5 ms·

The deaths caused by the coronavirus will be nothing compared to the deaths caused by economic destruction. A 30% unemployment rate will kill substantially mor

by 0xy 7y ago

The deaths caused by the coronavirus will be nothing compared to the deaths caused by economic destruction. A 30% unemployment rate will kill substantially more people than the coronavirus. In fact, you could argue the protesters are advocating for behavior that would prevent people from dying (people who get laid off and are now in poverty). As you should know, poverty carries a much higher mortality rate.

edgefield0 7y ago
Not if a competent government provided leadership and managed the process, including the period of isolation and financial support for those in need. Instead we have the bumbling Trump administration and the GOP sycophants, which is providing no leadership and directing billions of dollars to those who least need it.
lovegoblin 7y ago
> As you should know, poverty carries a much higher mortality rate. But it needn't. They could be advocating for social safety nets, but instead they want the right to put others at risk.
phakding 7y ago
You have no data to support this.
- 0xy 7y ago
  Would you mind refuting specific points rather than disregarding my entire argument?
  - phakding 7y ago
    Your claim that the ensuing poverty will cause more deaths then corona virus. Do you have anything to support this? You made a claim so the onus is on you to provide supporting data. I don't need to refute anything at this juncture.
    - 0xy 7y ago
      It's an opinion based upon the link between mortality and poverty [1] and a potential 30% unemployment rate. In fact, the Fed is predicting 32%. [2] [1] https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/how-many-us-deaths-are-caused-poverty-lack-education-and-other-social-factors https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/how-... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/coronavirus-job-losses-could-total-47-million-unemployment-rate-of-32percent-fed-says.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/coronavirus-job-losses-could...
  - otterley 7y ago
    The person making the argument bears the burden of proof, not the person refuting it.
    - 0xy 7y ago
      I'm fully aware, I'm asking of which specific point needs data to back it up. I assumed the link between poverty and mortality was blindingly obvious. Of course poverty has bad health outcomes, and I've just cited sources in another reply.
      - debaserab2 7y ago
        I don't think that's the part that's tripping people up. You're kinda just hand-waving over the link between the newly unemployed facing the same conditions that create an increased mortality rate for those in poverty. Not all who are unemployed lack the means to continue living an unimpoverished lifestyle (savings, benefits, depending on a partner, budget reduction, etc) and presumably many of the unemployed will become employed again when economic conditions improve. This is the part that isn't "blindingly obvious" and requires a bit more of a substantive argument to backup the statement that "the deaths from coronavirus will be nothing compared to the deaths caused by economic destruction".
        0xy 7y ago
        Is your position that people who will be made unemployed as a result of the economic destruction have enough savings and that we are providing enough benefits for them to survive? 59% of Americans could not afford $1,000 in an emergency. [1] So you're talking about an optimistic runway of $1,000 + a $1,200 one-time benefit payment. The average person will be in poverty within 60 days. I think you're dramatically overestimating the wealth of the average American. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/21/41-percent-of-americans-would-be-able-to-cover-1000-dollar-emergency-with-savings.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/21/41-percent-of-americans-woul...
        debaserab2 7y ago
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
jeromegv 7y ago
Looks like you have no data supporting this argument. You also have to look at the economical impact of doing nothing. Hundreds of thousands of member of society dying/crippled/in hospitals (who's paying for that?). Add to that, regardless of shutdown, tons of people would be so scared of public interactions that they would stay home anyway, and also end up impacting the economy. Making the argument that there would be no economical destruction from doing nothing seems a bit weird.
- 0xy 7y ago
  http://news.mit.edu/2016/study-rich-poor-huge-mortality-gap-us-0411 http://news.mit.edu/2016/study-rich-poor-huge-mortality-gap-... What proof do you want? I figured everything I said was common sense. 30% unemployment isn't outside the bounds of possibility and poverty has been repeatedly proven to have a much higher mortality rate.
inscionent 7y ago
We could fix the things that cause the poverty mortality rate to be so high, if we wanted. It's a lack of will, leadership and compassion that holds us back.

by 0xy 7y ago

edgefield0 7y ago

Not if a competent government provided leadership and managed the process, including the period of isolation and financial support for those in need. Instead we have the bumbling Trump administration and the GOP sycophants, which is providing no leadership and directing billions of dollars to those who least need it.

lovegoblin 7y ago

> As you should know, poverty carries a much higher mortality rate. But it needn't. They could be advocating for social safety nets, but instead they want the right to put others at risk.

phakding 7y ago

You have no data to support this.

0xy 7y ago
Would you mind refuting specific points rather than disregarding my entire argument?
- phakding 7y ago
  Your claim that the ensuing poverty will cause more deaths then corona virus. Do you have anything to support this? You made a claim so the onus is on you to provide supporting data. I don't need to refute anything at this juncture.
  - 0xy 7y ago
    It's an opinion based upon the link between mortality and poverty [1] and a potential 30% unemployment rate. In fact, the Fed is predicting 32%. [2] [1] https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/how-many-us-deaths-are-caused-poverty-lack-education-and-other-social-factors https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/how-... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/coronavirus-job-losses-could-total-47-million-unemployment-rate-of-32percent-fed-says.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/coronavirus-job-losses-could...
- otterley 7y ago
  The person making the argument bears the burden of proof, not the person refuting it.
  - 0xy 7y ago
    I'm fully aware, I'm asking of which specific point needs data to back it up. I assumed the link between poverty and mortality was blindingly obvious. Of course poverty has bad health outcomes, and I've just cited sources in another reply.
    - debaserab2 7y ago
      I don't think that's the part that's tripping people up. You're kinda just hand-waving over the link between the newly unemployed facing the same conditions that create an increased mortality rate for those in poverty. Not all who are unemployed lack the means to continue living an unimpoverished lifestyle (savings, benefits, depending on a partner, budget reduction, etc) and presumably many of the unemployed will become employed again when economic conditions improve. This is the part that isn't "blindingly obvious" and requires a bit more of a substantive argument to backup the statement that "the deaths from coronavirus will be nothing compared to the deaths caused by economic destruction".
      - 0xy 7y ago
        Is your position that people who will be made unemployed as a result of the economic destruction have enough savings and that we are providing enough benefits for them to survive? 59% of Americans could not afford $1,000 in an emergency. [1] So you're talking about an optimistic runway of $1,000 + a $1,200 one-time benefit payment. The average person will be in poverty within 60 days. I think you're dramatically overestimating the wealth of the average American. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/21/41-percent-of-americans-would-be-able-to-cover-1000-dollar-emergency-with-savings.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/21/41-percent-of-americans-woul...
        debaserab2 7y ago
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

jeromegv 7y ago

Looks like you have no data supporting this argument. You also have to look at the economical impact of doing nothing. Hundreds of thousands of member of society dying/crippled/in hospitals (who's paying for that?). Add to that, regardless of shutdown, tons of people would be so scared of public interactions that they would stay home anyway, and also end up impacting the economy. Making the argument that there would be no economical destruction from doing nothing seems a bit weird.

0xy 7y ago
http://news.mit.edu/2016/study-rich-poor-huge-mortality-gap-us-0411 http://news.mit.edu/2016/study-rich-poor-huge-mortality-gap-... What proof do you want? I figured everything I said was common sense. 30% unemployment isn't outside the bounds of possibility and poverty has been repeatedly proven to have a much higher mortality rate.

inscionent 7y ago

We could fix the things that cause the poverty mortality rate to be so high, if we wanted. It's a lack of will, leadership and compassion that holds us back.