3 ms·

> Would you have recommended that strategy to Lombardy in February? It seems you are willfully misinterpreting me. As you will see above, I said: > The virus

> Would you have recommended that strategy to Lombardy in February? It seems you are willfully misinterpreting me. As you will see above, I said: > The virus is a serious threat. It's good that we took the actions we did. Things were much less known then. Now we have better ground truth and are less likely to be blindsided. I stand by my state's actions and decisions to date. I have been exercising caution and following the recommended guidelines. I will continue to. I would guess most people here will as well. We can't be in lockdown forever. The prudent thing to do, in my opinion, is to loosen restrictions slowly, being fully aware that we may have to tighten them again.

newacct583 7y ago
> I stand by my state's actions and decisions to date. Your state's decisions and policies are producing rapid outbreak growth, though. Why do you expect that growth to change if the policies don't? Going back to the link above, I see that Iowa's new infection rate (I'm looking at the 7-day average because per-day numbers are jumpy) has grown by a factor of 3.78 in the past 14 days. That's a daily growth rate of 10%, or a doubling period of a tiny bit over one week. At this rate, you will reach the same per capita rate that New York experienced at its absolute peak (April 9th) in just 13 days. So... what's going to change in two weeks? Your curve isn't bending, your policies aren't changing. What's going to save you? Here's what won't save you: locking down once things "get bad". Go back to the same site and see how long it takes from a lockdown until a state reaches peak. It's 10-20 days. I mean, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there really is some as-yet uncharacterized effect separate from lockdowns that steps in at the last minute just before states reach capacity to halt the outbreak. I just don't think Iowa should be betting on that, and I'm very scared about what we're going to see in the north central plains states in the comming month.
- war1025 7y ago
  Consider us your control group then.
  - newacct583 7y ago
    Why can't Wuhan or Milan or New York have been the control group? We've already run the experiment. We know how this works. Iowa doesn't look any different. It just doesn't. Iowa simply got started late. You... genuinely don't think this is going to happen, do you? Even with the numbers above, you just figure something's going to change and you won't need to do anything?
    - war1025 7y ago
      > you won't need to do anything? You seem to be going out of your way to misunderstand what I am saying. Iowa is highly locked down. We simply have not been ordered to "shelter in place". Most of these restrictions remain in effect. The twenty counties that are experiencing outbreak growth remain completely locked down. The plan is to re-evalute and dynamically change restrictions as time goes on. The official Coronavirus info page for Iowa is at [1]. Every county that has had restrictions lifted has experienced multiple weeks of declining case growth. Supposing they see an uptick in cases, measures will be re-instated. It makes no sense to lock down rural counties that have seen zero or next to zero cases. Doing so will not ease the case load in the metros a hundred miles away. [1] https://coronavirus.iowa.gov/ https://coronavirus.iowa.gov/

newacct583 7y ago

> I stand by my state's actions and decisions to date. Your state's decisions and policies are producing rapid outbreak growth, though. Why do you expect that growth to change if the policies don't? Going back to the link above, I see that Iowa's new infection rate (I'm looking at the 7-day average because per-day numbers are jumpy) has grown by a factor of 3.78 in the past 14 days. That's a daily growth rate of 10%, or a doubling period of a tiny bit over one week. At this rate, you will reach the same per capita rate that New York experienced at its absolute peak (April 9th) in just 13 days. So... what's going to change in two weeks? Your curve isn't bending, your policies aren't changing. What's going to save you? Here's what won't save you: locking down once things "get bad". Go back to the same site and see how long it takes from a lockdown until a state reaches peak. It's 10-20 days. I mean, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there really is some as-yet uncharacterized effect separate from lockdowns that steps in at the last minute just before states reach capacity to halt the outbreak. I just don't think Iowa should be betting on that, and I'm very scared about what we're going to see in the north central plains states in the comming month.

war1025 7y ago
Consider us your control group then.
- newacct583 7y ago
  Why can't Wuhan or Milan or New York have been the control group? We've already run the experiment. We know how this works. Iowa doesn't look any different. It just doesn't. Iowa simply got started late. You... genuinely don't think this is going to happen, do you? Even with the numbers above, you just figure something's going to change and you won't need to do anything?
  - war1025 7y ago
    > you won't need to do anything? You seem to be going out of your way to misunderstand what I am saying. Iowa is highly locked down. We simply have not been ordered to "shelter in place". Most of these restrictions remain in effect. The twenty counties that are experiencing outbreak growth remain completely locked down. The plan is to re-evalute and dynamically change restrictions as time goes on. The official Coronavirus info page for Iowa is at [1]. Every county that has had restrictions lifted has experienced multiple weeks of declining case growth. Supposing they see an uptick in cases, measures will be re-instated. It makes no sense to lock down rural counties that have seen zero or next to zero cases. Doing so will not ease the case load in the metros a hundred miles away. [1] https://coronavirus.iowa.gov/ https://coronavirus.iowa.gov/