Am I the only one that thinks the States going broke is worse than losing less than 1% of the population?

[Ken555]

Those would be interesting statistics assuming they are accurate and unbiased. I just wonder how such reported deaths can honestly be attributed to the lock downs. For instance (and this is just for argument's sake) was there someone who, God forbid, committed suicide because (s)he couldn't pay his/her bills after losing his/her job or business due to the lock down (or something along those lines)? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

There have been numerous reports on this question, and show excess deaths based on historical averages. For instance: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[CO skier]

That's something I was kind of wondering about. Are there any stats or reports of deaths caused by the lock down and its aftereffects?

Probably not, and never will be because these are second and third order effects. It is difficult enough to get a handle on the first order effect of who died from the flu (and other non-Covid causes) and who died from Covid-19.

It does not take a leap of logic to conclude that there are uneccessary deaths resulting from SIP/SAP orders that would not have happened had people retained their employment, for example. Unintended, consequential deaths that will not make the national news (but many, many fewer deaths in a nursing home will make the news).

Are any Covid studies "modeling" these secondary deaths and presenting a holistic assessment? Are any policy makers considering the not insignificant "shutdown deaths" when considering re-opening the economy, or is it all and only about "Covid-linked" deaths?

 

[MrockStar]

Sweden thought shutting down their economy was worse than the disease. They were pilloried.

Now the World Health Organization is suggesting Sweden is a model for re-opening. (Kind of a suggestion that shutdowns may have been a mistake).

What Sweden understood from the beginning that politicians in many countries are just now understanding is that "flattening the curve" just takes us back to square one -- 4 to 6 months later when the same decisions need to be made; i.e., shutdown the economy again (and again) until a vaccine is developed, or choose the "Swedish model" of sensible precautions while keeping schools, businesses, and the economy moving along.

Add Germany to the list. Its not about putting seniors and heath challenged at risk, those individuals should Continue their sheltering in place with lots of testing of anyone who comes in contact with them. The REST of us will get back to Safe working and taking care of our family's since the risk is relatively low and we may never have a vaccine and will develop heard immunity like Sweden has done.

 

[TravelTime]

The World Health Organization has held up Sweden as a model of what to do.

 

[DannyTS]

As a practical manner which of your 100 friends and relatives are you willing to have die in order to "save the economy". That's what you are proposing. That's what 1% means. I've already given my 1 person but I'm not ready to give more.

I have never understood this argument so I will have to give an example. Nobody is sending anyone to die.

A couple in their 40's has 3 kids. They may be your family, your neighbors or your friends. They may be your best friend's family. Both parents need to work in order to pay for food, education, mortgage, retirement plan etc etc. Most of their expenses are not discretionary and they live from paycheck to paycheck. Would they like to stay home for another year? Sure, but they do not have that luxury, they have to keep on running on that treadmill or the foundation of the family will collapse. They may lose their house, they may not have the money to put one or more kids through college, they may not have money for health insurance and get very ill or worse if they get sick.
From a Covid prospective they are in a low risk category, for them not putting food on the table is potentially a much bigger problem than getting sick from Covid.

A couple in their 70's. Both still healthy and active but in a totally different Covid risk category. Despite their relative good health, you never know, so better be safe than sorry. Is the first family sending them out to get sick? No. Can they stay home? Yes, and they should, and as long as they do it and take all the precautions, they will not get sick. Their decision is not dependent on the first couple, they are in total control of their own health and destiny. If the first family is destroyed, how does the second family benefit? And how is it fair to destroy the first family that does not have a viabile choice for the benefit of the second family that does not gain anything from destroying the younger family?


Folks, let's listen to our hearts, not to the politicians and to the talking heads on TV. Let's have compassion for old and young. We do not have to destroy others in order to save ourselves.
All my grandparents are dead but I have no doubt in my mind what they would have chosen without hesitation if given the choice.

 

[TravelTime]

I have never understood this argument so I will have to give an example. Nobody is sending anyone to die.

