Coronavirus

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
I have volunteered before at the hospital...worked in maternity and the telemetry wings..the nurses all liked me...btw

It is kindergartnerish if you’re trying to say we can all switch positions and pay...that’s juvenile thinking.
Is it? Why is that? If the business owners/investors/corporate titans want the economy to reopen so badly they should be more than willing to be the first on the front line.

I’m sure these people are capable of waiting tables, ringing up purchases etc.. let them be the canary in the coal mine.
 

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,288
Is it? Why is that? If the business owners/investors/corporate titans want the economy to reopen so badly they should be more than willing to be the first on the front line.

I’m sure these people are capable of waiting tables, ringing up purchases etc.. let them be the canary in the coal mine.
Depending on the business...owners do have to pitch in...if its a bigger company the management has to pitch in.
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
They have a lot of employees.
What the hell does that have to do with it?

Large businesses with large profits should be able to weather this storm better than small business. The help should be going where it’s needed. Not to companies that have already been bailed out and had their taxes cut and used ALL that money irresponsibly
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
Depending on the business...owners do have to pitch in...if its a bigger company the management has to pitch in.
I’ll agree to reopening the economy when the wealthy people safely ensconced in their own homes volunteer to join the front lines - mowing lawns, serving in restaurants, working as cashiers at movie theaters, etc.

Until such time - which I doubt is coming judging by YOUR dodging - nope.
 

Helioform

Star
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
3,195

More Will Die from the Response to COVID-19 Than From the Virus
By Kevin Ryan
Global Research, April 01, 2020


The initial, alarming estimates of deaths from the virus COVID-19 were that as many as 2.2 million people would die in the United States. This number is comparable to the annual U.S. death rate of around 3 million. Fortunately, correction of some simple errors in overestimation has begun to dramatically reduce the virus mortality claims. The most recent estimate from “the leading U.S. authority on the COVID-19 pandemic” suggests that the U.S. may see between 100,000 and 200,000 deaths from COVID-19, with the final tally likely to be somewhere in the middle.” This means that we are expecting around 150,000 U.S. deaths caused by the virus, if the latest estimates hold up.
How does that compare to the effects of the measures taken in response? By all accounts, the impact of the response will be great, far-reaching, and long-lasting. To better assess the difference we might ask, how many people will die as a result of the response to COVID-19? Although a comprehensive analysis is needed from those experienced with modeling mortality rates, we can begin to estimate by examining existing research and comparative statistics. Let’s start by looking at three critical areas of impact: suicide and drug abuse, lack of medical treatment or coverage, and poverty and food access.
Suicides and Drug Abuse
According to the National Center for Health Statistics, over 48,000 suicides occurred in the U.S. in 2018. This equates to an annual rate of about 14 suicides per 100,000 people. As expected, suicides increase substantially during times of economic depression. For example, as a result of the 2008 recession there was an approximate 25% increase. Similarly, during a peak year of the Great Depression, in 1932, the rate rose to 17 suicides per 100,000 people.
Recent research ties high suicide rates “to the unraveling of the social fabric” that happens when societal breakdowns occur. People become despondent over economic hardship, the loss of social structures, loneliness, and related factors. There is probably no greater example of these kinds of losses than what we are experiencing today with the extreme response to COVID-19 and the effects will be felt for many years. The social structures might return in a few months but the economy will not. Some think that the economy will recover in three years and others think it will never recover in terms of impact to low-income households, as was the case for the 2008 recession. However, if we estimate a full recovery in six years, the effects will contribute around 3 suicides per 100,000 people every year during that time for a total of over 59,000 deaths in the United States.
Related to suicides are drug abuse deaths. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, over 67,000 deaths from overdose of illicit or prescription drugs occurred in 2018. This does not include alcohol abuse. Only 7% were suicides and 87% were known to be unintentional deaths largely due to drug abuse caused by depression or other mental conditions. Such conditions can be expected to rise during times of economic collapse and if we estimate the impact due to COVID-19 over six years as being a 25% increase (as with suicides) that projects about 87,000 additional deaths due to drug abuse.
Lack of Medical Coverage or Treatment
Unemployment is expected to rise dramatically as a result of the COVID-19 response and the effect is already being seen in jobless claims. One of the major impacts of unemployment, apart from depression and poverty, is a lack of medical coverage. A Harvard study found nearly 45,000 excess deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage. That was at the pre-COVID-19 unemployment rate of 4%.
100,000 US COVID-19 Deaths OK with Trump
As reported recently, millions of Americans are losing their jobs in the COVID-19 recession/depression. For every 2% increase in unemployment, there are about 3.5 million lost jobs. The U.S. Secretary of Treasury has predicted a 20% unemployment level, which translates to 12 million lost jobs. If the 45,000 excess deaths due to lack of medical coverage increases uniformly by unemployment rate, we can expect about 225,000 deaths annually due to lack of medical coverage in the U.S. at 20% unemployment. Extrapolating this over a 6-year period would mean 1.35 million deaths. This assumes that funding for important health-related programs are not further cut or ignored, a bad assumption that means the estimate is probably low.
Beyond lack of coverage, medical services are being reprioritized to respond preferentially to COVID-19, causing less resources to be available for treatment of other medical conditions. The capacity of medical service providers has already been significantly impacted by the COVID-19 response in some areas. Additionally, clinical trials and drug development are expected to be severely impacted. This means that important new medicines will not reach the market and people will die who otherwise would have lived. There is not yet enough information on the overall impact to medical service provision therefore we will not include an estimate.
Poverty and Food Access
The Columbia University School of Public Health studied the effects of poverty on death rates. The investigators found that 4.5% of U.S. deaths were attributable to poverty. That’s about 130,000 deaths annually. How will this be affected by COVID-19? One way to begin estimating is to consider how the number of people living in poverty will increase.
Before the COVID-19 response, approximately 12% of Americans lived below the officially defined poverty line. That percentage will undoubtedly rise significantly due to the expected increase in unemployment. If unemployment rises to 20% (from 4%) as predicted, the number of people living in poverty could easily double. If that is the extent of the effect, we will see another 130,000 deaths per year from general poverty.
Although deaths due to poverty are not entirely about food access, it is a significant factor in that category. In times of economic hardship many people can’t afford good food, causing malnutrition and, in some cases, starvation. People also can’t access food causing the same outcomes. Limited access to nutritious food is a root cause of diet-related diseases, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and infant mortality issues. A recent estimate suggests 20% of all deaths worldwide are linked to poor diets.
Food access issues will be further exacerbated with the COVID-19 problem due to the anticipated issues with food production and prices. If the COVID-19 response lasts for years as expected, our estimate will need to be a multiple of the 130,000 annual figure. Using the 6-year estimate, we get 780,000 deaths.
Conclusion
The total deaths attributable to the COVID-19 response, from just this limited examination, are estimated to be:

