4 ms·

Unless you're arguing the budgets won't be cut or frozen, the data is the success metrics of those programs.

by dahdum 7y ago

triceratops 7y ago
You're saying that cutting (meaning reducing, not zeroing) budgets of social and health programs can kill up to 0.5% of the entire population of a state? Because that's the CFR of the virus. You're aware that even programs on reduced budgets can offer a reduced set of services, and prioritize the ones with most impact? (i.e. most lifesaving potential). And that their work will be far easier if there are fewer total sick people in the system? Have you balanced the effects of that versus letting the virus run amok so that the tax receipts aren't impacted? That's why I'm asking for numbers. Otherwise "a bad economy will kill more people" is a fuzzy assertion that sounds "cool" and "contrarian" but has no actual substance. Here are my numbers btw: "Our finding that all-cause mortality decreased during the Great Recession is consistent with previous studies. Some categories of cause-specific mortality, notably cardiovascular disease, also follow this pattern, and are more pronounced for certain gender and age groups. Our study also suggests that the recent recession contributed to the growth in deaths from overdoses of prescription drugs in working-age adults in metropolitan areas. Additional research investigating the mechanisms underlying the health consequences of macroeconomic conditions is warranted."[1] In the last big recession, deaths due to certain causes went up but overall mortality decreased. So what you're saying definitively did not happen in the only other comparable situation. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28772108 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28772108
- dahdum 7y ago
  > You're saying that cutting (meaning reducing, not zeroing) budgets of social and health programs can kill up to 0.5% of the entire population of a state? Because that's the CFR of the virus. I'm not saying that, but I could have been more clear. The Great Recession is not a great comparison to a continued lockdown scenario, unemployment peaked at 10% while current reports are putting us already at ~14% and rising. The recession reduced demand but didn't wipe out sectors, nor did it cascade nearly as fast. Heart attacks and traffic fatalities will go down as the studies show. I don't think I'm being contrarian, these pacts were setup to provide the political cover necessary for those qualified to make the call. My prediction is CA/OR/WA reopen on roughly the same schedule as everyone else, with just slight stricter restrictions. Such as quarantining the sick, isolating the high-risk, and other measures to bring the CFR down.

Unless you're arguing the budgets won't be cut or frozen, the data is the success metrics of those programs.

by dahdum 7y ago

Unless you're arguing the budgets won't be cut or frozen, the data is the success metrics of those programs.

You're saying that cutting (meaning reducing, not zeroing) budgets of social and health programs can kill up to 0.5% of the entire population of a state? Because that's the CFR of the virus. You're aware that even programs on reduced budgets can offer a reduced set of services, and prioritize the ones with most impact? (i.e. most lifesaving potential). And that their work will be far easier if there are fewer total sick people in the system? Have you balanced the effects of that versus letting the virus run amok so that the tax receipts aren't impacted? That's why I'm asking for numbers. Otherwise "a bad economy will kill more people" is a fuzzy assertion that sounds "cool" and "contrarian" but has no actual substance. Here are my numbers btw: "Our finding that all-cause mortality decreased during the Great Recession is consistent with previous studies. Some categories of cause-specific mortality, notably cardiovascular disease, also follow this pattern, and are more pronounced for certain gender and age groups. Our study also suggests that the recent recession contributed to the growth in deaths from overdoses of prescription drugs in working-age adults in metropolitan areas. Additional research investigating the mechanisms underlying the health consequences of macroeconomic conditions is warranted."[1] In the last big recession, deaths due to certain causes went up but overall mortality decreased. So what you're saying definitively did not happen in the only other comparable situation. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28772108 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28772108

dahdum 7y ago
> You're saying that cutting (meaning reducing, not zeroing) budgets of social and health programs can kill up to 0.5% of the entire population of a state? Because that's the CFR of the virus. I'm not saying that, but I could have been more clear. The Great Recession is not a great comparison to a continued lockdown scenario, unemployment peaked at 10% while current reports are putting us already at ~14% and rising. The recession reduced demand but didn't wipe out sectors, nor did it cascade nearly as fast. Heart attacks and traffic fatalities will go down as the studies show. I don't think I'm being contrarian, these pacts were setup to provide the political cover necessary for those qualified to make the call. My prediction is CA/OR/WA reopen on roughly the same schedule as everyone else, with just slight stricter restrictions. Such as quarantining the sick, isolating the high-risk, and other measures to bring the CFR down.