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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think Reynolds has done a great job, but don't think she's done a terrible job.

My question to those who are adamant that she has done a poor job, give me three states that you believe we should model our approach off of.

Also, give me three other states that are doing a terrible job in your opinion.
I’d model off what Maryland and Virginia have recently done
 
I don't think Reynolds has done a great job, but don't think she's done a terrible job.

My question to those who are adamant that she has done a poor job, give me three states that you believe we should model our approach off of.

Also, give me three other states that are doing a terrible job in your opinion.
I think Florida and Louisiana botched this by not taking it seriously right away.
 
Percentage of tests that come back positive in Iowa
497 positive
6,888 negative

7.2%92.8%
Last updated at 11:24 a.m. on March 29.


SOURCE: Iowa Department of Public Health

Can someone explain to me how this comes out to 7.2% positives? I'm getting 6.7.
Pretty awesome that our dept of health doesn't know how percentages work.
 
At the very least, why doesn’t Reynolds shelter in place the counties of linn, Johnson and Polk?
Reynolds said she wants all of Iowa together on this. Complete unity. I think she’s probably afraid if those counties shutdown it’ll cause a domino effect.
 
I don't think Reynolds has done a great job, but don't think she's done a terrible job.

My question to those who are adamant that she has done a poor job, give me three states that you believe we should model our approach off of.

Also, give me three other states that are doing a terrible job in your opinion.

You guys are pointing these questions in the wrong direction. It is not my job to solve the governor's problems any more than it is my job to fix the offensive line. I still know a bad one when I see it.

Reynolds can not, after three weeks with near-daily press conferences, coherently articulate her decision-making process. She deferred shelter in place authority to mayors only to take it back days later when she learned she was wrong. When she finally revealed her vaunted "metrics" they were insanely simplistic and backward-looking in nature. When asked basic questions she responds in three-minute non-answers.

My question all along has been what Reynolds knows that almost every other governor, medical expert, or economist doesn't know about how this crisis will impact Iowa that has led her to make decisions contrary to every recommendation. And thus far not a single person, least of all Reynolds herself, has anything approaching an answer.
 
I’d model off what Maryland and Virginia have recently done


What is it that you like about Maryland? Is it that the governor told people to stay at home? I listened to his press conference from yesterday and the way it sounds, it has gotten into a couple of their nursing home and crap is hitting the fan there. Looking at their schedule of directives, they have been a few days to a week infront of us for everything they have done. I just looked at the first one you had, busy cleaning up supper while doing this.
 
I’d rather us not die all together, but survive this all together.
I want us to take the correct steps in all of this. I see other states doing that and believe we should follow suit. I do not think we are all going to die if she doesn’t do this though. I just think she’s being too reactionary and is being too optimistic that our state will be fine in the end and because we’re Iowa and a rural state, our citizens will act in the best interests of each other by following her recommendations.

I just don’t think she understands that people aren’t following her recommendations and she needs to be more strict on what she’s telling people.

I think there’s a middle ground between “everyone will die if we don’t do something” and “she’s going to lock everyone inside their homes”. We shouldn’t go to extremes. Being proactive doesn’t have to be extreme.
 
To make your point even stronger, you should list all the hospitals that are overrun and the number of deaths it has resulted in.

We don't know if that's going to happen or not though.

If it does, should there have been more of a directive?
 
I don't think Reynolds has done a great job, but don't think she's done a terrible job.

My question to those who are adamant that she has done a poor job, give me three states that you believe we should model our approach off of.

Also, give me three other states that are doing a terrible job in your opinion.

The model is obviously Ohio.

I think Washington is a good model as well.

Florida is garbage.
 
We don't know if that's going to happen or not though.

If it does, should there have been more of a directive?
Yes. Whether or not it would have made a difference. If it doesn't, will the adamant SIPers admit Reynolds played things correctly?
 
There's also no reason whatsoever to not cancel school for the remainder of this year as well right now.

Why even pretend that you think kids will be back in school this year? Nobody in their right mind believes that. Opening schools back up would be one of the worst things we could do this spring. We'd all but guarantee that this virus comes back with another strong peak again.
 
Yes. Whether or not it would have made a difference. If it doesn't, will the adamant SIPers admit Reynolds played things correctly?
No, I’d honestly view it as she gambled / guessed and ended up coming out on the right side of things.

If you make a stupid bet in black jack, even when the book tells you otherwise, and win, I’m not going to praise you and say you were right.

I’d rather be wrong and error on the side of caution than not take precautions and it resulting in a hospital catastrophe that could possibly lead to more deaths that could’ve been prevented from using models that 45 other states currently have in place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Help Support Us

Become a patron