12 ms·

US hunger crisis persists, especially for kids, older adults

brink 6y ago
The negative side-effects of lockdowns is so grossly under-represented in discussions, especially of those in power. Depression, joblessness, separation of families, separation of bi-national couples, suicides, financial stress, hunger, a collapsing economy.. These things need to be taken seriously. Many politicians have been acting like these things don't exist while ordering more and more stringent lockdowns, giving passing condolences at best, and it borders on negligence. There needs to be a balance. Yes, avoiding the chance of death matters for you and those around you, but what is it worth if you're miserably suicidal and have lost hope as a result of it? I know this has been said before, but I feel the need to keep saying it, as it's still a problem to this day.
- lucian1900 6y ago
  Plenty of countries have paired lockdowns with rent&mortgage freezes, furlough, assistance for the needy in general, etc. Both problems have solutions.
  - TaylorSwift 6y ago
    A lot of my peers are in a certain age that should be dating. But it's been 1 year now, and there are paranoia and concerns about safety. It's really tiring. Missing out on 2 years of developing a healthy social relationship with other people -- it really is a lost of time in a prime age.
    - lucian1900 6y ago
      Certainly years of this are not sustainable. That’s why the approach taken by a few countries to eliminate local transmission are preferable (China, Vietnam, New Zealand, South Korea).
    - saiya-jin 6y ago
      I can't honestly imagine how bad indirect negative impact of all related to covid will be, I would say at least on scale of direct deaths / long time sufferers (although those things are obviously not directly comparable). And yet despite all these costs, most of the world failed desperately and repeatedly in handling it and the show is far from over. Meeting the other sex is a topic on its own - all normal venues often just disappeared, especially here in Europe. No bars, no restaurants, concerts, schools, group sports, and most importantly not that much work in the office, arguably the most common place for folks to meet their significant other. I am just a remote observer of this, we were lucky to get married in summer 2019 - one year later the marriage would be with 6 guests max if it would happen at all. But still can't wrap my head around all this no matter which angle I try to look it form. Me, my wife and my son been through covid in February, my parents back home are going through it now and I really do have respect from this unpredictable sickness. But as damage mounts in each one of us and there is always this fleeting political promise that in next 2 months it will be much better, I am getting tired of largely inefficient yet very restrictive constraints and starting to lean more towards 'fuck it, keep basic measures mandatory everywhere and lets go back to behavior as it was before covid'. It may be just a stupid kneejerk reaction, but over 1 year wears one out
      - rubicon33 6y ago
        > one year later the marriage would be with 6 guests max if it would happen at all. I've seen many weddings in 2020 that were totally unrestrained, 100+ gatherings with the justification being "outdoors". No masks worn, nothing. I can't stand that there are people who would do that. If I may ask - given how cautious you sound - how did you get covid?
    - rubicon33 6y ago
      The most tiring thing isn't missing out on life, it's seeing all the people who are vagrantly choosing to ignore safety precautions and continue on with THEIR life while others are distancing, staying at home, avoiding people, etc. By far the worst part about this has been the feeling that I have wasted a year, while others chose not to. My mistake I guess, but for everyone who chose to ignore the rules, many spread the virus.
      - tastyfreeze 6y ago
        The other day my daughter asked why I listen to tsunami alerts and head uphill when the the waves arent much bigger that a normal wave by the time they get to us (inside island). I told her that I'm not going to be the dummy that gets killed by not heeding warnings. I think the same applies here. You do you and dont worry about all the folks taking risks to go out. Statistically, some of them are responsible for someone's death from COVID or died from COVID. I would rather not be part of that statistic just because I felt like I missed out.
  - makomk 6y ago
    Every country has had plenty of people who fall through the holes in whatever assistance programs they have in place, and the US media has downplayed their downsides compared to what the US did. For example, there's been a tendency in the American press to push the UK's furlough program as better than the US approach because it kept more people off unemployment, but as far as I could tell the US enhanced unemployment was substantially better for the worst-off amongst you than UK furlough, and those who didn't benefit from furlough and had to go on unemployment - for example, because their employer went out of business, or they were between jobs, or had started a new job too recently - were much worse off here.
    - lucian1900 6y ago
      The UK certainly didn’t do enough either, so many here are in rent arrears for example. Rents should’ve been frozen as the first act.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- BrianOnHN 6y ago
  Lockdowns wouldn't be necessary if half the country didn't insist on living like barbarians.
- 11235813213455 6y ago
  On the other side, I see many positive side-effects, we're forced to adapt, to take care of others who can't, to eliminate non-necessary things and consumption from our life, which is good
- ryandrake 6y ago
  But this article is about the US, where there have been no lockdowns. Only (mostly) unenforced stay-at-home orders, (mostly) unenforced business closures, and (mostly) unenforced mask mandates. I don't see the link. Lots of people have been out horsing around, doing whatever they wanted this past year, and sidestepping the token, unenforced roadblocks that were half-assed by governments. Something must be causing all these terrible things, but it's not lockdowns. I would start looking at lack of government action rather than the little they actually did.
  - an_opabinia 6y ago
    > I would start looking at lack of government action rather than the little they actually did. The simple reality of it is that there was a colossal finance related economic crash, similar to 2008, that was blamed on the lockdown when the lockdown wasn't really to blame. We're still in the "dead cat bounce" phase of that crash.
    - tastyfreeze 6y ago
