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

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are a handful of businesses/industries that would be affected by the formal SIP order. She must have big donors in those industries.

That's all I can come up with. Because we are at 95% of SIP right now, but no one realizes it, so the optics are absolutely terrible. People outside of Iowa have lumped us in with places where nothing is shut down. That's not accurate, at all.

There's a reason Reynolds is absolutely refusing to indulge these semantics, and all that makes sense to me is that it will piss off someone she owes a favor to.
 
There are a handful of businesses/industries that would be affected by the formal SIP order. She must have big donors in those industries.

That's all I can come up with. Because we are at 95% of SIP right now, but no one realizes it, so the optics are absolutely terrible. People outside of Iowa have lumped us in with places where nothing is shut down. That's not accurate, at all.

There's a reason Reynolds is absolutely refusing to indulge these semantics, and all that makes sense to me is that it will piss off someone she owes a favor to.
Probably right on the money
 
You are not/would not be classified as essential in anyway?
I work with kids with special needs in mostly group and sometimes individual settings. We canceled groups but are expected to work individual shifts if families choose. Sadly more families than you would think are wanting staff coming to their homes at a time like this. Most of the shifts typically happen out in the community where we work on various goals but there’s pretty much nowhere to go right now. In general, no my job isn’t really essential and at a time like this, there’s definitely no reason for staff to be working with the kids in any setting. I was set on telling my boss that I refuse to work until I saw the FAQs on the Iowa Workforce Development site. Feel like I’m stuck between a rock and a hard place because we need whatever money we can get but I do not want to be around more people than I absolutely have to right now.
 
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’ve long said what my issue is. I’m absolutely terrified of being locked in my house by myself. I think if she does more then that will be one of the things included. I also think that would be to far for others.
 
There are a handful of businesses/industries that would be affected by the formal SIP order. She must have big donors in those industries.

That's all I can come up with. Because we are at 95% of SIP right now, but no one realizes it, so the optics are absolutely terrible. People outside of Iowa have lumped us in with places where nothing is shut down. That's not accurate, at all.

There's a reason Reynolds is absolutely refusing to indulge these semantics, and all that makes sense to me is that it will piss off someone she owes a favor to.

I agree 100%. There simply has to be reason. Personal, political, some other legal reason none of us are aware of. But there's a reason.

Which is why to me this is far less about the SIP order itself as it is about what is motivating her to make the decisions she makes. If she's willing to risk public some measure of safety for (to use an example) a couple of major donors, what other corners is she willing to cut?

These are tangible, real-life choices that will affect people's outcomes. If talking about that offends someone's notion of bringing politics into the discussion, then tough. They're inseparable.
 
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.

Absolutely. My company is doing business as usual. I can't get laid off and I can't work from home. I'm being held hostage. So yeah, calling it shelter in place does make a difference because those words would lay me off and send me home where I belong.

Then to top it off, the business grant only gets forgiven if the employer doesn't lay anyone off. So people are being forced to come into work to fulfill that requirement.
 
Last edited:
I agree 100%. There simply has to be reason. Personal, political, some other legal reason none of us are aware of. But there's a reason.

Which is why to me this is far less about the SIP order itself as it is about what is motivating her to make the decisions she makes. If she's willing to risk public some measure of safety for (to use an example) a couple of major donors, what other corners is she willing to cut?

These are tangible, real-life choices that will affect people's outcomes. If talking about that offends someone's notion of bringing politics into the discussion, then tough. They're inseparable.

Where I disagree is that I don't think she's really making us measurably less safe, but I completely agree that every day that goes by without the classification makes me increasingly suspicious of her motivations. I don't think her policy is reckless, but the decision making definitely doesn't seem motivated by the greater good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psychlone99
'Isolate if you are sick'.

People don't know if they are sick.

Why not 'assume you are sick, everyone outside of your home that you come into contact with is sick, and isolate'.
If people haven't had this mindset for the last 3 weeks, I'm not sure whatever you want to call your protocols is going to matter.
 
If people haven't had this mindset for the last 3 weeks, I'm not sure whatever you want to call your protocols is going to matter.

Kim said repeatedly that you should stay home if you “felt at all sick”. You can go back in this thread and find me complaining about that. Very similar to Georgia governor. She’s gotten away from this a bit but she has NOT been clear.
 
I work with kids with special needs in mostly group and sometimes individual settings. We canceled groups but are expected to work individual shifts if families choose. Sadly more families than you would think are wanting staff coming to their homes at a time like this. Most of the shifts typically happen out in the community where we work on various goals but there’s pretty much nowhere to go right now. In general, no my job isn’t really essential and at a time like this, there’s definitely no reason for staff to be working with the kids in any setting. I was set on telling my boss that I refuse to work until I saw the FAQs on the Iowa Workforce Development site. Feel like I’m stuck between a rock and a hard place because we need whatever money we can get but I do not want to be around more people than I absolutely have to right now.

Sounds like respite care. I used to work for north central human services so I have a feeling of what you do. I could see your job getting classified as essential by tagging mental health of the families or such. If it was just one location it probably wouldn’t be as bad but bouncing around makes it difficult to limit the knowledge of exposure.
 
Kim said repeatedly that you should stay home if you “felt at all sick”. You can go back in this thread and find me complaining about that. Very similar to Georgia governor. She’s gotten away from this a bit but she has NOT been clear.
Imagine thinking enforcing rules wouldn't diminish some of these issues. Not all of them, but some. It's no different than a regular law. Speeding still exists, DUI's still happen, etc. Laws / enforcement are in place to lower those numbers, even if they never fully bring them to zero.
 
well-its-groundhog-day-again-13519552.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Help Support Us

Become a patron