Inverted_Trough

7 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

Statisticians and researchers can use techniques to determine if the rise in suicides is simply background noise, part of a general trend, or caused by spikes in unemployment. I don't have the desire to explain this to you, but I can safely say your argument doesn't refute the studies showing a clear link. I hope you realize this isn't my idea, BTW.

The papers you posted are from 2014 and 2015.  The unemployment rate has continually trended downward since then, and yet the suicide rate has continued to go up every year.  The last five years of data since those papers were published refute the supposedly clear link.  There may be a link but there are clearly bigger forces at play.

2 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

It's still possible to see spikes in suicides caused by unemployment even within the overall rise. You shouldn't be dismissing more suicides just because there are already a lot of them... yikes. Every life matters, right?

First you said there is a clear link, and now you're backtracking.  Clearly there are bigger forces at play than the unemployment rate.  If anything the increasing suicide rate correlates much more strongly with growing wealth inequality.  But you don't seem like the type of person that would advocate for wealth redistribution to reduce the suicide rate.

3 hours ago, PhineasC said:

There is a very clear link between rising unemployment and suicides. A single percentage point increase in unemployment leads to 1% more suicides. Imagine what a 30% to 40% increase in unemployment will do...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24925987

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/02/the-link-between-unemployment-and-suicide/

Your goals are noble, but will also kill a lot of people from economic and social hardship.

Again, I don't see the point in discussing hypotheticals that are not occurring here on this planet.

Total BS.  Suicides in the US have been increasing for the past several years, all the while unemployment had been continually going down.  Supposedly we had the greatest economy in the history of mankind, and yet the suicide rate was at a record high last year.    

4 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

Market crashes don't have an immediate impact on employment in restaurants, bars, hair salons, real estate, etc. That's where the biggest job losses are right now. I think maybe you don't realize these are historically bad unemployment numbers? They are enormous, way beyond the 2008 levels, which also had a major market slide. And the markets rebounded some in recent weeks, but job losses have accelerated.

Yes, that's what I said:  30% unemployment is basically inevitable but the restrictions made it abrupt.  The herd immunity approach would be a slower burn to 30% unemployment but with a lot more death and a bigger hit on the stock market.

Just now, PhineasC said:

This isn't at all clear. Plenty of nations are dealing with some unemployment but managing it at lower levels while keeping the economy wide open. We have forcibly closed many businesses and artificially created high unemployment. People are now scared to go to restaurants after 40 days of doom and gloom predictions, but they weren't all that scared even right up until the lockdowns came into force. It wasn't that long ago, we remember early March dude.

These restrictions only started after our stock market was in a precipitous free-fall.  The market was tanking.  I remember early March too.

Just now, H2O said:

Y’all have got to ignore him. He’s pushing an agenda and he’s arguing just to argue

LOL.  I know, but it's fun to argue with an Ayn Rander.  They are entertaining.

1 minute ago, PhineasC said:

There is a very clear link between rising unemployment and suicides. A single percentage point increase in unemployment leads to 1% more suicides. Imagine what a 30% to 40% increase in unemployment will do...

30% unemployment would have happened anyway without any restrictions.  The only difference is the restrictions made it more abrupt.

4 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

The idea that rural areas are suddenly seeing a spike in cases because of limited reopenings versus enormously expanded testing capacity is just LOL. 

The spike in cases is driving their cold feet towards re-opening.    Go listen to what the Mississippi governor said today.

It appears many states are getting cold feet about their limited re-opening.  Ohio and Mississippi have already pulled back.  Texas, Florida, Georgia and Tennessee had some of their largest case totals just today.  Rural areas are getting hit hard now, which appears to have changed the narrative in some of these states.  Not surprising.

8 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

If I left the state for a haircut (what a silly statement), I could be accosted at the border and forced to isolate for 14 days upon my return. I most certainly didn't have a choice here. 

That's highly doubtful.  I cross state lines all the time with no issues.  You should consider moving out of that state.

1 minute ago, PhineasC said:

Your ideas are noble from a COVID lifesaving perspective (from mental health perspective of those locked down they are not great), I just don't see the point in discussing impossible hypotheticals that haven't happened and won't happen. The lockdowns restrictions are ending, and it's clear we won't have a robust test and trace infrastructure here before we open up, nor will most of the west.