      Hit the nail on the head. The pain of the 2008 crash was just kicked down the road by bailing out banks. We will have to reckon with the consequences of government economic meddling at some point. Shutting down the economy was just a shove towards the cliff. I think that we are going to really see the crash kick off whenever the eviction moratorium is lifted. There is no way that all landlords are able to service their loans. Anybody that has been patient with savings will be cleaning house snatching up cheap properties and businesses.
      - ericmcer 6y ago
        Yeah sure lol, the federal reserve is willing to float asset prices indefinitely. Neither party wants to be incumbent the one that deals with the fallout of raising interest rates. Anyone who has been patient with savings will get wrecked by inflation.
        tastyfreeze 6y ago
- watwut 6y ago
  How was it underrepresent when major political party, the one in power, went out of its way to prevent lockdowns and other measures? Also, suicides rose, but not enough to counteract stats. Domestic violence went up too, but still not enough to counteract anything.
- nonameiguess 6y ago
  Where? In the US? Is this overview lying? https://www.usatoday.com/storytelling/coronavirus-reopening-america-map/ https://www.usatoday.com/storytelling/coronavirus-reopening-... It seems to indicate the vast majority of places are loosening restrictions. Only one state out of 50 is currently imposing more stringent lockdowns.
- swiley 6y ago
  we're starting to hear it. Fresh air (part of APM/NPR and typically much less factual than NPR news) noted that drug overdoses were up by 26% last year although I'm not sure they attributed it to the lockdown.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  > Depression, joblessness, separation of families, separation of bi-national couples, suicides, financial stress, hunger, a collapsing economy.. These things need to be taken seriously. It seems to me as if many politicians have never taken those things seriously, before the pandemic or during it. I've also noticed that some politicians suddenly say that they care about those problems during lockdowns, yet they haven't pushed for any legislation to actually help mitigate those deep-seated issues. It seems to me like they're just using those issues, and the suffering of others, as tools to complain about policy they don't like.
  - hn8788 6y ago
    The difference is that before you could try and do something about those problems, even if politicians didn't care. Now those problems still exist, but people are forced to stay at home because keeping a low infection rate is all people care about.
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      There are certainly responses politicians could have made to help with mental health, loss of income, hunger and homelessness before the pandemic and during it. The problems existed before the pandemic and required a solution, and the problems still exist during the pandemic and require a solution. The issue is that the solution to either of those problems upset those who finance politicians. There are powerful people who would rather have others starve, die from exposure and go without treatment for their mental illnesses than give them the resources they need to live dignified lives.
- Pyramus 6y ago
  I see this argument more often and I don't fully understand it. No elected official (in a Western democratic society) wants lockdowns. The electorate does not want lockdowns. I do not want lockdowns. Nobody I've spoken to has said, let's keep lockdowns. Lockdowns are bad for exactly the reasons you've described. No elected official I know has said, well, the economy, children's mental health, education, joblessness - these are just minor issues, let's do lockdowns. Not at the county, district, state or national level. We are currently in a loose-loose situation - either way people will suffer, and different (Western democratic) societies are sharing this suffering differently. E.g. in the US, the consensus has been to trade more loss of life for personal freedom than in European countries. I do not want you to suffer. In fact, if you are in a state of distress through no fault of your own, I do want my taxpayer money to go directly into your pockets.
  - CWuestefeld 6y ago
    No elected official I know has said, well, the economy, children's mental health, education, joblessness - these are just minor issues, let's do lockdowns. This is precisely the problem. Our leaders refuse to acknowledge that their myopic quest for safety from covid at all costs has serious repercussions. They bluster on citing data from the CDC and all, but without more than a wink at the collateral damage - all the time buoyed by sycophantic supporters chanting, "follow the science!". It's as if biology is the only science, and there's no need to consult economists.
    - Pyramus 6y ago
      I do not live in the US, so YMMV, but I can only re-iterate that this has absolutely not been my experience. Have you actually spoken to somebody 'in power'? Go to the next council meeting, speak to your local mayor, call a local representative. We have been doing this for over a year now and in my experience they know very well what the toll of lockdowns is.
    - lazyasciiart 6y ago
      I think you've completely misread that comment. When it argues that none of them say 'these are just minor issues', you think it means that politicians haven't even mentioned them. I am pretty sure it is supposed to mean that politicians have been looking at them seriously and not being dismissive.
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  How could these policies be disconnected from the average Joe's experiences? They were agreed by our politicians and doctors who's kids tutor were happy to not have to commute to their suburban estate.
- spaetzleesser 6y ago
  “Many politicians have been acting like these things don't exist while ordering more and more stringent lockdowns, giving passing condolences at best, and it borders on negligence. There needs to be a balance. Yes, avoiding the chance of death matters for you and those around you, but what is it worth if you're miserably suicidal and have lost hope as a result of it?” I personally am very happy not to have to make decisions in this situation. Unless you have dumb luck (the pandemic is not as bad as thought originally but there was no way you could have known that) either you will get heat because businesses are dying or you will get heat because people are dying. Or both. It pretty easy to criticize what’s going on but how can you make decisions with very little input data and dire consequences either way? Us techies want people to believe us on tech matters because we are subject matter experts but it seems we are not willing to believe what scientists in multiple countries are recommending because somehow we know better. Brazil clearly shows that ignoring the pandemic is not exactly a recipe for success. So what’s a leader to do? One reasonable thing would be to keep businesses open as much as possible while having super strict masking and disinfection requirements. But somehow there is this correlation between people wanting businesses to be open and at the same time not wanting masks. Reminds me of the abortion situation. Abortion opponents also up often oppose sex education and contraception. So they oppose the one thing that would help their cause the most.
