roses seems more grounded in emotion than reality.

Iowa's testing has exploded in the past week, and our case number is going up with it. The rate of positive tests has remained fairly constant too. What this tells me is less that the virus is spreading rapidly, but more that the extent of it's spread is greater than we have data to show. This means we need to continue down the path of relative shut down and heavy social distancing for awhile.

If we're just arguing over mere words, why wouldn't Reynolds just call what she's doing a shelter in place / stay at home mandate? I mean she technically already answered that question in yesterday's conference in which she essentially said giving such an order could cause Iowans to get scared. That is such a cop out answer honestly. If she wants to dig her feet into the ground on this, she should provide strong reasoning. Display the data that she is using and explain it to those that believe more measures should be taken. Tell everyone that her and her team do not believe it's going to get worse here, that they do not believe any of our hospitals are at risk, and that there is little to no risk for some of these businesses to stay open. She couldn't honestly say all three are true because her models predict this won't peak for two weeks and we're already seeing positive cases in these businesses still open.

She told the public we're not "quite" there yet as far as more measures go. I mean you couldn't be more reactionary than that. From the first week she started putting these out there, we've been inching closer and closer to her making a decision that almost every other state has made. She wants to hold out as long as possible and at this point it looks clear it's for ulterior motives.

 

[Statefan10]

Those include an outbreak in a particular care facility, correct? As unfortunate as that is, it seems easier to contain and shut down spread from.

Outbreaks in care facilities were part of her criteria in making stronger decisions.. 21 cases in those facilities in just Linn County now.