  • Suicides 59,000
  • Drug abuse 87,000
  • Lack of medical coverage or treatment 1,350,000
  • Poverty and food access 780,000
These estimates, totaling more than two million deaths above the estimated 150,000 expected from the virus itself, do not include other predictable issues with the COVID-19 response. An example is the lack of medical services as stated above. Other examples include the EPA’s suspension of environmental regulations. It has been estimated that the EPA’s Clean Air Act alone has saved 230,000 lives each year. Moreover, the anticipated failure of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) will lead to more illness and death. The USPS “delivers about 1 million lifesaving medications each year and serves as the only delivery link to Americans living in rural areas.”
Even using these low estimates, however, we can see that the response will be much worse than the virus. The social devastation and economic scarring could last more than six years, with one expert predicting that it will be “long-lasting and calamitous.” That expert has noted that he is not overly concerned with the virus itself because “as much as 99 percent of active cases [of COVID-19] in the general population are ‘mild’ and do not require specific medical treatment.” Yet he is deeply concerned about the “the social, economic and public health consequences of this near total meltdown of normal life.” He suggests a better alternative is to focus only on those most susceptible to the virus. Others have reasonably suggested that only those who are known to be infected should self-quarantine.
Some public health professionals have been pleading with authorities to consider the implications of the unreasonable response. Many experts have spoken out publicly, criticizing the overreaction to COVID-19. A professor of medical microbiology, for example, has written an open letter to German Chancellor Merkel in an attempt to draw attention to the concerns.
The real problem we face today is not a virus. The greater problem is that people have failed to engage in critical thinking due to the fear promoted by some media and government officials. Fear is the mind killer, as author Frank Herbert once wrote. Ultimately, the fear of COVID-19 and the lack of critical thinking that has arisen from it are likely to cause far more deaths than the virus itself.
 

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,288
What the hell does that have to do with it?

Large businesses with large profits should be able to weather this storm better than small business. The help should be going where it’s needed. Not to companies that have already been bailed out and had their taxes cut and used ALL that money irresponsibly
More employees, you need more money to pay them. No one can afford to pay people for doing nothing while they are making no money..you know envy and jealousy aren’t a good look.
 