A couple in their 40's has 3 kids. They may be your family, your neighbors or your friends. They may be your best friend's family. Both parents need to work in order to pay for food, education, mortgage, retirement plan etc etc. Most of their expenses are not discretionary and they live from paycheck to paycheck. Would they like to stay home for another year? Sure, but they do not have that luxury, they have to keep on running on that treadmill or the foundation of the family will collapse. They may lose their house, they may not have the money to put one or more kids through college, they may not have money for health insurance and get very ill or worse if they get sick.
From a Covid prospective they are in a low risk category, for them not putting food on the table is potentially a much bigger problem than getting sick from Covid.

A couple in their 70's. Both still healthy and active but in a totally different Covid risk category. Despite their relative good health, you never know, so better be safe than sorry. Is the first family sending them out to get sick? No. Can they stay home? Yes, and they should, and as long as they do it and take all the precautions, they will not get sick. Their decision is not dependent on the first couple, they are in total control of their own health and destiny. If the first family is destroyed, how does the second family benefit? And how is it fair to destroy the first family that does not have a viabile choice for the benefit of the second family that does not gain anything from destroying the younger family?


Folks, let's listen to our hearts, not to the politicians and to the talking heads on TV. Let's have compassion for old and young. We do not have to destroy others in order to save ourselves.
All my grandparents are dead but I have no doubt in my mind what they would have chosen without hesitation if given the choice.

Thanks Danny. This was a great example.

 

[Wyominguy]

I live in Iowa where they are doing mass testing of folks, especially those working at meat packing plants. As of now one out of every 52 people in the state have been tested. What they are finding is that a huge number of folks testing positive have never had any symptoms or if some they were very minor. If this continues it will lower the death rate to well below 1%, maybe .2%. That is lower than the annual flu.

Also, my sister-in-law went to donate blood and they tested her and found she tested positive for antibodies of the virus. She had flu-like symptoms in late February and so did her husband and a neighbor. It is also likely that I had it in late January (I have not been tested) as I had three weeks of the worst flu, etc. ever and I had a flu shot last fall.

The point of all this is that most people will not need to be hospitalized (only my opinion) and it appears many folks had no symptoms based upon the testing here. I read a story today that Australia has had more deaths due to suicide than the virus.

BTW, I am a retired teacher and in one of the age groups that it hits hardest.

Neil

 

[TravelTime]

I live in Iowa where they are doing mass testing of folks, especially those working at meat packing plants. As of now one out of every 52 people in the state have been tested. What they are finding is that a huge number of folks testing positive have never had any symptoms or if some they were very minor. If this continues it will lower the death rate to well below 1%, maybe .2%. That is lower than the annual flu.

Also, my sister-in-law went to donate blood and they tested her and found she tested positive for antibodies of the virus. She had flu-like symptoms in late February and so did her husband and a neighbor. It is also likely that I had it in late January (I have not been tested) as I had three weeks of the worst flu, etc. ever and I had a flu shot last fall.

The point of all this is that most people will not need to be hospitalized (only my opinion) and it appears many folks had no symptoms based upon the testing here. I read a story today that Australia has had more deaths due to suicide than the virus.

BTW, I am a retired teacher and in one of the age groups that it hits hardest.

Neil

Thanks for your input. This is helpful. It has been known from the beginning that most people who get Covid will have no symptoms or only mild symptoms. The vast majority of people who get Covid will not be hospitalized. When we look at the percentage of the population who actually die from Covid, it is very low, almost minuscule. The data is saying that approximately 1% of Covid patients will die, probably less if we actually had testing. As a percentage of the population, it is much less. This does not mean I think we should let people die. I just think we need to put the costs vs the benefits of mass lockdowns into perspective. There are ways to protect the vulnerable while allowing life to go on for the majority.

 

[geist1223]

There is a very good chance we will never have a vaccine or reliable effective treatment. Look at how many other diseases/illnesses we have never developed a vaccine and they have been working on many of them for multiple decades.