  - Mountain_Skies 6y ago
    Credibility matters. That's the main lesson public health officials should learn from this but it appears instead they're going to endlessly keep doubling down and further destroy their already damaged credibility. If they care about public health, they'll work on regaining the trust they lost instead of playing even more games trying to trick the public into doing what they want.
    - spaetzleesser 6y ago
      What do you think is what they want and what games are they playing? It seems you don’t believe they are doing what they believe is best for the situation. don’t forget that the response is very similar in a lot of countries around the world.
- bloaf 6y ago
  Economic slowdowns have historically been associated with increased life expectancy, despite their impact on mental health: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00210-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00210-0
- lazyasciiart 6y ago
  I have seen this claim multiple times, and I am yet to find any specific example of a politician who has not addressed these issues. I have seen decisions made that I disagreed with, but not because they didn't consider these issues. I have seen a lot of work at all different levels of government put into addressing them. What would it have to look like for you to feel that politicians and others in power were taking these issues seriously?
endisneigh 6y ago
Unfortunately with the pandemic it was kind of no win for a politician.
- Mountain_Skies 6y ago
  Which is fine. A good leader is one who will endure some discomfort in order to benefit those they lead. Doing the right thing despite knowing it will keep you from getting re-elected is something a good leader does. Those whose greatest goal is to cling to power no matter the damage to the people they lead are not good leaders.
technofiend 6y ago
Yeah this one really tears at the heart strings. Google "food insecurity charity" or Charity Navigator or Charity Watch to find one you trust if you'd like to help. https://www.charitynavigator.org/ https://www.charitynavigator.org/ https://www.charitywatch.org/ https://www.charitywatch.org/
- imnotlost 6y ago
  Charity is great but... None of these issues will be improved, much less solved, through shaming and moralizing, hoping 330M individuals will make charitable contributions and recycle. Give a can of food while doing your Christmas shopping so the super-corps can pay less tax and claim it gives to charity. Just another systemic problem pushed to the individual, and swept under the rug.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    Through all of history, charity has never been enough to solve those issues. It would be wrong to think that your charity alone is enough to solve those problems. However, while the solutions to those problems aren't being implemented, charity can help soften the blow. It would be correct to think that your charity helps somewhat, but much, much more needs to be done. Get involved with charity, but also get involved in policy at all levels, local to federal. To give an example about why this is important, several places I've lived have criminalized things like addiction, homelessness, feeding people who need food, and community gardens. It was local and state activism that made so that if an overdose was called in via 911, everyone who helped the victim didn't get arrested as a result. That stopped the trend of people not getting help for overdoses, as well as disturbing trends like overdose victims being left on the side of the road. Local and state activism helped get affordable housing measures passed, as well.
  - technofiend 6y ago
    >shaming and moralizing, hoping 330M individuals will make charitable contributions and recycle My response was neither meant to shame or moralize, but rather to give people who decide "I'd like to do something right now" a way to do it and get maximum benefit from their contribution.* Should there be other and better responses? Undeniably. Will that prevent me from responding in the meantime and telling others how they may also respond if they want to? No, it will not. * Before anyone gets pedantic I mean maximizing a charitable contribution's impact by going to an org that uses the majority of the donation to help their target community rather than being sucked up by administrative overhead.
arrosenberg 6y ago
It's not a coincidence that a number of New Deal programs were focused on meeting the basic needs of kids (e.g. school lunches and the CCC) and the elderly (e.g. Social Security and Medicare).
- kazen44 6y ago
  in history, it is also one of the first needs people who want to gain power deliver. (think of gangsters feeding communities, or revolutionaries establishing schools in occupied territory).
tehjoker 6y ago
The graphic in the article is telling. While the coronavirus is shocking in the severity with which the lack of response has impoverished people, it is only a 1.5x worsening of the situation! This tells a story of longstanding institutional neglect that allows millions to remain in a state of impoverishment indefinitely. Moreover, the chart shows that food distribution was growing prior to the pandemic, which could mean the problem was worsening (or more locations appeared, or more food was distributed per capita).
- tastyfreeze 6y ago
  Impoverishment of lower classes is the direct result of monetary debasement. There is simply no way to move up when what little you earn buys less each year. Monetary debasement is also why we have seen an increase in the wealth gap.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    If money was truly debased, you'd see wages and product prices rise. The asset classes we've seen increase in price are stocks, bonds, healthcare, education, and property. What we haven't seen increase are food, consumer goods, or wages. You can say that the currency is being debased, but the numbers are the same for 2010 as they in 2020. The issue is that there simply is no way to accumulate wealth on the amount earned -- there's nothing left after expenses. Inflation or deflation wouldn't help this.
    - tastyfreeze 6y ago
