Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, fletch44 said:

You have to look at how many people will die or be ruined if we don't too?

 

Experts have studied the relationship between economic hardship and longevity, and it's a lot more nuanced than one might initially think.

How the Recession Improved Life Expectancy—but Didn't Make Us Healthier

Quote

Beyond harm caused by loss of insurance, unemployment and job insecurity directly diminish peoples' health. A 2007 study by researchers at the University of Michigan and UCLA examined longitudinal interview data from American adults and found that while job loss leads to a significant decline in self-reported health and an increase in depression, the effects are concentrated among those that lost jobs because of poor health. Those that lost jobs for all other reasons -- such as a recession -- experienced only a slight increase in depressive symptoms and no significant decline in health. Instead, the authors found that persistent perception of job insecurity led to diminished self-reported health and increased depression even after adjusting for prior health and socioeconomic demographics. This confirms findings from a study of white-collar British civil servants and suggests that long-term anxiety over employment degrades health.

Accordingly, suicides, the most dramatic manifestation of depression and anxiety, proliferate during economic downturns. In twelve out of fourteen recessions since the 1920s the suicide rate accelerated upwards. Rates among 25 to 64-year-olds are more volatile than other age groups because, as many of them serve as primary breadwinners for their families, anxiety over job loss is compounded by fear of its impact on their dependents. According to a model recently published in the Lancet, between 2007 and 2010 in the United States approximately 4,750 people took their lives beyond the level that would be expected without the recession. Taken together, loss of insurance, persistent job insecurity and increased suicide rate paint a dour picture of health for individuals during recessions.

Yet, when looking at mortality data for the entire United States, a paradox emerges: despite the harmful aspects for workers, overall death rates fall and people live longer during recessions. In a study examining mortality between 1900 and 1996, death rates rise and fall with economic growth so that the fewest deaths occur during the sharpest downturns. By one estimate a one percent decrease in employment positively correlates with a decrease of 0.54% in the mortality rate: more than 13,000 averted deaths per year. Economist Tyler Cowen published an essay in the New York Times during the deepest point of the Great Recession that exalted how, counterintuitively, the recession would improve quality of life.

 

Anyone asserting that economic hardship leads to more deaths or shorter lifespans needs to show their work.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Crazy with no sports. Talked to my wife last night.  Apparently works in HR. Nice girl. 

Giancarlo Stanton just sprained his wrist washing his hands

This is the rant of someone who’s never had to sacrifice anything or even think about anyone other than themself. Just grotesque.

Posted Images

1 hour ago, fletch44 said:

It's not as simple a question as X amount more will die if we come out of quarantine. You have to look at how many people will die or be ruined if we don't too? How many suicides ? How many people turn to drug to alcohol ? How many people lose their jobs and put into squalor which then leads to negative health consequences for them and their children. What are the mental health factors ? You think sending 20-30% of the country to unemployment will have no negative public health impacts ? You don't think that will lead to an increase in deaths ?  It's an ethical dilemma and not an easy problem to solve.

I fully agree with this, and truthfully, the people who are preaching to remain in complete ISO till a vaccine of some sort is provided are likely either seniors with pensions, well established financially where the lack of income doesnt impact them or are fortunate to work from home.. but for those who arent any of those things (and there are  A LOTTTTT of them).. much of what you described earlier is not far fetched and could easily happen... the economy can not remain shut down and in lock down for a minimum of 18 months (if not longer..). Regardless, a loss of life will be taking place, whether in ISO or not.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, there is no "perfect" solution here, as any option is going to have bad consequences. That's just the reality of a very bad virus being unleashed on the world. 

The whole touting of the "herd immunity" would have more merit if this virus wasnt as nasty. While the mortality rate and hospitalization rate for a given person dont see so bad, the fact that this virus is highly contagious means that the sheer volume of people that will get it is astronomical. Even if it is a small % the require hospitalization or eventually die, the volume of those that get infected means hospitals would be 100% overwhelmed, leaving people to die that otherwise wouldn't. 

Sweden is starting to pay a price for being laissez-faire about this. 

Businesses here will be re-opened, but it has to be done smartly and incrementally. These are major no-win decisions for the president and the governors. All we can do is work together, learn from each other, help each other, and try to objectively understand that any course of action is going to have consequences. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

 

Experts have studied the relationship between economic hardship and longevity, and it's a lot more nuanced than one might initially think.

How the Recession Improved Life Expectancy—but Didn't Make Us Healthier

 

Anyone asserting that economic hardship leads to more deaths or shorter lifespans needs to show their work.

This article is suggesting that people live longer when in times of economic hardship?

really?... i guess we should all just stop working and making money then.. we will all live longer..

Unfortunately, it doesnt appear to me that article takes into account people who develop mental health issues.. or discusses the ones who develop mental health issues and dont even go get checked up.. or how many turn to the bottle? Naturally, the theory makes sense... people dont goto work.. stay home.. live longer.. sure.. less people outside.. less opportunity for crime.. violence.. car accidents.. it does make sense..

but, it doesnt paint a true picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jonninho said:

Unfortunately, it doesnt appear to me that article takes into account people who develop mental health issues.. or discusses the ones who develop mental health issues and dont even go get checked up.. or how many turn to the bottle?

 

It discusses each of these things.

I would suggest reading it before commenting, and certainly before declaring that it "doesn't paint a true picture".

