I thought you said 45 other states have SIP. Math is not quite adding up here...
Coronavirus Coronavirus: In-Iowa General Discussion (Not Limited)
- Thread starter Jeremy
- Start date
- Status
I thought you said 45 other states have SIP. Math is not quite adding up here...
A few of the remaining or way too late states didn't have big outbreaks. Several of them were pretty bad per capita (Florida). The number of infections per 100k does not seem to be the driving factor in all states. Like you said, it's something else.
I assume they won't make any moves until they're told from higher powers to do so (and I'll leave it at that). I can't see any other logical reason for their inactivity.
Didn't hear today's presser. Heard schools closed through end of April. Does same apply to restaurant's too?
There's no way to go there without getting political so I'll leave that one alone.
Just taking a guess but some of the data includes territories and DC so there would be more like 60 instead of 50.
Puerto Rico and DC have more Americans than quite a few states so it makes sense to include them.
45 other states have some sort of SIP mandate within their state, whether that be the entire state or portions of their state, such as Missouri. They declared a SIP for multiple counties. 38 states have now done state wide mandates.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
School decisions as in whether or not they're going to reopen? I listened to the entire press conference but thought she was referring to something else..
You thought she would when those two morons tried to publicly shame her? I knew then that they made it worse. You don’t pull that crap publicly. Have the mayors send a letter and you will get somewhere if she would do it for anyone. No matter the party, a stunt like that from the opposing party will delay what you are asking for.
So wait, you are using this metric to criticize a Governor of a state? You can agree that's a totally misleading figure, right? So if the Mayor of Des Moines put a SIL in place it would count towards your figure even though Governor Reynolds would have nothing to do with that?
Why not just say 38 states when you are talking about a statewide order? Well, I know why, because 45 sounds better...
You say this as if they weren't doing that behind the scenes and getting an inadequate response.
It isnt a 'political stunt' to demand the correct actions be taken, publicly if necessary. These are public officials, after all.
Except, as i recall, she has also blocked this from happening at the local level.
Apparently Reynolds stood up a meeting of Democratic legislators a day or two ago. Which is consistent with the way her and her party have governed since assuming power. It's no surprise Democratic concerns fell on deaf ears and they felt like they had to take things into their own hands. They have constituents too.
But we can agree saying "45 states have this order" when talking about whether a state Governor should do this when only 38 Governors have actually acted?
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Good Lord, how obtuse do you have to be in your fight to die on that hill?
- Status