Fixed.  We never had lockdowns.

3 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

Just give people the ability to make personal choices. You seem kinda gleeful at the thought of some dumb redneck getting the virus and dying to prove your point, which is gross, but you do you.

You always had a choice.  Transport links haven't been cut.  You can drive or fly to any state that didn't have those restrictions, and get your haircut there.  Federalism at its finest.

31 states are lifting some restrictions by next week. The usual suspects are free to take a short drive or plane ride and have that heavenly dine-in meal at Denny's.  There's no need to waste time here:  Do your part to contribute to G-D-P.

Looks like rural counties in PA are seeing much more cases while urban/suburban areas have plateaued or trended downward.  I guess the liberty & freedom brigade brought it back home from their protest in Harrisburg.

It also appears that the predictions of people flooding to restaurants and malls once the orders are lifted have turned out to be wrong.  Go figure.  People will default to their primitive instincts when they think their safety and security are in danger.  The economy is hampered primarily by fear of the virus -- not government restrictions - and it was in free-fall before the restrictions were put in place.  Address the virus and you'll address the economy.

Even if you include "probable" COVID deaths, we are still likely under-counting across the world.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/28/us/coronavirus-death-toll-total.html

The trolls will have you believe that suddenly this spike in deaths was due to natural causes

We don't have a lockdown.  A true lockdown would be what they did in Wuhan.

Over the course of history most people either died at birth (baby or mom) or from infectious diseases.  Reducing infant mortality and drastically reducing infectious disease are the two main reasons for increased life expectancy.  Even if you disregard infant mortality, most people still wouldn't make it to 75 because of infectious diseases.  The idea that lifespan has been constant for 2000 years is ridiculous clickbait.

41 minutes ago, supernovasky said:

11%. Very good. The best places in the world have 3-5%. But this is far better than the 20% we've seen lately.

I wonder if the testing protocol changed.  The protocol used to be that, if you walked into a hospital or doctors office with covid symptoms, you were tested.  But if they're now testing everyone who walks into the hospital or a doctors office regardless of what their symptoms or ailments are, then that's going to change your percentage of positives.  The new guidance recommends that asymptomic people get tested, so it's possible that Maryland changed their protocol.  I would expect that, if you expand your protocol to test asymptomatic people, your positivity rate would decrease.  I don't think that confirms that the disease prevalence is decreasing though.  It just means your protocol changed.

The difference between 0.01 and 0.05 is very significant in epidimololgy.  The percentage of people that are vulnerable is another factor.

If you want to understand how one person can lead to 1000 infections, read this story about Patient 31 in South Korea.

https://graphics.reuters.com/CHINA-HEALTH-SOUTHKOREA-CLUSTERS/0100B5G33SB/index.html

Federalism doesn't work very well in a crisis.  I think that's why the US is struggling so much with this problem.

There are federal guidelines with objective, quantifiable measures for transitioning between Phases 1 through 3.  Unfortunately I think many states are not going to use the guidelines and just do what they want.  Makes the guidelines rather pointless.  I could sense Dr. Birx's frustration yesterday.

3 minutes ago, Always in Zugzwang said:

Wish I could recommend this 1000 times...spot-on concerning public health and economic security!!  This country has about the most minimal safety net in the western world, and yet everyone complains when there are attempts to expand it or help people in this type of emergency situation.  We cannot afford that, apparently...but hey, we can give $2T in tax cuts for multi-millionaires, so whatever.  Oy!

Public corporations spent most of their windfall from the corporate tax cut into buying back their shares.  Since the stock market crashed (most of which happened before the restrictions), those trillions of dollars disappeard.  Poof.  It'd be nice if companies socked away some money in a rainy-day fund so, you know, they can provide sick-day compensation during times like this.  But nope - gotta return that money to investors.  Investors always get priority over workers in our system, unfortunately.  That mindset began in the early 1980s and continues today.

The restrictions during World War II were far more limiting than what we're experiencing right now.  I can't imagine how today's folks would have fared back then.