Look up the Pandemics of 1958 and 1968. I do not remember the 1958 Pandemic as I was only 4. For the 1968 Pandemic I was 14. I do not remember them closing down school and society for the 1968 Pandemic.

1958: US Population 175 Million, US deaths 116,000, and Worldwide deaths 1.1 Million.

1968 US Population 201 Million, US deaths 100,000, and Worldwide deaths 1 Million.

 

[Panina]

There is a very good chance we will never have a vaccine or reliable effective treatment. Look at how many other diseases/illnesses we have never developed a vaccine and they have been working on many of them for multiple decades.

Look up the Pandemics of 1958 and 1968. I do not remember the 1958 Pandemic as I was only 4. For the 1968 Pandemic I was 14. I do not remember them closing down school and society for the 1968 Pandemic.

1958: US Population 175 Million, US deaths 116,000, and Worldwide deaths 1.1 Million.

1968 US Population 201 Million, US deaths 100,000, and Worldwide deaths 1 Million.

Whereas I agree there is a chance that there might not be a vaccine or effective treatment I think the chances are much better we will. Science has come a long way since the 50 and 60’s pandemic, even just the few years and we have multiple countries and scientists working round the clock. Just what has been observed and achieved in labs at this point has been done in record time.

 

[Ken555]

There is a very good chance we will never have a vaccine or reliable effective treatment. Look at how many other diseases/illnesses we have never developed a vaccine and they have been working on many of them for multiple decades.

Look up the Pandemics of 1958 and 1968. I do not remember the 1958 Pandemic as I was only 4. For the 1968 Pandemic I was 14. I do not remember them closing down school and society for the 1968 Pandemic.

1958: US Population 175 Million, US deaths 116,000, and Worldwide deaths 1.1 Million.

1968 US Population 201 Million, US deaths 100,000, and Worldwide deaths 1 Million.

C19 is much worse than H3N2 (1968).

Because H3N2 was closely related to the 1957 pandemic, many people were immune. This kept the 1968 H3N2 flu epidemic relatively mild, especially when compared to the 1918 Spanish flu. For some reason, however – possibly antigenic drift – the second wave of the H3N2 flu that struck in 1969 was more deadly.

In the 1960s, vaccines were evolving. The 1968 N3N2 pandemic triggered the development of trivalent vaccines and of subunit vaccines, which decreased adverse reactions. About the same time, the U.S. began recommending annual flu vaccination for high risk individuals.

The 1968 Pandemic Strain (H3N2) Persists. Will COVID-19?

Although the COVID-19 death toll has not yet reached the numbers of H3N2, it still continues to climb.

www.biospace.com

The 1968 pandemic was caused by an influenza A (H3N2) virus comprised of two genes from an avian influenza A virus, including a new H3 hemagglutinin, but also contained the N2 neuraminidase from the 1957 H2N2 virus.

1968 Pandemic (H3N2 virus) | Pandemic Influenza (Flu) | CDC

Everything you need to know about the flu illness, including symptoms, treatment and prevention.

www.cdc.gov

Re school closures:

The pandemic did not gain momentum until near the winter school holidays, thus limiting the infection spreading

Hong Kong flu - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[easyrider]

I'm not holding my breath for a covid 19 vaccine because what I read is that it is unlikely to happen anytime soon if at all. There is an effective treatment but because of who presented this treatment and the low cost of this treatment, this treatment is not popular in certain circles of influence.

I also doubt that any of the states go broke and have to take on austerity measures because the states will be bailed out with conditions.

My best guess is that covid 19 will eventually burn itself out, but in the mean time, it will take a toll on people with health issues. As for a time line to re-open, I plan to abide, As for those others who do not abide, it won't really bother me because of the fact that over 70% of the work force is still working without a serious rate of infection turning into sars.

Bill

 

[Patri]

OP, you spoke heresy, but I agree with you.
The argument that we want people to die is so disingenuous.
There are plenty of solutions of how we can safely move forward. But our country cannot be brought to its knees or we will never stand again.

 

[WVBaker]

Well, well, well. A busy night I see.

