|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
Most of the people I know can make it another 30 days. The trouble comes when the person who would take care of them, should they get sick, also lives with them. Those family members or roommates are mandated to quarantine should they get sick because they live with them. That takes away the principal person who would do the shopping. That's a primary stress on who they reach out too, and a secondary one if they can't render services to older relatives like assisted bathing/toilet because of impaired breathing or in-house separation from others. It's a financial stress if their lucrative job is what enabled the care in the first place.
For people that had a dependable income stream that and their disposable income to send to support distant family or local family, the $1200 is a poor substitute. It may cover rent and personal food and necessities, but not further. Their applications for unemployment to help with this go to a crashed website. Maybe in the next two weeks, the states where this is happening drops to zero.
Then look at cabin fever irritability as a source of depressive episodes and domestic violent disputes. That's where I have a problem with the "don't blame domestic violence on an excessive/extended coronavirus response, blame the abusers." Families and roommates that function with normal work schedules get bad with months in quarantine. So even if the lockdown is lifted and work resumes with strict distancing + masks + no big parties, that's still a huge help for lockdown-induced strife. What we're seeing in the news regarding pretty counterproductive protests is, in my opinion, very much alleviated if the provisions of the COVID response are ratcheted down a bit. The signs may say they're demanding repeal of everything right now, but who shows up may be mostly the people pissed off at not being able to buy gardening supplies by governor's order while enduring the lockdown.
|
On April 21 2020 05:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2020 04:36 ChristianS wrote:On April 21 2020 02:01 Danglars wrote:
Is it really a matter of assigning blame to deaths influenced or caused by maximum lockdowns? It really sounds like deaths from depression or psychological stress or domestic violence is over-readily dismissed. Speaking particularly about the prior page of posts.
It’s a major argument in maybe 2 weeks to a month that localities should relax lockdown requirements in favor of masks, social distancing, partial lockdown for seniors. People who have lost their job in industries that will take months to recover and worry about providing for their families are seriously concerned about lockdowns extending for another full month. And this isn’t really the place to talk about political failures in top-down aid. It’s a little difficult to keep politics out of this subject, but I’ll try my best: In recent times I’ve seen concern about increased suicide rates brought up almost exclusively by people arguing for ending/relaxing lockdown measures to save the economy. I don’t think we can ignore the intentions here; people in that position are frequently facing criticism over their willingness to sacrifice coronavirus deaths in the name of GDP, so it’s pretty obvious how useful suicides are as a deflection. In non-pandemic times, you probably won’t see those people arguing for, say, greater public support for mental health services (or any other public interventions that might reduce suicide). Such a person’s timing in deciding suicide prevention should be a top priority is a little too convenient. But let’s put that skepticism aside for a moment, and inspect the argument on its merits. Catastrophes and natural disasters actually sometimes decrease suicide rates, at least in the short term (I can look up a source in a few minutes if desired (Edit: source)). As I understand it, is that some kind of “pulling together” public mentality in the face of adversity is probably the cause. Long-term, natural disasters probably increase suicide rates due to things like PTSD. To the extent we have a choice between saving lives and increasing GDP (and to a significant extent, I think that choice is a false one), I don’t think it’s at all clear that suicide is increased more by the recession than it is by the deaths. Those people dying often have families, and often do not get to say goodbye due to contagion concerns. TL;DR: I think the “longer quarantine increases suicide!” argument is mostly deflection, but considered on its merits I think the causal link is pretty weak. To start, I value you sincerely stated opinion. I also think there's a minority of crazies getting extra attention from the media's desire for outrage clicks. I can't say those don't exist, or that might affect someone's perspective on who it is taking these positions.. At the same time, I think the balance lies on the other side of the lockdown debate, with people relatively more shielded from its affects less concerned about the deleterious affects of lockdowns extending to the end of may or midjune, whether that's in industries that can work from home, people having better paying jobs and more savings, people not forced onto crashed unemployment websites and poorly administrated welfare programs, and people whose support networks extend beyond the immediate household subject to quarantine provisions. To that extent, it becomes a question of what class of people will be forced to accept the downside to extensive lockdown regimes vs phased relaxation only after multiple studies showing causation, vs which ones make (what I see as) common sense conclusions regarding low income and marginalized communities with lost jobs, older dependents directly reliant on them, and very little hope of seeing immediate job recovery after lockdown ceases. But even beginning there, it's a political discussion that should be taken in a separate thread after the immediate craziness ends. One or two other of your points mainly bring up my political disagreements with what you're saying, so I must entirely omit them. Other disclaimers I should also include: I'm not suggesting that an immediate 100% reversal of all <<6-10ft social distancing recommendations, parties <10, wearing of masks in stores, sequestering of aged and people with concerning health problems>> is an acceptable counter-position to full lockdown. I'm also not suggesting that people who really focus on the mortality rate aren't suspect to some degree in the sense Christian makes. Show nested quote +On April 21 2020 06:39 r00ty wrote:
I appreciate the newfound awareness of deep social economic problems in general. Since you're probably referring to the topic of deducing unawareness of "deep social economic problems" from advocacy of certain political stances, I'll leave you be.