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,288
I’ll agree to reopening the economy when the wealthy people safely ensconced in their own homes volunteer to join the front lines - mowing lawns, serving in restaurants, working as cashiers at movie theaters, etc.

Until such time - which I doubt is coming judging by YOUR dodging - nope.
I’ve seen business owners having to be on the front lines of their own companies especially the smaller ones where if an employee calls in sick they have to do it all...which happened with the restaurant we walked into a few months ago. The owner was also the employee for the day.

I’ve seen management step up and when they said all hands on deck..they meant theirs too. You gotta do what ya gotta do sometimes.
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
More employees, you need more money to pay them. No one can afford to pay people for doing nothing while they are making no money..you know envy and jealousy aren’t a good look.
There is no envy and jealousy here Lisa. You know gaslighting isn’t a good look?

I wasn’t talking about the size of the portions of money being given out. This has nothing to do with number of employees. Small businesses can’t get any money because the money allocated to help them has run out completely. Big business has a different pot to pull from. Fine. But quite frankly I don’t know how many times we are going to bail out Wall Street and let Main Street die without taking a cold hard look at ourselves.

Free market capitalism would dictate we bail none of them out. Socialism would dictate we bail all of them out. And what we have right here and now is, yet again, socialism for the rich (that don’t need it) and free market bootstrap capitalism for everyone else (who actually does need it).

Your priorities, as well as our countries priorities, are warped.
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
I’ve seen business owners having to be on the front lines of their own companies especially the smaller ones where if an employee calls in sick they have to do it all...which happened with the restaurant we walked into a few months ago. The owner was also the employee for the day.

I’ve seen management step up and when they said all hands on deck..they meant theirs too. You gotta do what ya gotta do sometimes.
Cool so then the people currently able to work from home should have no problem volunteering to be the first to return to the public facing positions? Right?
 

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,288
There is no envy and jealousy here Lisa. You know gaslighting isn’t a good look?

I wasn’t talking about the size of the portions of money being given out. This has nothing to do with number of employees. Small businesses can’t get any money because the money allocated to help them has run out completely. Big business has a different pot to pull from. Fine. But quite frankly I don’t know how many times we are going to bail out Wall Street and let Main Street die without taking a cold hard look at ourselves.

Free market capitalism would dictate we bail none of them out. Socialism would dictate we bail all of them out. And what we have right here and now is, yet again, socialism for the rich (that don’t need it) and free market bootstrap capitalism for everyone else (who actually does need it).

Your priorities, as well as our countries priorities, are warped.
I wasn’t gaslighting you, you seem envious and jealous of people who you think have more than you or more than people you like to victimize.

Big businesses are the biggest employers and they are gonna need more money for that reason, that’s just common sense. You wouldn’t want their employees to lose out would you?


Cool so then the people currently able to work from home should have no problem volunteering to be the first to return to the public facing positions? Right?
Are the people working from home the ones that work in public? One of my husbands employees does work with the public so she couldn’t work form home for that reason. You really don’t know what you’re talking about. All that schooling has dumbed you down to reality.
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
I wasn’t gaslighting you, you seem envious and jealous of people who you think have more than you or more than people you like to victimize.

Big businesses are the biggest employers and they are gonna need more money for that reason, that’s just common sense. You wouldn’t want their employees to lose out would you?



Are the people working from home the ones that work in public? One of my husbands employees does work with the public so she couldn’t work form home for that reason. You really don’t know what you’re talking about. All that schooling has dumbed you down to reality.
Obfuscation and gaslighting don’t work on people with even basic knowledge of psychology Lisa, kudos for trying though . I hope your getting paid well :rolleyes:
 

Dalit

Star
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
1,911
The fact remains that Trump has very little to do with what happens to the economy. The Fed is in control of interest rates and the whole boom/bust cycle. They decide who to bailout, and they have been injecting trillions of dollars of quantitative easing in the stock market for decades to try and keep the whole share/slaveholder system afloat. Trump is a mere puppet, who sometimes bark at the Fed (maybe just for show), and the whole democrat/republican system is only a charade for people who do not see that the Fed is responsible for almost everything. Seems like not too many see this even on a conspiracy board.
You're completely right. This is worth a watch. I need to watch it again.

 

Vixy

Star
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
3,907
I'm starting to think my country made the right choice. We've only lost 879 people, most of them old. And our economy wont take a financial hit like the countries that closed down. 879 people of 10 million is catshit.
 
Top