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

[isutrevman]

This is commercial electricians and plumbers, the kind working on job sites, not, I have a problem with my sink. Fixing cars maybe, but they are also still selling new ones.
True Value is a essential businesses during a pandemic, what I have to get my yard ready to mow or need dog treats?

Like I said, it seems that small business is being hurt by this suggestion, and large factories like John Deere and others are doing their own thing.

I am not saying one way is better or necessary, we are past that now, how about we either close it all down for a week or two, or open it back up and try to get back to normal. No more of this half and half.
If I had a vote it would be to close it all down.

Commercial plumbers and electricians along with other construction workers don't necessarily interact with that many people though. They might be working somewhat close to 2-3 other people. That's not a very high risk in my opinion. If it does get transmitted in that situation it's contained to a relatively small number of people. Those aren't office workers working in close quarters to 50-100 people.

 

[Al_4_State]

This map seems to show that overall as a state we aren’t doing bad. It’s not perfect and hard to completely judge when there is a lot of livestock and grain being hauled in this state right now. My small town is pretty much a ghost town except for the grocery stores and gas stations. One of our health clinics even closed until June 1st due to a large number of cancellations. Now people have to drive 20 miles to this companies main clinic if they want to see their doctor.

BUT IOWANS ARENT TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY THEY'RE EVERYWHERE OH MY GOD.

I'm sure the fear porners are on their way to try and shoot this down.

I've been saying since this started that my area shut down very quickly, and has remained heavily shut down. Interesting to see this data back it up. My county was already at average travel of less than 2 miles by March 16th, as were the neighboring ones.

 

[BCClone]

Your confusion is warranted. People saying "stay home so we can get this through this quicker" are being contradictory.

Where that concerns me and don't want that statement said, is when the weather gets better people will get anxious to get outside. If they think it will get over quicker by staying home and they see this keep going, they may think, gee that didn't work so screw it, I'm going out. That is why I think it's fine to say, stay at home to save lives and help the care facilities; don't say you are making this last longer by not staying home.

 

[Urbandale2013]

The U of Washington/IHME model (covid19.healthdata.org) was updated again and now predicts 1,488 deaths for Iowa by August, up from 1,367 yesterday.

Since Trump and Reynolds have now both cited this model, I wanted to read more about its assumptions. This is a long post, but the short version is that Reynolds's claims that the model's assumptions are wrong are...let's be generous and say "misinformed."

Reynolds's comments on the model from today's press conference are in this video from 27:35 to 29:37 (Register coverage here). They downplay the high death count on the grounds that the model's assumptions do not reflect the mitigation efforts we have been undertaking. This is an argument people here have made as well.

Not surprisingly, Reynolds didn't mention that the model assumes all of those mitigation efforts are in full effect within seven days. Whether she didn't know that (a scary thought) or she's just intentionally trying to mislead is anyone's guess. Regardless, in reality the model assumes a fairly small window where the state is not exercising mitigation.

This tweet explains why the projections took such a big jump, from 777 two days ago to 1,367 yesterday. They just simply didn't have the data they needed (or enough data) before. So it appears not to have been a jump at all, so much as previous estimates having been artificially low.

The assumptions built into the model include whether a state has 1) implemented a stay at home order, 2) closed schools, 3) closed non-essential services, and 4) severely limited travel. Reynolds would say we've basically done three of those four things.

But the model's assumptions are based on the New Zealand government alert system, level 4, and it's clear we aren't anywhere near that level. We have no stay at home order with any teeth to it (I'm sorry, but the governor repeatedly begging people does not count when she openly admits she can do more and won't yet). We have not closed nearly enough businesses. And we are doing nothing to restrict travel. The one thing the model's assumptions really does get wrong is that we've closed schools - though oddly even in that instance Reynolds only recommended, not mandated, school closures and thankfully schools complied.

Further, because deaths like this one are not counted in state/official statistics, deaths and hospitalizations are likely undercounted even in the model's data.

The one weakness I can pick up on in these assumptions is that they seem to be a binary choice - a state has either closed almost all businesses, or they all remain open - and we're somewhere in between so the model can't account for that. But again, even those murky conditions only exist for seven days before the model assumes all mitigation efforts are strictly observed.

Reynolds's total failure to understand data, along with those ridiculous metrics she keeps talking about - this story from the Iowa City Press-Citizen details it further - are guiding her decisions. Nobody should be reassured that she knows what she's doing.