Sure, and the part of where politics doesn’t actually need to come into it (and where I bet you and I more or less agree) is this: regardless of difficult-to-predict long-term consequences on things like suicide rates, it’s perfectly clear to everyone that there are a lot of significant ways in which quarantine measures increase human suffering. To state the obvious: there’s a reason we don’t structure our society like this when there isn’t a pandemic.
The frustrating thing is that a lot of basic science questions regarding this virus that aren’t really answered as clearly as we’d like, and a lot of measures we might want to take to reduce social distancing depend on those questions, and would take weeks/months to spin up. A few examples:
Can recovered individuals safely go about their business without risk of reinfection or asymptomatic spread? If so we might want to work out a verification system whereby those people can ignore distancing protocols, and maybe even take over essential work from uninfected individuals to reduce spread. That’s a massive logistical operation, and if recovered individuals can still spread it or get reinfected, it would do harm.
Can immunity be transferred via convalescent plasma transfusions? If so we should start matching up recovered patients to sick ones based on location, blood type, etc. Again, massive logistical operation, and again, it depends on basic science questions we just haven’t answered (last I checked, at least; maybe some more research on CP transfusions is out by now).
Mass testing/tracing is pretty well-discussed at this point, so I won’t beat a dead horse other than to point out, again, massive logisticL operation dependent on basic science considerations like “how long before symptoms are people contagious?” or “is there asymptomatic spread?” In particular contact tracing up to 14 days before positive test result, including then testing all those contacts, seems completely out of reach for the forseeable future.
If we get a decent treatment (Remdesivir and HCQ aren’t looking that promising so far afaik, but maybe something else?), we could probably spin up production fairly quickly. A lot of these other measures would presumably take at least a month or two to spin up, and it’s not clear if/when anybody started trying to set them up.
Long story short: without getting measures in place that don’t seem likely to be in place within 30 days, I don’t see how we could start opening up by then. Maybe if active cases get low enough on their own? Others have been watching the charts a lot closer than me, and could probably better estimate how likely that is.
|
On April 21 2020 08:13 Slydie wrote:
Suicides, domestic abuse are effects of quarantines which are difficult to justify, but I still think the big story is actually the mass psychological stress and illness which comes with it. Being quarentined myself, reading the article I went yup-yup-yup-yup for the different possible sympthoms listed. Some of them for myself, others from people I talk to.
Also, being in a situation like that can make you a much worse parent, partner or other family member, so some abuse will be a consequence of the quarantine itself.
Yes, reading about 500-2500 people dying every day in your country is very scary too, and will be part of the slow recovery process after this. However, that most of those are 80+, and many would not have had many years left anyway is often undercommunicated. The main focus should always be if the hostpitals are about to be overwhelmed or not.
1. Your comment doesn't have any sources to support your point that suicides and abuse are up.
2. Your comment doesn't have any proof that these people "would not have had many years left anyway".
There are people aged 17 and slightly older that died and didn't have any underlying health problems. Did they also not have many years left?
And on top of that, it's an incredibly dumb post too. Think of your grandmother and grandfather, would you also say "it's a few years, so it doesn't matter if they die now or later"?! Wouldn't you want to spend more years with your loved ones? This is probably the worst post I've read in the last pages here.
Every person you sentence to death to coronavirus is a loved one to someone.
|
I think Slydie is either a eugenics advocate, or else is ridiculously selfish, neither of which are good positions to hold.