I am shocked that the dreaded "DELETED" has not appeared and not one person has requested that this conversation be taken elsewhere on the Web.

Bravo!

 

[bogey21]

I think the country should be opened now. Something is not right with this whole thing.I will even go as far to say we probably should have never shut down the country at all.

Agree. The trillions the Government has borrowed and the additional trillions more that will have to be borrowed before this is over will haunt generations for years to come...

George

 

[Snazzylass]

I really think shutting down for 2 months was the most amount of time that we could possibly give without have HUGE economical repercussions. I know the argument that we can get an economy back, but not a person. The thing that I feel that a lot of people aren't seeing is exactly what it means when the state doesn't have any more money. I'm a teacher so I see first hand where that money goes. I also see how much everyone sucks at math. I have maybe 15 parents out of 150 that can help their kid out with Algebra 1 with the schools closed and that's middle school!

Most of my salary comes from Florida's sales tax and tourism. Florida doesn't have a state income tax. I just got a letter from my union that even though the budget was approved for schools for next year, they are going to have to modify it in response to COVID meaning jobs will be cut. Kids struggle enough as it is when schools are fully open with a class size of 25. If they cut positions and raise the class sizes to 30-40 kids, these kids are going to learn maybe 60% of what they normally would with the level of distraction that having that many kids in 1 class would cause. I see maybe 30% of the population of kids being on grade level because of educated parents and the kids that don't have individual help at home will fall further behind. I don't mean to sound hateful towards older and at risk people, but kids and education take priority over grandma and if we stay closed much longer we won't be able to keep all of our teachers, firefighters and police officers, which are ESSENTIAL and employed by the state.

We need a balance!

Thank you for posting! And, sharing! I always enjoy the insight of others. I was surprised to learn the population of FL is 21 million - goodness. And, I've always felt this SIP is harder on kids than grown-ups (unemployment excepted). We've all been kids and know the milestones we looked forward to.

Worse, there is a large percentage of kids who live in poverty and families who depend on the social services our public school system provide. It goes beyond food, but that's a good place to start.

This was my dear daughter-in-law's first year of teaching, which would be stressful enough on its own. Figuring out how we can gather in groups does seem to be the biggest problem and I can't see where e-learning is a suitable substitute.

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

Thanks for your input. This is helpful. It has been known from the beginning that most people who get Covid will have no symptoms or only mild symptoms. The vast majority of people who get Covid will not be hospitalized. When we look at the percentage of the population who actually die from Covid, it is very low, almost minuscule. The data is saying that approximately 1% of Covid patients will die, probably less if we actually had testing. As a percentage of the population, it is much less. This does not mean I think we should let people die. I just think we need to put the costs vs the benefits of mass lockdowns into perspective. There are ways to protect the vulnerable while allowing life to go on for the majority.

To do a cost/benefit analysis, you have to define a cost. There are clearly excess deaths due to COVID-19. (See the article in post #51).

How much is a human life worth?

 

[SteelerGal]

I disagree. The AA, Indigenous, Latinx communities are being ravaged by Covid-19 due to decades of institutionalized “isms”. Many of my friends and I feel our communities needs are once again being ignored for the “common good”.

 

[Passepartout]

The OP may not be the only one that shares this opinion, but as one of the 3,600,000 (1% of the population- seniors with comorbidities) who would be sacrificed to keep the states financially viable, I DON'T share the opinion.

For ALL who share this opinion, DON'T DARE EVER call yourselves, 'Pro Life'!

Jim

 

[queenofthehive]

How many grandmas would be willing to put themselves at a little bit more risk so that their grand babies can have the education they deserve?

I respectfully disagree. In my view, this is not how society should work. You are stacking education/money above death and that is the part I do not agree. There are many sides to this debate. Most minds have been made up. In the end, there is no right solution - just lost loved ones and economic hardships. No winners. We all want the same thing - life to be as is was before this mess.