You keep acting like the 7 day period where their assumptions are wrong is a non factor. Factoring 7 days of exponential unfettered growth is a lot of growth.

No one knows what the future holds but acting like a model with extreme data flaws is the gospel isn’t really helpful. Maybe it’s numbers are actually correct but it still is a bad model in its current form.

 

[dmclone]

I really hope that Reynolds just caves to the pressure and does a stay at home order. Do this and just keep the same rules in place.

 

[Statefan10]

I really hope that Reynolds just caves to the pressure and does a stay at home order. Do this and just keep the same rules in place.

I've been honestly wondering why she doesn't come out and say that she's keeping the same rules, but is calling this her stay at home order.. I think at this point, she doesn't want to be seen as someone caving into the pressure to do so. She has her data and metrics to follow.

 

[agrabes]

Right right, so when you stay home you not only decrease the spread for that time period, but you also stop the spread from continuing on in the future. Say people are still out, we have a huge spike and hospitals get overrun, and we still don't do anything. That would mean this is still spreading and you could have another peak that ends up overrunning the hospitals later on.

When you flatten the curve, you do spread all of those cases out over a longer timeline, but because people are actively sheltering in place and not spreading this, not only do the hospitals not get overrun, but there would be a low chance of this popping up in a big way later on in the future.

This is the part that I don't believe is accurate. Our current measures aren't going to fully eradicate the virus. Even the most strict measures in place in the US can't kill it. There are still going to be some essential people out and about. Those people will still contract and spread the virus. We also don't have adequate testing to know who does and doesn't have it. This whole outbreak started from a handful of people who were infected in other countries bringing it to the US. If even one person still has the virus after all the quarantine measures end, the virus will be capable of coming back. Short of literally locking everyone in their homes for weeks like China did, we can't actually kill the virus off with quarantine. All we can do is reduce its spread and let the number of cases die down.

So, flattening the curve vs. not flattening the curve does not change whether there will be a peak in the future. Flattening the curve reduces strain on hospitals and reduces the number of people who have the virus to the point that it can hopefully be contained and tracked within individual local outbreaks. Not flattening the curve would bring the peak on faster, theoretically ending this initial pandemic faster but at much greater cost of life.

 

[Statefan10]

You keep acting like the 7 day period where their assumptions are wrong is a non factor. Factoring 7 days of exponential unfettered growth is a lot of growth.

No one knows what the future holds but acting like a model with extreme data flaws is the gospel isn’t really helpful. Maybe it’s numbers are actually correct but it still is a bad model in its current form.

I mean it's actually quite the opposite. We've seen how fast this virus spreads and how many people can die if our hospitals are overrun. We've been behind on almost every single decision because our state as a whole has been been behind on this spread. We're not behind because we're safer, we're behind because we're more rural and it takes longer to spread to those populations.

We're seeing this spread in smaller communities and we're seeing this spread in care facilities which were literally a part of our governor's criteria when making more difficult decisions. She is basically saying "well we want to see if this actually effects our elderly population like they say it will" and she's treating them like canaries in a coal mine.

 

[Cy$]

The U of Washington/IHME model (covid19.healthdata.org) was updated again and now predicts 1,488 deaths for Iowa by August, up from 1,367 yesterday.

Since Trump and Reynolds have now both cited this model, I wanted to read more about its assumptions. This is a long post, but the short version is that Reynolds's claims that the model's assumptions are wrong are...let's be generous and say "misinformed."

Reynolds's comments on the model from today's press conference are in this video from 27:35 to 29:37 (Register coverage here). They downplay the high death count on the grounds that the model's assumptions do not reflect the mitigation efforts we have been undertaking. This is an argument people here have made as well.

Not surprisingly, Reynolds didn't mention that the model assumes all of those mitigation efforts are in full effect within seven days. Whether she didn't know that (a scary thought) or she's just intentionally trying to mislead is anyone's guess. Regardless, in reality the model assumes a fairly small window where the state is not exercising mitigation.

This tweet explains why the projections took such a big jump, from 777 two days ago to 1,367 yesterday. They just simply didn't have the data they needed (or enough data) before. So it appears not to have been a jump at all, so much as previous estimates having been artificially low.

