3 ms·

A hat store is essential to the owners and employees of said store. And maybe they sell items like scarves that could be used for face coverings, etc. Perhaps

A hat store is essential to the owners and employees of said store. And maybe they sell items like scarves that could be used for face coverings, etc. Perhaps we should be thinking high risk and low risk instead of essential and non-essential. A hat store with appropriate distancing measures and cleaning protocols is probably low risk.

cycomanic 6y ago
Well their lives are also essential to the employees of the store. Apart from the fact that that no customers would come in.
cycomanic 6y ago
Also regarding the low risk vs essential well that's exactly what is being planned at the moment. Look at the interview with Cuomo on the daily show on Thursday (?). They are looking both risk and importance for when they reopen things. That said, by saying the economy is more important than people dying, this is not an either or decision. Do you think thousands of extra dead are good for the economy? What about the health workers, by not shutting down you would essentially put them into the situation where they have to deal with a completely overwhelmed health care system, leading to more dead health workers (the primary reason for dead health workers in China and Italy was that they were so overworked and stressed they could not follow best safety practices).
- generalpass 6y ago
  Where do these additional resources being consumed by the overwhelmed health care system come from? They come from people who can pay for the services by participating in the productive economy. When you shutter the economy, it is impossible to be certain there will be sufficient resources to supply the health care system (or anything, for that matter). It is not necessary treat people as toddlers. People are already capable of managing risk and will take precautions as they see fit for their situation. Those who are not able to provide for themselves are most often able to find someone within their community to help.
- davidf560 6y ago
  1000s of people will likely die due to the primary and secondary effects of the lockdown (suicides, delayed health care, etc.). There's also no guarantee that "locking down" will actually prevent any deaths - it may just be delaying them until the point where things start to open back up (because I think we can all agree that does have to happen at some point someday). Everyone is hoping for treatment or a vaccine or really good testing/tracing to make a difference, but I'm not sure any of those things are guaranteed. We may just be delaying the inevitable. All decisions at this point have significant downsides. There is no clearly correct answer. Politicians are trying to balance those concerns, and they're trying to do so with extremely limited data and awful models (due to the bad data - GIGO). I don't honestly think anyone knows what will really happen with either the virus OR the economy. It's clear they're just guessing and that's really terrifying.
  - generalpass 6y ago
    Losing life and livelihood: a systematic review and meta-analysis of unemployment and all-cause mortality [1] > Unemployed persons were significantly more likely to die than those in a comparator group; the hazard ratio adjusted for age and other covariates was 1.63, showing that unemployment is associated with a 63% higher risk of mortality. The average effect was higher for men than women with an increased risk of 78% compared to 37%, respectively. Unemployed people in their early or mid careers faced an increased risk of 73% and 77%, compared to 25% for those in their late careers. The risk of death was over 70% in the first ten years of follow-up but fell to 42% after that, although the trend was not significant in the final meta-regression model. [1] https://www.scie-socialcareonline.org.uk/losing-life-and-livelihood-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis-of-unemployment-and-all-cause-mortality/r/a1CG0000000Ga7dMAC https://www.scie-socialcareonline.org.uk/losing-life-and-liv...

cycomanic 6y ago

Well their lives are also essential to the employees of the store. Apart from the fact that that no customers would come in.

cycomanic 6y ago

Also regarding the low risk vs essential well that's exactly what is being planned at the moment. Look at the interview with Cuomo on the daily show on Thursday (?). They are looking both risk and importance for when they reopen things. That said, by saying the economy is more important than people dying, this is not an either or decision. Do you think thousands of extra dead are good for the economy? What about the health workers, by not shutting down you would essentially put them into the situation where they have to deal with a completely overwhelmed health care system, leading to more dead health workers (the primary reason for dead health workers in China and Italy was that they were so overworked and stressed they could not follow best safety practices).

generalpass 6y ago
Where do these additional resources being consumed by the overwhelmed health care system come from? They come from people who can pay for the services by participating in the productive economy. When you shutter the economy, it is impossible to be certain there will be sufficient resources to supply the health care system (or anything, for that matter). It is not necessary treat people as toddlers. People are already capable of managing risk and will take precautions as they see fit for their situation. Those who are not able to provide for themselves are most often able to find someone within their community to help.
davidf560 6y ago
1000s of people will likely die due to the primary and secondary effects of the lockdown (suicides, delayed health care, etc.). There's also no guarantee that "locking down" will actually prevent any deaths - it may just be delaying them until the point where things start to open back up (because I think we can all agree that does have to happen at some point someday). Everyone is hoping for treatment or a vaccine or really good testing/tracing to make a difference, but I'm not sure any of those things are guaranteed. We may just be delaying the inevitable. All decisions at this point have significant downsides. There is no clearly correct answer. Politicians are trying to balance those concerns, and they're trying to do so with extremely limited data and awful models (due to the bad data - GIGO). I don't honestly think anyone knows what will really happen with either the virus OR the economy. It's clear they're just guessing and that's really terrifying.
- generalpass 6y ago
  Losing life and livelihood: a systematic review and meta-analysis of unemployment and all-cause mortality [1] > Unemployed persons were significantly more likely to die than those in a comparator group; the hazard ratio adjusted for age and other covariates was 1.63, showing that unemployment is associated with a 63% higher risk of mortality. The average effect was higher for men than women with an increased risk of 78% compared to 37%, respectively. Unemployed people in their early or mid careers faced an increased risk of 73% and 77%, compared to 25% for those in their late careers. The risk of death was over 70% in the first ten years of follow-up but fell to 42% after that, although the trend was not significant in the final meta-regression model. [1] https://www.scie-socialcareonline.org.uk/losing-life-and-livelihood-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis-of-unemployment-and-all-cause-mortality/r/a1CG0000000Ga7dMAC https://www.scie-socialcareonline.org.uk/losing-life-and-liv...