5 ms·

Now add in deaths due to the following reasons, and you'll start to get the real picture of what we've done. People who are avoiding treatment for heart attack

Now add in deaths due to the following reasons, and you'll start to get the real picture of what we've done. People who are avoiding treatment for heart attacks, strokes, and other critical conditions: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/patients-with-heart-attacks-strokes-and-even-appendicitis-vanish-from-hospitals/2020/04/19/9ca3ef24-7eb4-11ea-9040-68981f488eed_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/patients-with-heart-at... https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1931 https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1931 People who are not scheduling cancer screenings, heart bypass surgery, and other elective procedures: https://agoodwar.com/the-ban-on-elective-procedures-is-killing-more-people-than-covid-19 https://agoodwar.com/the-ban-on-elective-procedures-is-killi... People who will get tuberculosis: http://www.stoptb.org/assets/documents/news/Modeling%20Report_1%20May%202020_FINAL.pdf http://www.stoptb.org/assets/documents/news/Modeling%20Repor... People who will starve: https://www.france24.com/en/20200422-un-says-food-shortages-due-to-covid-19-pandemic-could-lead-to-humanitarian-catastrophe https://www.france24.com/en/20200422-un-says-food-shortages-...

fortran77 6y ago
And just the increased insecurity, job loss, and upheaval, will probably have bad effects for years to come. I feel we know enough about the virus now and how it spreads that many things can re-open, and governments/courts should affrim the rights of businesses to require masks and enforce limiting the number of people in the store, etc. They could also make sure masks--proper surgical masks (for people at low risk) and N-95 ventilators (for people at high risk) are available.
- guscost 6y ago
  Unfortunately this has become a political hot-potato and nobody is thinking straight, so the entirely preventable losses will continue to mount.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  I don't see any reason for courts to affirm either of those things since limiting occupancy and requiring masks are clearly within the rights of private companies and always have been. Perhaps courts might need to affirm them for use on public property and public lands like parks.
  - fortran77 6y ago
    That's what you and I believe, of course. But some people don't and that's what courts are for.

fortran77 6y ago

And just the increased insecurity, job loss, and upheaval, will probably have bad effects for years to come. I feel we know enough about the virus now and how it spreads that many things can re-open, and governments/courts should affrim the rights of businesses to require masks and enforce limiting the number of people in the store, etc. They could also make sure masks--proper surgical masks (for people at low risk) and N-95 ventilators (for people at high risk) are available.

guscost 6y ago
Unfortunately this has become a political hot-potato and nobody is thinking straight, so the entirely preventable losses will continue to mount.
jjeaff 6y ago
I don't see any reason for courts to affirm either of those things since limiting occupancy and requiring masks are clearly within the rights of private companies and always have been. Perhaps courts might need to affirm them for use on public property and public lands like parks.
- fortran77 6y ago
  That's what you and I believe, of course. But some people don't and that's what courts are for.