      Wages haven't grown with monetary supply inflation. Every dollar earned buys less each year and wages stay mostly the same. Without debasement what you earn buys mostly the same amount of stuff the next year. Then you are able to save and count on your money actually being worth something when you need it. We have had over 100 years of debasement that increased in rate after 1971. You need to look at a longer time frame to see how badly we have all be fucked. We haven't had obvious consumer price inflation because the money supply is hitting the financial class first. Instead we have seen asset prices increase rapidly. With the stimulus checks every citizen has had a taste of what has been happening with banks for a century. But, we have had price inflation. Instead of raising the price at the store most manufacturers have opted to reduce package sizes for the same price. They didn't do this for your health. The price creep up is slow enough that it can be hard to notice. I am not sure how old your are. Think back of how much a dollar bought you when you were young. Can you buy those same items for a dollar now? How about 5 dollars? This is the pernicious result of debasing the currency.
chmod775 6y ago
Isn't this just embarrassing? A country that sent people to the moon decades ago and spends 2,600 USD per inhabitant per year on their military can't even feed their people today? Excuse me but what the fuck.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  It's not that we can't, we choose not to. Like the only reason that children get shamed for not having money for school lunch is because some people like it that way. There's no lack of resources. This is more than embarrassing.
  - sm4rk0 6y ago
    But the USA are the embodiment of democracy. How can't you choose something better? /s
    - jfengel 6y ago
      Because a lot of people believe that if you're hungry, it's because you're stupid, lazy, or morally deficient, and thus deserve to be hungry. I suspect you think I'm joking. I'm not. "Work is better than welfare" is a common refrain. Here it is on a state government web site: https://www.dshs.wa.gov/esa/chapter-1-engaging-parents-workfirst/11-overview https://www.dshs.wa.gov/esa/chapter-1-engaging-parents-workf... It's widely considered that if you feed people for free, they will have no incentive to work. They will live off of your effort, have more children who will learn from their parents that work isn't required, and possibly commit crimes to obtain more. There is a genuine fear that they will literally lead more comfortable lives than you do by working. Again, I suspect you think I'm exaggerating, or that this is an extreme minority opinion. This is a very common opinion among Americans -- effectively universal among conservatives, and significant among progressives. We don't choose better because the things that you think of as "better" are supported by only a minority of Americans. Most Americans think it will make us lazy, weak, and stupid.
      - kmonsen 6y ago
mdoms 6y ago
Wealthiest nation in the world.
- annoyingnoob 6y ago
  The top 10% owns over 50% of that wealth. The bottom 50% owns 2% of that wealth. Wealthy for some, hungry for many. https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/ https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...
throwawaysea 6y ago
As an aside, without comment on this particular issue: we really need to stop using words like "crisis", "emergency", "justice", etc. I am very much desensitized to these words from their overuse, especially since very often the terms are used in a hyperbolic fashion for maximal effect when pushing political goals. I find them to be imprecise and unhelpful.
throwaway8581 6y ago
This idea that people are actually going hungry due to poverty in the US is absurd. A full day's worth of calories can be had for less than $3. And I'm not just talking about going to McDonalds and ordering off the dollar menu, which is certainly an option occasionally. I mean real food. https://www.upstart.com/blog/lowest-cost-per-calorie-foods https://www.upstart.com/blog/lowest-cost-per-calorie-foods And in fact, it is firmly established that it's the poorest people in America who tend to be the fattest. And what free school lunches often solve is not hunger but neglect. There are lots of shitty parents who don't care enough to deposit lunch money in the school account or pack lunch for their kid, or who make appalling dietary choices for their children. I wish people would have a little more skepticism and apply some independent common sense when consuming statistics. People getting food from food banks or consuming free lunch doesn't mean that they are otherwise going hungry. It means they are accepting something offered for free. There are myriad, complicated reasons why those patterns would change. But it's a strong, unjustified conclusion to say it's because they would otherwise go hungry.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  Eat cold lard for a month challenge.
  - throwaway8581 6y ago
    Eggs – $1.61 per 2,000 calories Spaghetti – $1.49 per 2,000 calories Pinto beans – $1.39 per 2,000 calories Whole milk – $1.37 per 2,000 calories Peanut butter – $1.25 per 2,000 calories White rice – $0.41 per 2,000 calories Top ramen (beef & chicken) – $1.82 per 2,000 calories Potatoes – $1.79 per 2,000 calories And if you do more research, you'd see that a loaf of bread is about $2 for about 2000 calories.
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      Are you supposed to eat the spaghetti uncooked? What about the eggs? Where are homeless people getting the refrigerators to store their milk and eggs?
zozin 6y ago
Did anyone in the comments even read the article or did they just skim the title and decide to chide America since that's so du jour right now? The gist of the article is that an enormous crisis created strains on connecting people and free meals, but various entities stepped up to the plate and came up with flexible solutions (school districts delivering meals on school buses or making food available for pickup, cities paying restaurants to feed seniors, expansion of federal funding, food banks and churches expanding their food operations, etc.). The title could've been "US system of free and subsidized meals bends but does not break", but that just doesn't get clicks, does it? Negative title creates negative emotions, which leads to negative thought patterns (America sucks!!), and then the cycle continues.
musicale 6y ago
Certainly people may be reluctant to visit grocery stores or senior centers because of covid and school lunch programs may be unavailable when schools are closed. However, there is also a general economic crisis due to people losing their employment or business income due to the pandemic and lockdowns. People whose income has suddenly been lowered have trouble affording all sorts of basic necessities: food, clothing, household supplies, rent, utilities, health care... Unemployment insurance can help but it may not be enough. Rent has been mitigated somewhat due to anti-eviction policies but those will expire eventually and the rent will come due.

