Maybe. I have no idea why they have a gap. If you were at a hospital and now out, you would be discharged. My thoughts are you are never hospitalized if sick at home. I have no idea how they are doing it.
Coronavirus Coronavirus: In-Iowa General Discussion (Not Limited)
- Thread starter Jeremy
- Start date
- Status
I think that's the biggest thing with SIP. While I think Iowa is pretty close to operation like most states that have SIP, there are plenty of hangers on with the above attitude. Granted it will be surprising just how many places of work continue to operate business as usual because they are on the essential list explicitly or support operations of businesses on the list. For practical purposes it shouldn't or doesn't change a whole lot for most people, but if SIP makes those last idiots to take it more seriously and provide some enforcement avenue for some of the stupidity, then it makes sense.
Obviously we need to listen to the Fauci's of the world. Fauci is the man. However, I do think when he talks about states that don't have SIP like Iowa he suggests we are operating close to business as usual, and that simply isn't the case. From what I have read and heard, I don't see there being much difference at the macro level in terms of how much people are actually interacting.
Last edited:
Not too difficult to understand why it matters that she officially declares stay at home or shelter in place. Strongly recommending people work from home and keep safe social distance isn't enough. People are still being expected to go to their non essential jobs and if they refuse work opportunity, they can't get unemployment. Simply being afraid of contracting COVID-19 isn't a good enough reason to not work (? 15 in the link) so it's either work and put yourself at risk, don't work and hope you can get by without making money, or lie on your weekly unemployment questionnaire and hope you don't get caught. I've seen posters here saying to call and report employers who aren't essential and still having employees work. Shouldn't be necessary for people to jump through a bunch of hoops that will probably lead nowhere when the governor could say two sentences and solve the problem.
https://www.iowaworkforcedevelopmen...tent-files/UI Worker_COVID-19 QA 04.02.20.pdf
https://www.iowaworkforcedevelopmen...tent-files/UI Worker_COVID-19 QA 04.02.20.pdf
I wonder if they test those people before they discharge them? If so, they may have people getting double hits? I guess maybe I’m trying too hard to get their stuff to add up.
In an early post I said I could find an "essential" definition for about any industry, but I'm not sure I can come up with something for a screen printer.
I'm beyond the point of arguing about an SIP. Do it and provide penalties. May not do a ton in the long run, but maybe it'll weed out some people like this.
REMINDER: Please keep this thread as non-political as possible. I will be the first to admit that is very difficult given the subject, stresses, and emotions of the time... but it will help all of us be able to share thoughts, concerns, and ideas without having to move to less robust threads.
Again there isn’t evidence that the words would actually change anything. You’ve already seen the people working at those types of places talk about their employer changing their mind and coming up with a way to justify them as essential. At this point it isn’t a recommendation it is a requirement that is worded like a request. Probably incredibly stupid to word it like that but if you are still working and shouldn’t then you need to let people know so the government can take action.
How do you know the tests were done yesterday? The tests number means results learned yesterday from tests done sometime in the past. It's not semantics if you want to use it for justification of something or other.
@madguy30 already brought this up and I mentioned that was true and to disregard what I said. Without immediate test results, we truly cannot get a daily positive percentage. Weekly is more accurate.
Your continued insistence on this point does not make it true. And this idea that people are going to rat out their employers to the government, or that the government would do anything about it if they did, is fantasy.
We, myself included, are so anxious to find someone who agrees with us that often we fail to step back, even figuratively, and read thoroughly and with an unbiased attitude. Reacting immediately to a statement or a Twitter post or trying to be the first to share what someone else has said really doesn't help inform this conversation. I would encourage everyone to read and think with an open mind and post after some thought, but I don't think it would matter.
Your continued insistence on the other side isn’t any different. I’ve already said I would just call it a shelter in place to appease people. We’ve seen direct evidence of people trying to argue their way as essential. The only way we actually solve that is investigating allegations of improper classification.
My company specifically says they’re following the governors recommendations. What kind of action is the government going to take if they’re not willing to take a quick and simple step that could influence companies like mine? Saying it won’t make a difference so there’s no point doesn’t make sense to me. There’s no real downside to her saying ok we’re officially shelter in place and could convince some people to wake up and take this seriously. Right now companies can get away with it but might think differently about defying an actual official order. There will still be employers who think they’re special and can do whatever they want but I have no doubt it would make a difference for some of us.
There are many people in this and other threads who have said their employers are waiting on such an order before they will be sent home. There's ample evidence of it out there. I'm sorry you choose not to see it.
Nobody is going to be investigated when there is no mandate for them to stay home. Hell, they probably won't be investigated when there is a mandate.
I don't understand your bizarre fixation with this verbiage that you're willing to twist yourself in a pretzel to defend even as you concede that the governor should do the opposite of what you're defending.
I would like her to "dial up" her mitigation process as she likes to put it, and I could care less what she calls this. With that being said, if her current order is the exact same as a SIP or SAH, why would she not just name it that? It's certainly interesting.
- Status