Was told that a co-worker tested positive. Has been working from home for 2 weeks. Business is going on as usual.
Coronavirus Coronavirus: In-Iowa General Discussion (Not Limited)
- Thread starter Jeremy
- Start date
- Status
Any shelter in place she puts in place is going to be pretty toothless. You will still see businesses shoehorn themselves into the "essential" criteria. Unless you are willing to clearly define the criteria to being essential, make case-by-case determinations on business that may fall under the criteria, and have strong methods to enforce the criteria, what's the value in calling it a "shelter in place"?
To me, it's a difference without a distinction.
Most essential determinations are following the Dept. of Homeland Security Guidance.
I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying either, but if this were truly just a difference of "mere words" then why wouldn't Reynolds just issue the order and be done with it? Why subject herself to being asked about it on statewide TV every day for weeks? Why the tortured explanation about how we're basically doing the same thing but not calling it that?
That alone suggests the difference is more than mere words.
https://www.cbia.com/resources/coro...tment-homeland-security-essential-industries/
If you look at this publication you can see how truly broad the definition is. I think just about any business that is still operating could attempt to fit those criteria.
And I also just wonder who is going to enforce this. There are thousands of businesses in the State of Iowa. Is the State going to monitor which ones are still operational and argue with them about whether they fit the criteria?
Again, you can look up what different governments are doing as far as classifying essential businesses go. I heard that we are using the governmental list for classifying essential businesses. If your business does not come up under that list.. you shut down or go fully remote. If you qualify, then you can continue on with your business. It's actually not a difficult concept to comprehend, but I understand it would be tough to enforce those businesses that are not going to comply. Different states have been dealing with that as well and there could be lawsuits associated with keeping a business open that does not qualify as essential due to possibly putting workers at risk. So do companies want to go down that road? Maybe some, but most will end up complying.
To the people that try using the argument that this will never work, this will be too hard to enforce, etc. There are literally 45 other states doing this right now. Let's not act like Iowa is going to be the first one to do such a thing, actually it'd be quite the contrary. We're going to be one of the last ones to do such a thing.
While if it were me I’d probably just say fine it’s a shelter in place order I think the issue is it isn’t a true shelter in place order. I don’t think I’m aware of any state that actually has a shelter in place order. States are calling it that but a shelter in place order means to actually shelter in place unless absolutely necessary for your own well being such as food.
Places like Italy more or less have a shelter in place where they flat out can’t leave their house.
Yes that is exactly what they'll do. Just like with bars and restaurants, the state government had discussions with local law enforcements on how to act on such businesses that were not going to comply with their orders. The same would go with these businesses. The government can force you to shut down and then the the business owner would have to make the decision on whether or not he wants to take this to court.
There are other states that have implemented it. That doesn't mean it's some huge success. I would argue their implementation of a "shelter-in-place" looks alot like our implementation of the Governor shutting down businesses on an industry by industry basis. I think the difference of opinion lies in this thought that a "shelter in place" in other states is causing business that were operational to say "well gee, shut it down."
And as I mentioned above, go ahead and read the DHS guidelines and tell me most businesses couldn't shoehorn their way in.
You're just arguing semantics though. If every single state is calling it shelter in place but it's actually not a true shelter in place, then why would the state of Iowa choose to go on the actual meaning of this phrase and issue a full lockdown? Our shelter in place would not be even close to what Italy is doing.
Just out of curiosity, who is going around shutting down these businesses? Who is making a determination of whether they qualify as "essential"? I think we can both agree that there will be many, many industries and businesses that fall into a grey area. Whose going to go around and tell them whether they qualify or not?
So is it the words "shelter in place" you are looking for? I am genuinely confused.
I agree that it's puzzling. There's a lot of perception being fought here, and I don't fully understand her stance of not calling it for what it is. My guess is she doesn't want to create an environment of panic, but I don't see any increased panic in states calling it shelter-in-place.
LOL. I'd like to know how you're quantifying this firstly, and secondly, how does this "relief" help anything.
County / City officials would be the ones that would go around and tell people that. Again you're acting like this isn't happening everywhere and we're the only state that's doing it.
Also, most of the people arguing against this on this site are people who are doing so in the comfortability of their own home. It must feel extremely nice to be able to claim we don't need such a thing when you already qualify under the government's current restrictions.
You can't make specific guidelines though because there are always gray areas.
Various departments are monitoring.
In my mind, enforcement in the present is almost secondary to future legal liability for noncompliance. I don't think anyone has illusions these things can be adequately enforced. Whether it is a governor's plea for people to stay home or a mandated shelter in place order, it's going to rely on the goodwill and cooperation of citizens and businesses in order to work.
But there's zero question that it would force thousands more employees home. Some businesses in the gray area might decide it isn't worth the legal hassle or the hit in public relations to stay open. Parents who are still letting their kids hang out with other kids - of which there are plenty - might reconsider that stance.
But say we find out that one large company turns out to be a major source of transmission because it insisted on remaining open despite having weeks to prepare to send most of its employees home and wouldn't do so. Then a couple of their employees or family members die as a result. You think they want that kind of legal exposure?
Who knows, maybe that is Reynolds' ultimate motivation here...to give companies as much legal cover as possible.
I don't think we really know yet. To be clear, I don't personally know this stuff, other than from what I've read and heard about. I've listened to a number of podcasts with disease experts and evolutionary experts trying to predict this thing. There is a lot of "it could do this" type of predictions, but it's too early on to know for sure. Here are some predictions I remember off the top of my head:
-It could end up like flu viruses and cold viruses where it comes and goes but we never eradicate it. We have varying levels of staggered immunity and a certain % of people get it every year while others don't or still have immunity to it. Hopefully we get a vaccine that also contributes to the herd immunity, but still probably doesn't eradicate it.
-The common cold viruses are also corona viruses. It is believed they evolved over time to be less deadly, so covid-19 might as well. It also might not. From an evolutionary standpoint, viruses don't want to kill their host. They want you to stay alive to spread it as much as possible. A virus that kills people too effectively or too quickly will tend to kill itself off. That's the evolutionary theory anyway. So it's possible it gets slightly weaker over time, I think it's unlikely that it evolves to become more deadly.
-The general belief seems to be that we will have immunity for at least 6-12 months or more just based on how our immune system responds to other viruses. This can also change depending on age. Older people tend to lost the antibodies that create the immunity faster. We obviously wont know for 6-12 months for sure though. I think most experts don't think you'll have a life time immunity, but again, no one really knows.
Just to reiterate, I am not an expert, I'm just repeating things I've heard experts say. I've heard lengthy talks with Amesh Adalja, Nicholas Christakis, Michael Osterholm, Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying to name a few.
- Status