The negative side-effects of lockdowns is so grossly under-represented in discussions, especially of those in power. Depression, joblessness, separation of families, separation of bi-national couples, suicides, financial stress, hunger, a collapsing economy.. These things need to be taken seriously. Many politicians have been acting like these things don't exist while ordering more and more stringent lockdowns, giving passing condolences at best, and it borders on negligence. There needs to be a balance. Yes, avoiding the chance of death matters for you and those around you, but what is it worth if you're miserably suicidal and have lost hope as a result of it? I know this has been said before, but I feel the need to keep saying it, as it's still a problem to this day.

lucian1900 6y ago
Plenty of countries have paired lockdowns with rent&mortgage freezes, furlough, assistance for the needy in general, etc. Both problems have solutions.
- TaylorSwift 6y ago
  A lot of my peers are in a certain age that should be dating. But it's been 1 year now, and there are paranoia and concerns about safety. It's really tiring. Missing out on 2 years of developing a healthy social relationship with other people -- it really is a lost of time in a prime age.
  - lucian1900 6y ago
    Certainly years of this are not sustainable. That’s why the approach taken by a few countries to eliminate local transmission are preferable (China, Vietnam, New Zealand, South Korea).
  - saiya-jin 6y ago
    I can't honestly imagine how bad indirect negative impact of all related to covid will be, I would say at least on scale of direct deaths / long time sufferers (although those things are obviously not directly comparable). And yet despite all these costs, most of the world failed desperately and repeatedly in handling it and the show is far from over. Meeting the other sex is a topic on its own - all normal venues often just disappeared, especially here in Europe. No bars, no restaurants, concerts, schools, group sports, and most importantly not that much work in the office, arguably the most common place for folks to meet their significant other. I am just a remote observer of this, we were lucky to get married in summer 2019 - one year later the marriage would be with 6 guests max if it would happen at all. But still can't wrap my head around all this no matter which angle I try to look it form. Me, my wife and my son been through covid in February, my parents back home are going through it now and I really do have respect from this unpredictable sickness. But as damage mounts in each one of us and there is always this fleeting political promise that in next 2 months it will be much better, I am getting tired of largely inefficient yet very restrictive constraints and starting to lean more towards 'fuck it, keep basic measures mandatory everywhere and lets go back to behavior as it was before covid'. It may be just a stupid kneejerk reaction, but over 1 year wears one out
    - rubicon33 6y ago
      > one year later the marriage would be with 6 guests max if it would happen at all. I've seen many weddings in 2020 that were totally unrestrained, 100+ gatherings with the justification being "outdoors". No masks worn, nothing. I can't stand that there are people who would do that. If I may ask - given how cautious you sound - how did you get covid?
  - rubicon33 6y ago
    The most tiring thing isn't missing out on life, it's seeing all the people who are vagrantly choosing to ignore safety precautions and continue on with THEIR life while others are distancing, staying at home, avoiding people, etc. By far the worst part about this has been the feeling that I have wasted a year, while others chose not to. My mistake I guess, but for everyone who chose to ignore the rules, many spread the virus.
    - tastyfreeze 6y ago
      The other day my daughter asked why I listen to tsunami alerts and head uphill when the the waves arent much bigger that a normal wave by the time they get to us (inside island). I told her that I'm not going to be the dummy that gets killed by not heeding warnings. I think the same applies here. You do you and dont worry about all the folks taking risks to go out. Statistically, some of them are responsible for someone's death from COVID or died from COVID. I would rather not be part of that statistic just because I felt like I missed out.
- makomk 6y ago
  Every country has had plenty of people who fall through the holes in whatever assistance programs they have in place, and the US media has downplayed their downsides compared to what the US did. For example, there's been a tendency in the American press to push the UK's furlough program as better than the US approach because it kept more people off unemployment, but as far as I could tell the US enhanced unemployment was substantially better for the worst-off amongst you than UK furlough, and those who didn't benefit from furlough and had to go on unemployment - for example, because their employer went out of business, or they were between jobs, or had started a new job too recently - were much worse off here.
  - lucian1900 6y ago
    The UK certainly didn’t do enough either, so many here are in rent arrears for example. Rents should’ve been frozen as the first act.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
BrianOnHN 6y ago
Lockdowns wouldn't be necessary if half the country didn't insist on living like barbarians.
11235813213455 6y ago
On the other side, I see many positive side-effects, we're forced to adapt, to take care of others who can't, to eliminate non-necessary things and consumption from our life, which is good
ryandrake 6y ago
But this article is about the US, where there have been no lockdowns. Only (mostly) unenforced stay-at-home orders, (mostly) unenforced business closures, and (mostly) unenforced mask mandates. I don't see the link. Lots of people have been out horsing around, doing whatever they wanted this past year, and sidestepping the token, unenforced roadblocks that were half-assed by governments. Something must be causing all these terrible things, but it's not lockdowns. I would start looking at lack of government action rather than the little they actually did.
- an_opabinia 6y ago
  > I would start looking at lack of government action rather than the little they actually did. The simple reality of it is that there was a colossal finance related economic crash, similar to 2008, that was blamed on the lockdown when the lockdown wasn't really to blame. We're still in the "dead cat bounce" phase of that crash.
  - tastyfreeze 6y ago
    Hit the nail on the head. The pain of the 2008 crash was just kicked down the road by bailing out banks. We will have to reckon with the consequences of government economic meddling at some point. Shutting down the economy was just a shove towards the cliff. I think that we are going to really see the crash kick off whenever the eviction moratorium is lifted. There is no way that all landlords are able to service their loans. Anybody that has been patient with savings will be cleaning house snatching up cheap properties and businesses.
    - ericmcer 6y ago
      Yeah sure lol, the federal reserve is willing to float asset prices indefinitely. Neither party wants to be incumbent the one that deals with the fallout of raising interest rates. Anyone who has been patient with savings will get wrecked by inflation.
      - tastyfreeze 6y ago
watwut 6y ago
How was it underrepresent when major political party, the one in power, went out of its way to prevent lockdowns and other measures? Also, suicides rose, but not enough to counteract stats. Domestic violence went up too, but still not enough to counteract anything.