0.1% of New York's population has passed away so far, and it's likely that 2-3 times that number will perish before this is over. Severe cases of Covid(low double digit% chance) have been linked to long-term(permanent) health issues as well(heart, lung, kidney etc), and neither of those are limited to 80+ year olds. By the time this is over, everybody in NY will know somebody who has passed away from it. 1/500 to 1/300 people will die, and 1/100(possibly more) will suffer health problems for the rest of their shortened lives. It's a crazy amount of impact for something that might not have even hit the double digit percentage infected mark.
That's an example of how bad it could be without sufficient restrictions, and it can definitely get worse than that.
Advocating for loosening restrictions on the basis of "suicides and DV are up" without hard data to back up the fact that it is safe to do so is asinine. Yes the numbers might be up, but if putting those restrictions saves hundreds of lives for every life lost as a result(no doubt in my mind about this point), then I would always favor the restrictions.
|
I agree that suicide and DV at this point aren't very convincing arguments for loosening restrictions. I think the two most convincing ones are:
- We've all seen the models that say what would happen without restrictions. What those models don't account for is voluntary individual measures. Surely as countries open up people will wear masks, use alcohol gel profusely, reorganize workplaces, avoid mass events, avoid unnecessary travel and so on. It's entirely possible that R would drop below 1 with these measures alone.
- At least in europe, judging by euromomo, the 2019-20 and 2018-19 flu/winter seasons were generally mild regarging mortality compared with the two previous ones, meaning that the elderly population might come into 2020 at an older age and beyond normal life expectancy. This might drive up mortality attributed to COVID-19.
- The big one is knowing what the actual number of infected people are. So far we've seen only a few studies of serological tests that through the case undercount to somewhere between 3x and 80x. Obviously an 80x undercount is not the case in NYC, but a couple of weeks ago I remember seeing studies estimating Spain to already have 10% to 15% of the population infected - that's 5 to 7 million. NY has more cases and fewer tests than Spain. Is it reasonable to assume that NY could already have reached 30-40% infected?
We've all seen 60%-70% as the magical number for herd immunity but that's assuming uncontrolled R0, not a population that has already gone through a first wave and will undergo significant behavioral change. Once you have 30-40% of the population immune, and those are also the most active within the population, and everyone is aware of how to protect against the virus, wouldn't that be enough to suppress the virus, or at least ensure that the second wave is way milder?
Finally, giving NY as an example for what might happen without restrictions, assuming that more than 0.2% or 0.3% of the population of any geography will die without sufficient restrictions faces the counter example of Sweden. They have not undergone great restrictions, the response has been mostly driven by individual behavior change and so far, only 0.01% of Sweden's population has passed away. Yes, it's more than the Scandinavian neighbours but still, is it a number that would force everyone to close down and suspend the constituion?
|
On April 21 2020 19:33 warding wrote:
I agree that suicide and DV at this point aren't very convincing arguments for loosening restrictions. I think the two most convincing ones are:
- We've all seen the models that say what would happen without restrictions. What those models don't account for is voluntary individual measures. Surely as countries open up people will wear masks, use alcohol gel profusely, reorganize workplaces, avoid mass events, avoid unnecessary travel and so on. It's entirely possible that R would drop below 1 with these measures alone.
- At least in europe, judging by euromomo, the 2019-20 and 2018-19 flu/winter seasons were generally mild regarging mortality compared with the two previous ones, meaning that the elderly population might come into 2020 at an older age and beyond normal life expectancy. This might drive up mortality attributed to COVID-19.
- The big one is knowing what the actual number of infected people are. So far we've seen only a few studies of serological tests that through the case undercount to somewhere between 3x and 80x. Obviously an 80x undercount is not the case in NYC, but a couple of weeks ago I remember seeing studies estimating Spain to already have 10% to 15% of the population infected - that's 5 to 7 million. NY has more cases and fewer tests than Spain. Is it reasonable to assume that NY could already have reached 30-40% infected?
We've all seen 60%-70% as the magical number for herd immunity but that's assuming uncontrolled R0, not a population that has already gone through a first wave and will undergo significant behavioral change. Once you have 30-40% of the population immune, and those are also the most active within the population, and everyone is aware of how to protect against the virus, wouldn't that be enough to suppress the virus, or at least ensure that the second wave is way milder?