The assumptions built into the model include whether a state has 1) implemented a stay at home order, 2) closed schools, 3) closed non-essential services, and 4) severely limited travel. Reynolds would say we've basically done three of those four things.

But the model's assumptions are based on the New Zealand government alert system, level 4, and it's clear we aren't anywhere near that level. We have no stay at home order with any teeth to it (I'm sorry, but the governor repeatedly begging people does not count when she openly admits she can do more and won't yet). We have not closed nearly enough businesses. And we are doing nothing to restrict travel. The one thing the model's assumptions really does get wrong is that we've closed schools - though oddly even in that instance Reynolds only recommended, not mandated, school closures and thankfully schools complied.

Further, because deaths like this one are not counted in state/official statistics, deaths and hospitalizations are likely undercounted even in the model's data.

The one weakness I can pick up on in these assumptions is that they seem to be a binary choice - a state has either closed almost all businesses, or they all remain open - and we're somewhere in between so the model can't account for that. But again, even those murky conditions only exist for seven days before the model assumes all mitigation efforts are strictly observed.

Reynolds's total failure to understand data, along with those ridiculous metrics she keeps talking about - this story from the Iowa City Press-Citizen details it further - are guiding her decisions. Nobody should be reassured that she knows what she's doing.

That model pushed the peak back until May 1st for Iowa. The average peak in the U.S. is mid-April. Hmm...

 

[aeroclone]

Kind of seems like this shelter in place suggestion is weak at best. Mail is still being delivered, my oldest son the commercial electrician is still working, almost all eating places are still open drive up only. Hobby Lobby is still open, both hardware stores in town are still open. Auto parts stores, car dealerships still open, so outside of small retail stores, just what exactly is closed.

I can see grocery stores and gas stations, but it kind of like, If we have not specifically told you to close, schools, barbershops ect, you can do what you want.

I am in a location that has had a shelter in place order for over a week, and all of these businesses are still going here as well. Even Hobby Lobby.

 

[Trice]

You keep acting like the 7 day period where their assumptions are wrong is a non factor. Factoring 7 days of exponential unfettered growth is a lot of growth.

No one knows what the future holds but acting like a model with extreme data flaws is the gospel isn’t really helpful. Maybe it’s numbers are actually correct but it still is a bad model in its current form.

I'm not arguing the merits of one model vs. another and I'm certainly not endorsing this one over some other source.

This is the one the president and governor have cited and that the governor dismissed on the grounds that the model's assumptions were bad. I'm taking apart her argument, not arguing for the accuracy of the model's predictions.

The governor likes to cite her "data" and "metrics" and the ones she has cited as most valuable to her decision-making process have been thoroughly dismantled by experts. I'm not clear why anyone would think she knows what she's talking about.

 

[Statefan10]

This is the part that I don't believe is accurate. Our current measures aren't going to fully eradicate the virus. Even the most strict measures in place in the US can't kill it. There are still going to be some essential people out and about. Those people will still contract and spread the virus. We also don't have adequate testing to know who does and doesn't have it. This whole outbreak started from a handful of people who were infected in other countries bringing it to the US. If even one person still has the virus after all the quarantine measures end, the virus will be capable of coming back. Short of literally locking everyone in their homes for weeks like China did, we can't actually kill the virus off with quarantine. All we can do is reduce its spread and let the number of cases die down.

So, flattening the curve vs. not flattening the curve does not change whether there will be a peak in the future. Flattening the curve reduces strain on hospitals and reduces the number of people who have the virus to the point that it can hopefully be contained and tracked within individual local outbreaks. Not flattening the curve would bring the peak on faster, theoretically ending this initial pandemic faster but at much greater cost of life.

I mean I'm getting my information from Dr. Fauci and others like him so if you don't believe they are being accurate I don't know what to tell you. The virus will come back, that's a fact. The virus will continue on even after our measures are lifted. How bad this virus comes back is determined on how aggressive we are at the beginning of all of this.

 

[Statefan10]

That model pushed the peak back until May 1st for Iowa. The average peak in the U.S. is mid-April. Hmm...

I honestly don't think Reynolds and her team would care what this model says because it is not what they are using. They have had their system in place that they have been using from the beginning, which are obviously better than the rest of the nations data and metrics, and they are going to stick to them. We'll just have to watch and see how this plays out in the end.