nonameiguess 6y ago
Where? In the US? Is this overview lying? https://www.usatoday.com/storytelling/coronavirus-reopening-america-map/ https://www.usatoday.com/storytelling/coronavirus-reopening-... It seems to indicate the vast majority of places are loosening restrictions. Only one state out of 50 is currently imposing more stringent lockdowns.
swiley 6y ago
we're starting to hear it. Fresh air (part of APM/NPR and typically much less factual than NPR news) noted that drug overdoses were up by 26% last year although I'm not sure they attributed it to the lockdown.
heavyset_go 6y ago
> Depression, joblessness, separation of families, separation of bi-national couples, suicides, financial stress, hunger, a collapsing economy.. These things need to be taken seriously. It seems to me as if many politicians have never taken those things seriously, before the pandemic or during it. I've also noticed that some politicians suddenly say that they care about those problems during lockdowns, yet they haven't pushed for any legislation to actually help mitigate those deep-seated issues. It seems to me like they're just using those issues, and the suffering of others, as tools to complain about policy they don't like.
- hn8788 6y ago
  The difference is that before you could try and do something about those problems, even if politicians didn't care. Now those problems still exist, but people are forced to stay at home because keeping a low infection rate is all people care about.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    There are certainly responses politicians could have made to help with mental health, loss of income, hunger and homelessness before the pandemic and during it. The problems existed before the pandemic and required a solution, and the problems still exist during the pandemic and require a solution. The issue is that the solution to either of those problems upset those who finance politicians. There are powerful people who would rather have others starve, die from exposure and go without treatment for their mental illnesses than give them the resources they need to live dignified lives.
Pyramus 6y ago
I see this argument more often and I don't fully understand it. No elected official (in a Western democratic society) wants lockdowns. The electorate does not want lockdowns. I do not want lockdowns. Nobody I've spoken to has said, let's keep lockdowns. Lockdowns are bad for exactly the reasons you've described. No elected official I know has said, well, the economy, children's mental health, education, joblessness - these are just minor issues, let's do lockdowns. Not at the county, district, state or national level. We are currently in a loose-loose situation - either way people will suffer, and different (Western democratic) societies are sharing this suffering differently. E.g. in the US, the consensus has been to trade more loss of life for personal freedom than in European countries. I do not want you to suffer. In fact, if you are in a state of distress through no fault of your own, I do want my taxpayer money to go directly into your pockets.
- CWuestefeld 6y ago
  No elected official I know has said, well, the economy, children's mental health, education, joblessness - these are just minor issues, let's do lockdowns. This is precisely the problem. Our leaders refuse to acknowledge that their myopic quest for safety from covid at all costs has serious repercussions. They bluster on citing data from the CDC and all, but without more than a wink at the collateral damage - all the time buoyed by sycophantic supporters chanting, "follow the science!". It's as if biology is the only science, and there's no need to consult economists.
  - Pyramus 6y ago
    I do not live in the US, so YMMV, but I can only re-iterate that this has absolutely not been my experience. Have you actually spoken to somebody 'in power'? Go to the next council meeting, speak to your local mayor, call a local representative. We have been doing this for over a year now and in my experience they know very well what the toll of lockdowns is.
  - lazyasciiart 6y ago
    I think you've completely misread that comment. When it argues that none of them say 'these are just minor issues', you think it means that politicians haven't even mentioned them. I am pretty sure it is supposed to mean that politicians have been looking at them seriously and not being dismissive.
908B64B197 6y ago
How could these policies be disconnected from the average Joe's experiences? They were agreed by our politicians and doctors who's kids tutor were happy to not have to commute to their suburban estate.
spaetzleesser 6y ago
“Many politicians have been acting like these things don't exist while ordering more and more stringent lockdowns, giving passing condolences at best, and it borders on negligence. There needs to be a balance. Yes, avoiding the chance of death matters for you and those around you, but what is it worth if you're miserably suicidal and have lost hope as a result of it?” I personally am very happy not to have to make decisions in this situation. Unless you have dumb luck (the pandemic is not as bad as thought originally but there was no way you could have known that) either you will get heat because businesses are dying or you will get heat because people are dying. Or both. It pretty easy to criticize what’s going on but how can you make decisions with very little input data and dire consequences either way? Us techies want people to believe us on tech matters because we are subject matter experts but it seems we are not willing to believe what scientists in multiple countries are recommending because somehow we know better. Brazil clearly shows that ignoring the pandemic is not exactly a recipe for success. So what’s a leader to do? One reasonable thing would be to keep businesses open as much as possible while having super strict masking and disinfection requirements. But somehow there is this correlation between people wanting businesses to be open and at the same time not wanting masks. Reminds me of the abortion situation. Abortion opponents also up often oppose sex education and contraception. So they oppose the one thing that would help their cause the most.
- Mountain_Skies 6y ago
  Credibility matters. That's the main lesson public health officials should learn from this but it appears instead they're going to endlessly keep doubling down and further destroy their already damaged credibility. If they care about public health, they'll work on regaining the trust they lost instead of playing even more games trying to trick the public into doing what they want.
  - spaetzleesser 6y ago
    What do you think is what they want and what games are they playing? It seems you don’t believe they are doing what they believe is best for the situation. don’t forget that the response is very similar in a lot of countries around the world.
bloaf 6y ago
Economic slowdowns have historically been associated with increased life expectancy, despite their impact on mental health: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00210-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00210-0
lazyasciiart 6y ago
I have seen this claim multiple times, and I am yet to find any specific example of a politician who has not addressed these issues. I have seen decisions made that I disagreed with, but not because they didn't consider these issues. I have seen a lot of work at all different levels of government put into addressing them. What would it have to look like for you to feel that politicians and others in power were taking these issues seriously?