Finally, giving NY as an example for what might happen without restrictions, assuming that more than 0.2% or 0.3% of the population of any geography will die without sufficient restrictions faces the counter example of Sweden. They have not undergone great restrictions, the response has been mostly driven by individual behavior change and so far, only 0.01% of Sweden's population has passed away. Yes, it's more than the Scandinavian neighbours but still, is it a number that would force everyone to close down and suspend the constituion?
I can't speak for other countries, but the USA is absolutely not capable of banking only on "voluntary individual measures". Even now, with mandatory quarantines, we see group after group of people gathering in public protest, or at church, or at anti-coronavirus parties... who then get sick and die. Similar to our anti-vaxxer population, the good intentions of the majority of people still isn't enough to eliminate the spread of deadly diseases in our country. (For the anti-vaxxer population, we generally put pressure on families to vaccinate their children for public education, etc.) Too many people are either going to not take any measures to stop the spread of coronavirus, or - even more likely - take measures that they incorrectly believe are appropriate or "good enough". Our population isn't scientifically or medically educated enough to do what needs to be done on our own... and plenty just don't care or *still* severely underestimate exactly what's going on.
|
On April 21 2020 20:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2020 19:33 warding wrote:
I agree that suicide and DV at this point aren't very convincing arguments for loosening restrictions. I think the two most convincing ones are:
- We've all seen the models that say what would happen without restrictions. What those models don't account for is voluntary individual measures. Surely as countries open up people will wear masks, use alcohol gel profusely, reorganize workplaces, avoid mass events, avoid unnecessary travel and so on. It's entirely possible that R would drop below 1 with these measures alone.
- At least in europe, judging by euromomo, the 2019-20 and 2018-19 flu/winter seasons were generally mild regarging mortality compared with the two previous ones, meaning that the elderly population might come into 2020 at an older age and beyond normal life expectancy. This might drive up mortality attributed to COVID-19.
- The big one is knowing what the actual number of infected people are. So far we've seen only a few studies of serological tests that through the case undercount to somewhere between 3x and 80x. Obviously an 80x undercount is not the case in NYC, but a couple of weeks ago I remember seeing studies estimating Spain to already have 10% to 15% of the population infected - that's 5 to 7 million. NY has more cases and fewer tests than Spain. Is it reasonable to assume that NY could already have reached 30-40% infected?
We've all seen 60%-70% as the magical number for herd immunity but that's assuming uncontrolled R0, not a population that has already gone through a first wave and will undergo significant behavioral change. Once you have 30-40% of the population immune, and those are also the most active within the population, and everyone is aware of how to protect against the virus, wouldn't that be enough to suppress the virus, or at least ensure that the second wave is way milder?
Finally, giving NY as an example for what might happen without restrictions, assuming that more than 0.2% or 0.3% of the population of any geography will die without sufficient restrictions faces the counter example of Sweden. They have not undergone great restrictions, the response has been mostly driven by individual behavior change and so far, only 0.01% of Sweden's population has passed away. Yes, it's more than the Scandinavian neighbours but still, is it a number that would force everyone to close down and suspend the constituion? ...Our population isn't scientifically or medically educated enough to do what needs to be done on our own....
Don't forget completely unwilling to listen to those who are (for some, obviously not all citizens)
|
Its not just the US. In the Netherlands we also had beaches and parks full of people as the first warm days of spring showed up, it died down because of increased measures taken to keep people away and more active police fining those who don't keep distance but I assume the same happened pretty much everywhere.
People in general are not great about voluntary sacrifice for the greater good or the world would be looking a whole lot better then it does.
|
Might there not be a bias - fueled by the reddits and the media - towards believing a lot of people are uncooperating because that aligns with most people's world's narrative? As in, "we are making a sacrifice by staying at home, our health workers are endangering their lives and look at these morons defying stay at home orders and jeopardizing everything". That's the kind of headline that gets a lot of clicks and our angerjuices flowing.
On the other hand, if you look at mobility data from google or apple you see similar levels of reduction in mobility in the US as in Germany. Even if a couple of % of people are indeed morons who will not follow #stayathome, the mass of people doing so should make the difference.
|
Well Georgia and Tennessee are going to start reopening this week (and Florida already reopened its beaches, which are already crowded on a daily basis), so there'll be no need to play narrative games, the lines between people who continue to take this seriously and those who do not will be more and more clear as the weeks stretch on.
|
As we're chipping in anecdotes.