 

[Acylum]

A lot of people are still not taking it seriously. That adds to the spread and also adds to the length of time we're going to continue this. If we continue along these lines and later on open everything back up, most of these measures could have been for little or nothing.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong.

 

[goody2012]

That model pushed the peak back until May 1st for Iowa. The average peak in the U.S. is mid-April. Hmm...

The "flatten the curve" model that everyone has used shows that moving the peak back means mitigation strategies are working, not the opposite. Moving the peak back is a GOOD thing.

 

[Urbandale2013]

I'm not arguing the merits of one model vs. another and I'm certainly not endorsing this one over some other source.

This is the one the president and governor have cited and that the governor dismissed on the grounds that the model's assumptions were bad. I'm taking apart her argument, not arguing for the accuracy of the model's predictions.

The governor likes to cite her "data" and "metrics" and the ones she has cited as most valuable to her decision-making process have been thoroughly dismantled by experts. I'm not clear why anyone would think she knows what she's talking about.

So you won’t defend the model but will criticize Reynolds for saying it’s flawed?

I guess I’m not sure which models you are talking about that have been dismantled. I don’t get to watch the press conference very often so I only see bits and pieces.

Again people keep acting like there is some obvious playbook. Frankly there isn’t because this type of outbreak shouldn’t have gotten to where we are at without more planning. The feds got caught with their pants down and therefore the playbook has been thrown out.

 

[Acylum]

By continuing to not obey the guidelines or enforce more measures, not only does this timeline continue to stretch out, but the peak ends up getting pushed farther into the future as well. Say all these mitigations get lifted in a month but there's no more measures taken here. Because of the long incubation period, many people may not know they have it and will pass it on and it creates another chain. If people are out and about and we start getting back to "normal", the virus would not have been slowed down as much and could pop back up again in another big wave and we could potentially have to start this thing all over again.

That's what that study in England was talking about when showing the 3 different situations that could happen depending on the measures taken. The one showed absolutely no measures taken, the hospitals were overrun very quickly, and a lot of people died. The second measure was what we currently have, the hospitals might still get overrun, but the potential of this popping back up in a big way was incredibly high. The next measure was all of the steps taken, and in about two weeks the curve flattened.

None of this is correct. Absolutely none of it Just stop.

 

[Al_4_State]

None of this is correct. Absolutely none of it Just stop.

Fear Porn is a hell of a drug.

 

[agrabes]

I mean I'm getting my information from Dr. Fauci and others like him so if you don't believe they are being accurate I don't know what to tell you. The virus will come back, that's a fact. The virus will continue on even after our measures are lifted. How bad this virus comes back is determined on how aggressive we are at the beginning of all of this.

Is that what Dr. Fauci said - that flattening the curve would possibly prevent the virus from coming back? I don't think he's ever said that, but if he has then I definitely stand corrected. I'd be interested in understanding the logic behind this, so if there is a report or news article where he discusses that I'd like to read it. I'm not asking this to call you out, just trying to learn more.

I agree with what you're saying now - the virus will come back, or more accurately never really leave and it will continue on long term. I'm just saying - flattening the curve is a measure that is meant to limit the damage and spread out cases over time so that our hospitals can keep up. That's all it does. It doesn't eliminate the virus, it just gives us time to implement our next phase of dealing with its effects.

 

[Acylum]

Yes, you repeated some things I said. I understand that. Many times I like to look at several different scenarios. I will reword it a different way. I kept reading that by flattening the curve we will not have less people get it, but we will just allow hospitals to serve people better. It will push the peak out. I looked at the bell curve and it is flatter but it is pushed out timewise.

So all I'm asking is, by staying home and only going out when needed (which is done to save lives), to flatten the curve; does that actually make the statement that people make saying that by staying home we actually shorten the virus infactual.

Yes. So don't listen to anybody who says otherwise. It's an obvious sign they have no clue what they're talking about. Any projection curve you see, the area underneath each curve is identical, i.e., the exact same number of infections occur. As the curve is flattened, it takes longer to infect that given amount of people, which in turn pushes the peak out later. The only change in the number of deaths that occur in any scenario is when the fixed hospital capacity is exceeded. You've probably seen graphs using hospital beds, ICU beds, ventilators, whatever. That's the hard part to actually predict, as a single hospital serving a large geographical area being overrun can affect the number of deaths in a state that otherwise has sufficient resources in place.