endisneigh 6y ago

Unfortunately with the pandemic it was kind of no win for a politician.

Mountain_Skies 6y ago
Which is fine. A good leader is one who will endure some discomfort in order to benefit those they lead. Doing the right thing despite knowing it will keep you from getting re-elected is something a good leader does. Those whose greatest goal is to cling to power no matter the damage to the people they lead are not good leaders.

technofiend 6y ago

Yeah this one really tears at the heart strings. Google "food insecurity charity" or Charity Navigator or Charity Watch to find one you trust if you'd like to help. https://www.charitynavigator.org/ https://www.charitynavigator.org/ https://www.charitywatch.org/ https://www.charitywatch.org/

imnotlost 6y ago
Charity is great but... None of these issues will be improved, much less solved, through shaming and moralizing, hoping 330M individuals will make charitable contributions and recycle. Give a can of food while doing your Christmas shopping so the super-corps can pay less tax and claim it gives to charity. Just another systemic problem pushed to the individual, and swept under the rug.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  Through all of history, charity has never been enough to solve those issues. It would be wrong to think that your charity alone is enough to solve those problems. However, while the solutions to those problems aren't being implemented, charity can help soften the blow. It would be correct to think that your charity helps somewhat, but much, much more needs to be done. Get involved with charity, but also get involved in policy at all levels, local to federal. To give an example about why this is important, several places I've lived have criminalized things like addiction, homelessness, feeding people who need food, and community gardens. It was local and state activism that made so that if an overdose was called in via 911, everyone who helped the victim didn't get arrested as a result. That stopped the trend of people not getting help for overdoses, as well as disturbing trends like overdose victims being left on the side of the road. Local and state activism helped get affordable housing measures passed, as well.
- technofiend 6y ago
  >shaming and moralizing, hoping 330M individuals will make charitable contributions and recycle My response was neither meant to shame or moralize, but rather to give people who decide "I'd like to do something right now" a way to do it and get maximum benefit from their contribution.* Should there be other and better responses? Undeniably. Will that prevent me from responding in the meantime and telling others how they may also respond if they want to? No, it will not. * Before anyone gets pedantic I mean maximizing a charitable contribution's impact by going to an org that uses the majority of the donation to help their target community rather than being sucked up by administrative overhead.

arrosenberg 6y ago

It's not a coincidence that a number of New Deal programs were focused on meeting the basic needs of kids (e.g. school lunches and the CCC) and the elderly (e.g. Social Security and Medicare).

kazen44 6y ago
in history, it is also one of the first needs people who want to gain power deliver. (think of gangsters feeding communities, or revolutionaries establishing schools in occupied territory).

tehjoker 6y ago

The graphic in the article is telling. While the coronavirus is shocking in the severity with which the lack of response has impoverished people, it is only a 1.5x worsening of the situation! This tells a story of longstanding institutional neglect that allows millions to remain in a state of impoverishment indefinitely. Moreover, the chart shows that food distribution was growing prior to the pandemic, which could mean the problem was worsening (or more locations appeared, or more food was distributed per capita).

tastyfreeze 6y ago
Impoverishment of lower classes is the direct result of monetary debasement. There is simply no way to move up when what little you earn buys less each year. Monetary debasement is also why we have seen an increase in the wealth gap.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  If money was truly debased, you'd see wages and product prices rise. The asset classes we've seen increase in price are stocks, bonds, healthcare, education, and property. What we haven't seen increase are food, consumer goods, or wages. You can say that the currency is being debased, but the numbers are the same for 2010 as they in 2020. The issue is that there simply is no way to accumulate wealth on the amount earned -- there's nothing left after expenses. Inflation or deflation wouldn't help this.
  - tastyfreeze 6y ago
    Wages haven't grown with monetary supply inflation. Every dollar earned buys less each year and wages stay mostly the same. Without debasement what you earn buys mostly the same amount of stuff the next year. Then you are able to save and count on your money actually being worth something when you need it. We have had over 100 years of debasement that increased in rate after 1971. You need to look at a longer time frame to see how badly we have all be fucked. We haven't had obvious consumer price inflation because the money supply is hitting the financial class first. Instead we have seen asset prices increase rapidly. With the stimulus checks every citizen has had a taste of what has been happening with banks for a century. But, we have had price inflation. Instead of raising the price at the store most manufacturers have opted to reduce package sizes for the same price. They didn't do this for your health. The price creep up is slow enough that it can be hard to notice. I am not sure how old your are. Think back of how much a dollar bought you when you were young. Can you buy those same items for a dollar now? How about 5 dollars? This is the pernicious result of debasing the currency.

