4 ms·

But trends in suicide including economic causes are handled by epidemiology[1] It is great that attention is now being paid to this subject. Although the overa

But trends in suicide including economic causes are handled by epidemiology[1] It is great that attention is now being paid to this subject. Although the overall suicide rate has continued to _rise_ in spite of 11 years of a rising DOW, the suicide rate among those approaching retirement has risen significantly in the last decades. From past trends we know this is directly related to social security[2]. I sincerely hope the attention continues and solutions are pursued and deeply hope that, as some think, it is not a cynical ploy. Likewise, I hope the sudden concern for food security among the vulnerable poor continues. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_suicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_suicide [2] https://books.google.com/books?id=ESSEHA5TyoIC&pg=PA360&lpg=PA360#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=ESSEHA5TyoIC&pg=PA360&lpg=...

downerending 7y ago
No doubt, but we need more than just epidemiologists to project how complex changes in the world economy will affect suicide. For example, how can the various interventions possible by the US Fed affect the economic well-being of the poor? Etc. We need all of our experts on this, including the political ones, who have a good sense of what will fly and what won't. No doubt social security (Social Security?) does affect those of us who are older. I can personally attest, though, that there are a lot of other factors that also come into play (and in my opinion may be more important).
- TomMckenny 7y ago
  In principle that makes perfect sense. And it is important to note that there is another choice other than the two we are given: the one the Europeans have chosen: employee protection/compensation along with any corporate bailouts. If for political reasons we refuse the European approach then the concern is not that fatality counts and epidemiologist will be balanced by economist but that epidemiologist and economists will be balanced by lobbyists. As if to underscore this point, the order for 80,000 ventilators[1] was stopped yesterday on grounds that it was too expensive[2]. The cost at 1 billion is equivalent to 1/4 to 1/12 of 1% of the total F-35 order at 428 to 1196 billion [3] And the f-35 order is already controversial to begin with. [1] https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1241732681366482944 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/12417326813664829... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/us/politics/coronavirus-ventilators-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/us/politics/coronavirus-v... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
  - downerending 7y ago
    I do think that employees should be taken care of. I have no idea of the best way to do that. It sounds like a job for economists and politicians. Re the ventilators, the most obvious standard would be not the F-35 cost, but rather what we pay to support a statistical life under other circumstances (e.g., medicaid, EMS services, etc.) No idea what the right balance is, but we don't want people to needlessly die because we overshot on the ventilators.

downerending 7y ago

No doubt, but we need more than just epidemiologists to project how complex changes in the world economy will affect suicide. For example, how can the various interventions possible by the US Fed affect the economic well-being of the poor? Etc. We need all of our experts on this, including the political ones, who have a good sense of what will fly and what won't. No doubt social security (Social Security?) does affect those of us who are older. I can personally attest, though, that there are a lot of other factors that also come into play (and in my opinion may be more important).

TomMckenny 7y ago
In principle that makes perfect sense. And it is important to note that there is another choice other than the two we are given: the one the Europeans have chosen: employee protection/compensation along with any corporate bailouts. If for political reasons we refuse the European approach then the concern is not that fatality counts and epidemiologist will be balanced by economist but that epidemiologist and economists will be balanced by lobbyists. As if to underscore this point, the order for 80,000 ventilators[1] was stopped yesterday on grounds that it was too expensive[2]. The cost at 1 billion is equivalent to 1/4 to 1/12 of 1% of the total F-35 order at 428 to 1196 billion [3] And the f-35 order is already controversial to begin with. [1] https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1241732681366482944 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/12417326813664829... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/us/politics/coronavirus-ventilators-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/us/politics/coronavirus-v... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
- downerending 7y ago
  I do think that employees should be taken care of. I have no idea of the best way to do that. It sounds like a job for economists and politicians. Re the ventilators, the most obvious standard would be not the F-35 cost, but rather what we pay to support a statistical life under other circumstances (e.g., medicaid, EMS services, etc.) No idea what the right balance is, but we don't want people to needlessly die because we overshot on the ventilators.