Yesterday I've had my first person waiting for me to pass on the sidewalk in order to keep the 2m distance.
And it's like what, month 2 of social distancing?
Apart from that it's me switching sides or walking on the street (might ofc be a factor in and of itself).
When stationary, i.e. in the park people mostly adhere to the distancing advice. Albeit it's getting rather apparent to the layman's eye that these people sitting together surely aren't single household groups. Unless co-parenting and couples-with-kids-flatshares came en vouge just over the wintertime 
|
On April 21 2020 20:57 farvacola wrote:
Well Georgia and Tennessee are going to start reopening this week (and Florida already reopened its beaches, which are already crowded on a daily basis), so there'll be no need to play narrative games, the lines between people who continue to take this seriously and those who do not will be more and more clear as the weeks stretch on.
This is where I'm at. Oregon is doing well. I wish other states were doing well. I hope re-opening goes well. I don't think it will. But at the very least, we will have extremely clear data showing how well it did or did not go.
|
On April 22 2020 00:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2020 20:57 farvacola wrote:
Well Georgia and Tennessee are going to start reopening this week (and Florida already reopened its beaches, which are already crowded on a daily basis), so there'll be no need to play narrative games, the lines between people who continue to take this seriously and those who do not will be more and more clear as the weeks stretch on. This is where I'm at. Oregon is doing well. I wish other states were doing well. I hope re-opening goes well. I don't think it will. But at the very least, we will have extremely clear data showing how well it did or did not go.
It's an extremely stupid decision to reopen now.. US had 1800 fatalities and 27k newly infected people in the last 24 hours. Ignore Trump and keep following self-isolation rules if you want to be safe.
US has as many infections as Spain + Italy + Germany + UK + France combined. Of course, this ignores the fact of infections per 1,000,000 people but it does indicate it's not good to reopen now.
Stats: https://www.bing.com/covid/local/unitedstates
|
On April 22 2020 00:12 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2020 00:09 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2020 20:57 farvacola wrote:
Well Georgia and Tennessee are going to start reopening this week (and Florida already reopened its beaches, which are already crowded on a daily basis), so there'll be no need to play narrative games, the lines between people who continue to take this seriously and those who do not will be more and more clear as the weeks stretch on. This is where I'm at. Oregon is doing well. I wish other states were doing well. I hope re-opening goes well. I don't think it will. But at the very least, we will have extremely clear data showing how well it did or did not go. US has as many infections as Spain + Italy + Germany + UK + France combined. Of course, this ignores the fact of infections per 1,000,000 people but it does indicate it's not good to reopen now.
Per capita it is even worse, those countries add up to 324 mln people.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
It's true that we can't stay locked down forever, and frankly I'm seeing cracks in the shutdown orders in real time (people just stop listening to scarcely enforced orders). But the hope is that when the country starts to open up, there's enough added infrastructure to handle a year's worth of elevated cases of infectious disease, and the case load has settled down enough to break the exponential curve.
So... given the push to open up, we have all that, right?
|
On April 21 2020 17:30 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2020 08:13 Slydie wrote:
Suicides, domestic abuse are effects of quarantines which are difficult to justify, but I still think the big story is actually the mass psychological stress and illness which comes with it. Being quarentined myself, reading the article I went yup-yup-yup-yup for the different possible sympthoms listed. Some of them for myself, others from people I talk to.
Also, being in a situation like that can make you a much worse parent, partner or other family member, so some abuse will be a consequence of the quarantine itself.
Yes, reading about 500-2500 people dying every day in your country is very scary too, and will be part of the slow recovery process after this. However, that most of those are 80+, and many would not have had many years left anyway is often undercommunicated. The main focus should always be if the hostpitals are about to be overwhelmed or not. 1. Your comment doesn't have any sources to support your point that suicides and abuse are up. 2. Your comment doesn't have any proof that these people "would not have had many years left anyway". There are people aged 17 and slightly older that died and didn't have any underlying health problems. Did they also not have many years left? And on top of that, it's an incredibly dumb post too. Think of your grandmother and grandfather, would you also say "it's a few years, so it doesn't matter if they die now or later"?! Wouldn't you want to spend more years with your loved ones? This is probably the worst post I've read in the last pages here. Every person you sentence to death to coronavirus is a loved one to someone.