chmod775 6y ago

Isn't this just embarrassing? A country that sent people to the moon decades ago and spends 2,600 USD per inhabitant per year on their military can't even feed their people today? Excuse me but what the fuck.

maxerickson 6y ago
It's not that we can't, we choose not to. Like the only reason that children get shamed for not having money for school lunch is because some people like it that way. There's no lack of resources. This is more than embarrassing.
- sm4rk0 6y ago
  But the USA are the embodiment of democracy. How can't you choose something better? /s
  - jfengel 6y ago
    Because a lot of people believe that if you're hungry, it's because you're stupid, lazy, or morally deficient, and thus deserve to be hungry. I suspect you think I'm joking. I'm not. "Work is better than welfare" is a common refrain. Here it is on a state government web site: https://www.dshs.wa.gov/esa/chapter-1-engaging-parents-workfirst/11-overview https://www.dshs.wa.gov/esa/chapter-1-engaging-parents-workf... It's widely considered that if you feed people for free, they will have no incentive to work. They will live off of your effort, have more children who will learn from their parents that work isn't required, and possibly commit crimes to obtain more. There is a genuine fear that they will literally lead more comfortable lives than you do by working. Again, I suspect you think I'm exaggerating, or that this is an extreme minority opinion. This is a very common opinion among Americans -- effectively universal among conservatives, and significant among progressives. We don't choose better because the things that you think of as "better" are supported by only a minority of Americans. Most Americans think it will make us lazy, weak, and stupid.
    - kmonsen 6y ago

mdoms 6y ago

Wealthiest nation in the world.

annoyingnoob 6y ago
The top 10% owns over 50% of that wealth. The bottom 50% owns 2% of that wealth. Wealthy for some, hungry for many. https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/ https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...

throwawaysea 6y ago

As an aside, without comment on this particular issue: we really need to stop using words like "crisis", "emergency", "justice", etc. I am very much desensitized to these words from their overuse, especially since very often the terms are used in a hyperbolic fashion for maximal effect when pushing political goals. I find them to be imprecise and unhelpful.

throwaway8581 6y ago

This idea that people are actually going hungry due to poverty in the US is absurd. A full day's worth of calories can be had for less than $3. And I'm not just talking about going to McDonalds and ordering off the dollar menu, which is certainly an option occasionally. I mean real food. https://www.upstart.com/blog/lowest-cost-per-calorie-foods https://www.upstart.com/blog/lowest-cost-per-calorie-foods And in fact, it is firmly established that it's the poorest people in America who tend to be the fattest. And what free school lunches often solve is not hunger but neglect. There are lots of shitty parents who don't care enough to deposit lunch money in the school account or pack lunch for their kid, or who make appalling dietary choices for their children. I wish people would have a little more skepticism and apply some independent common sense when consuming statistics. People getting food from food banks or consuming free lunch doesn't mean that they are otherwise going hungry. It means they are accepting something offered for free. There are myriad, complicated reasons why those patterns would change. But it's a strong, unjustified conclusion to say it's because they would otherwise go hungry.

maxerickson 6y ago
Eat cold lard for a month challenge.
- throwaway8581 6y ago
  Eggs – $1.61 per 2,000 calories Spaghetti – $1.49 per 2,000 calories Pinto beans – $1.39 per 2,000 calories Whole milk – $1.37 per 2,000 calories Peanut butter – $1.25 per 2,000 calories White rice – $0.41 per 2,000 calories Top ramen (beef & chicken) – $1.82 per 2,000 calories Potatoes – $1.79 per 2,000 calories And if you do more research, you'd see that a loaf of bread is about $2 for about 2000 calories.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    Are you supposed to eat the spaghetti uncooked? What about the eggs? Where are homeless people getting the refrigerators to store their milk and eggs?

zozin 6y ago

Did anyone in the comments even read the article or did they just skim the title and decide to chide America since that's so du jour right now? The gist of the article is that an enormous crisis created strains on connecting people and free meals, but various entities stepped up to the plate and came up with flexible solutions (school districts delivering meals on school buses or making food available for pickup, cities paying restaurants to feed seniors, expansion of federal funding, food banks and churches expanding their food operations, etc.). The title could've been "US system of free and subsidized meals bends but does not break", but that just doesn't get clicks, does it? Negative title creates negative emotions, which leads to negative thought patterns (America sucks!!), and then the cycle continues.

musicale 6y ago

Certainly people may be reluctant to visit grocery stores or senior centers because of covid and school lunch programs may be unavailable when schools are closed. However, there is also a general economic crisis due to people losing their employment or business income due to the pandemic and lockdowns. People whose income has suddenly been lowered have trouble affording all sorts of basic necessities: food, clothing, household supplies, rent, utilities, health care... Unemployment insurance can help but it may not be enough. Rent has been mitigated somewhat due to anti-eviction policies but those will expire eventually and the rent will come due.