 

[needvaca]

Look, we’re less than 2 months into this and everybody is freaking out. It sucks, but it is a PANDEMIC! Give the scientists and healthcare workers a few weeks to figure it out and how to deal with it effectively! Americans are so ridiculously impatient and selfish!

It does show how fragile the American economy is and how little it protects its workers. It’s not an accident, it’s by design by lots of capitalistic billionaires (I know- I work with them). It’s part of what has made America the strongest country in the world, but it’s gotten out of balance and need to tip back to protecting workers ,like the social security, unions and Medicare programs of the FDR era.

cbyrne- I agree kids need to go back to school... in august. They will be fine missing 2 months of school in their lifetime. I have 4 kids and I’m teaching my kid algebra 1 now- and realize most parents can’t. God bless teachers.
its only May. Government will realize over the next 3 months that Reopening school is essential to everything. Parents can’t work without kids being at school.
So chill out everyone and keep socially distancing and wearing your masks. It’s a tiny price to pay for the freedom and blessings of living in America.

 

[needvaca]

We all want the same thing - life to be as is was before this mess.

Nope, I and many want better! More protections for workers and more organization and preparation by our Government for these foreseeable pandemics
Let’s keep the American way of life, but improve the few parts that are broken

 

[LannyPC]

No winners. We all want the same thing - life to be as is was before this mess.

Pretty much, but I think the gist of the big question posed by the OP is which is the lesser (or greater) of two evils? For the time being, we have to take one or the other.

 

[queenofthehive]

There is a solution, kind of a compromise. Older people and those at risk could continue to quarantine while younger people and those at less risk and those who simply do not care about getting sick and possibly dying could resume life. It is not an either/or proposition. The countries that have been most successful have not had mass lockdowns. We can protect the vulnerable with a compromise. With the US approach, we have all lost.

It is not that simple. Many households have mixed “vulnerabilities”. My father lives with my sister and her family. Her and her husband must go to work and they also have children. Also, some “vulnerable”people still have to work. There are plenty of diabetics, people with high blood pressure and you name it that still work. There is no cut and dry solution.

 

["Roger"]

In answer to the title of this thread, as the thread obviously indicates, you are not the only one to feel that way. (Not saying that I do, but I understand the OP's point of view.)

More specifically, with regard to the concern over math abilities, I understand that. I saw students at not a high powered university and am acquainted with students, not all of them by any means, being weak in math. (What really bothered me is that if some of these students were to get a "C" in history, for example, their parents would be all over them. Get a "C" in math and they would say, "I wasn't very good at math either," making the "C" acceptable. Parents in Japan, for example, would not accept that.) I also saw a fair number of home schooled kids. Some of them were excellent in math, but overall... I would put about two thirds of them in the bottom quartile of the students that I saw with regard to math abilities. Yes, the OP has legitimate concern about kids currently being home schooled in math.

Now a few comments. (I am handicapped by what Ken555 mentions, staying away from the political).

A lot of comments seem to suggest that it will be the older people who die. (I know that those who made those comments know better, but ...) Some of those students in class will have a teacher die, a parent die, the father of their best friend die, etc. If we are to talk about mental stress, we need to take that in consideration.

It appears that Iowa has one of the better rates of testing, but that is still poor compared to many other countries. Why? (oops)

With a sudden surge with a complete reopening, there are going to be places where the medical facilities are inadequate. There will also be "survivors" who will have some very disturbing diminished capacities.

The new normal will not be normal no matter what is done.

England tried to tough it out and the results were terrible. They have changed course.

(The next comment is really going to get me in trouble). In the movie, Thelma and Louise one of the characters says "Well, things could be worse." A proper response to that is "When can't you say that?" Still, I think we need to appreciate how very fortunate most of our lives have been. (Yes, I know that this does not apply to all the posters.) So many examples. People who have grown up in slums, with drunken parents who beat their children, third world nations, the English during the Battle of Britain with severe rationing not ending for years after the war, etc. Sorry, when I see some comments, I want to say stop your whining.

So, am I in favor of a continued lock down? No, I see valid arguments on both sides. I am just trying to add content to people's thinking about the issue.