Everybody who dies for any reason is loved by someone, do you think Corona victims are somehow loved more than others?
The last time I checked, the AVERAGE Corona victim in Italy was 80 years old, and in Norway it was 84. For that to happen, you
need very few young victims and a significant amount of very old ones. Why do you pretend like this virus is an equal threat to everybody when it clearly is not?
There are a few examples of young people dying from this virus, but that should not freak anybody out. Some young people die from just about any disease out there, and we don't freak out about that.
Anybody who dies from anything is loved, but I don't understand why Corona victims matter so much more than anyone else. I bet nobody has looked up how many has died from cancer, heart attacks and other lower respiratory infections the last couple of months.
|
preventable deaths blabla
|
|
|
On April 22 2020 00:40 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2020 17:30 SC-Shield wrote:On April 21 2020 08:13 Slydie wrote:
Suicides, domestic abuse are effects of quarantines which are difficult to justify, but I still think the big story is actually the mass psychological stress and illness which comes with it. Being quarentined myself, reading the article I went yup-yup-yup-yup for the different possible sympthoms listed. Some of them for myself, others from people I talk to.
Also, being in a situation like that can make you a much worse parent, partner or other family member, so some abuse will be a consequence of the quarantine itself.
Yes, reading about 500-2500 people dying every day in your country is very scary too, and will be part of the slow recovery process after this. However, that most of those are 80+, and many would not have had many years left anyway is often undercommunicated. The main focus should always be if the hostpitals are about to be overwhelmed or not. 1. Your comment doesn't have any sources to support your point that suicides and abuse are up. 2. Your comment doesn't have any proof that these people "would not have had many years left anyway". There are people aged 17 and slightly older that died and didn't have any underlying health problems. Did they also not have many years left? And on top of that, it's an incredibly dumb post too. Think of your grandmother and grandfather, would you also say "it's a few years, so it doesn't matter if they die now or later"?! Wouldn't you want to spend more years with your loved ones? This is probably the worst post I've read in the last pages here. Every person you sentence to death to coronavirus is a loved one to someone. Everybody who dies for any reason is loved by someone, do you think Corona victims are somehow loved more than others? The last time I checked, the AVERAGE Corona victim in Italy was 80 years old, and in Norway it was 84. For that to happen, you need very few young victims and a significant amount of very old ones. Why do you pretend like this virus is an equal threat to everybody when it clearly is not? There are a few examples of young people dying from this virus, but that should not freak anybody out. Some young people die from just about any disease out there, and we don't freak out about that. Anybody who dies from anything is loved, but I don't understand why Corona victims matter so much more than anyone else. I bet nobody has looked up how many has died from cancer, heart attacks and other lower respiratory infections the last couple of months.
The only numbers I have seen about deaths this year vs average deaths are from the Netherlands, definitely not one of the hardest hit countries. The estimate I saw was 80% more than average, and it also said the last time this many people died in a single week was 1945 (an infamous winter during which many people starved to death at the end of WW2).
It'll take one heck of a lot of suicides and domestic violence cases to rival that. And this is the Netherlands, where the hospitals have been able to cope well with peak load. Compare that to Italy, Spain or NYC and you can see the problem.
|
On April 21 2020 18:57 Amui wrote:
I think Slydie is either a eugenics advocate, or else is ridiculously selfish, neither of which are good positions to hold.
0.1% of New York's population has passed away so far, and it's likely that 2-3 times that number will perish before this is over. Severe cases of Covid(low double digit% chance) have been linked to long-term(permanent) health issues as well(heart, lung, kidney etc), and neither of those are limited to 80+ year olds. By the time this is over, everybody in NY will know somebody who has passed away from it. 1/500 to 1/300 people will die, and 1/100(possibly more) will suffer health problems for the rest of their shortened lives. It's a crazy amount of impact for something that might not have even hit the double digit percentage infected mark.
That's an example of how bad it could be without sufficient restrictions, and it can definitely get worse than that.
Advocating for loosening restrictions on the basis of "suicides and DV are up" without hard data to back up the fact that it is safe to do so is asinine. Yes the numbers might be up, but if putting those restrictions saves hundreds of lives for every life lost as a result(no doubt in my mind about this point), then I would always favor the restrictions.
you have no data to back up that "1/500 to 1/300 of the population" will die either
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