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, daynlokki said:

Went for a walk today with the wife. Live off a side street that connects Vancouver and Battleground. Counted 57 cars passing in the two blocks I walked. Wife went to the minute mart yesterday. Entire parking lot was packed, not one person following social distance protocol or wearing a mask besides her. ****, she went to the pot shop and there was a line of like fifty people outside. Turned around and went home. They were in close proximity chatting and laughing not even paying attention to the marks six feet apart on the ground. Different parts of Washington are reacting differently. Vancouver leans more republican and most tend to think this is a hoax still or the media is overreacting. 

 

I drove from Renton to Mount Vernon yesterday at 3 in the afternoon and never went under 65.  That would have been gridlock from Bellevue to Everett on a normal Friday afternoon.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 89Topps said:

 

I drove from Renton to Mount Vernon yesterday at 3 in the afternoon and never went under 65.  That would have been gridlock from Bellevue to Everett on a normal Friday afternoon.  


Wait, I thought @Cmilne23 was our chief western Washington correspondent. If I’d known there was room enough for more, I’d’ve joined the ranks when I still lived out there! 🤣

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

Thanks.  Really good article.  But they left off in citing the types of "service workers" needed the obvious one again because no way do the overwhelming majority of ball players remain celibate for up to 5 months.  Those workers would probably need as much hotel space as the players and coaches and just as many daily tests.  (Kudos to the few remaining straight arrows in baseball but they are a dying breed).

 

Really wanting this prostitution topic to take off, huh?

  • Haha 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, 89Topps said:

 

I drove from Renton to Mount Vernon yesterday at 3 in the afternoon and never went under 65.  That would have been gridlock from Bellevue to Everett on a normal Friday afternoon.  

In the far burbs of Chicagoland, traffic has been minimal. People are doing their part here it seems. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2ndCitySox said:

 

The whole touting of the "herd immunity" would have more merit if this virus wasnt as nasty. While the mortality rate and hospitalization rate for a given person dont see so bad, the fact that this virus is highly contagious means that the sheer volume of people that will get it is astronomical. Even if it is a small % the require hospitalization or eventually die, the volume of those that get infected means hospitals would be 100% overwhelmed, leaving people to die that otherwise wouldn't. 

 

If people could somehow understand and internalize this point.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of the anonymous sources in this ESPN article seem more skeptical of the "Arizona plan."

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29017716/too-much-iron-players-say-mlb-arizona-plan

I totally understand the reservations as we sit here today.  Lot of work to be done as a country.  Mass production of test kits and ancillary lab resources, cases need to be flat or declining for 14 days, etc.

With peaks occurring in some states now and others a few weeks off according to the models, I'm hopeful that we'll start hitting some of these benchmarks, and preparing for additional waves in a responsible way.

I could really use some baseball games in my life, not going to lie, but the public health issue has to be resolved first.  Let's keep our fingers crossed over these next couple weeks.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, El_Chingon said:

If people could somehow understand and internalize this point.

Yeah I honestly figured that this would pretty evident by now, even if this thread was your only source of information on covid

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tonycpsu said:

 

Experts have studied the relationship between economic hardship and longevity, and it's a lot more nuanced than one might initially think.

How the Recession Improved Life Expectancy—but Didn't Make Us Healthier

 

Anyone asserting that economic hardship leads to more deaths or shorter lifespans needs to show their work.

I'm not sure comparing mortality rates in past US recessions is comparable to what it might look like if we locked down for a year plus. Does the mortality rate during the .com bubble burst really have any relevance to what we're looking at now ? That's apples and oranges to me. Just my opinion.

Edited by fletch44
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fletch44 said:

I'm not sure comparing mortality rates in past US recessions is comparable to what it might look like if we locked down for a year plus.

 

Sure, every business cycle is different, and occurs in a different context.  There are no apples-to-apples comparisons, but an apples-to-pears comparison has more merit than "well, I've never had a pear before, so I assume it tastes nothing like an apple".  There are similarities and differences, but a lot of the results cited in the article (less job-related stress, more sleep, more time for exercise, etc.) are pretty intuitive, so I think the burden of proof is on those who say the economic hardship will be worse for society overall than more deaths from the disease will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously everyone trying to figure out this virus all at once, but appreciate those willing to think outside the box and not just follow the herd. Have watched some videos and read interviews from this physician, who is noticing ventilators sometimes doing more harm than good. Read another article (also NY I believe) that began treating with blood clot medicine, seeing the damage in the lungs as the problem. Godspeed to all in the medical world. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

 

Sure, every business cycle is different, and occurs in a different context.  There are no apples-to-apples comparisons, but an apples-to-pears comparison has more merit than "well, I've never had a pear before, so I assume it tastes nothing like an apple".  There are similarities and differences, but a lot of the results cited in the article (less job-related stress, more sleep, more time for exercise, etc.) are pretty intuitive, so I think the burden of proof is on those who say the economic hardship will be worse for society overall than more deaths from the disease will.

Not sure people are going to be exercising more when all the gyms are closed and they've been urged to not leave their house. Again, apples and oranges. Locking down for a year would not be just a typical US recession. Those data points are useless IMO. There is no modern day comparison that I can think of.

Edited by fletch44
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, fletch44 said:

There is no modern day comparison that I can think of.

 

You said, among other things:

Quote

You have to look at how many people will die or be ruined if we don't too? How many suicides ? How many people turn to drug to alcohol ? How many people lose their jobs and put into squalor which then leads to negative health consequences for them and their children. What are the mental health factors ? You think sending 20-30% of the country to unemployment will have no negative public health impacts ? You don't think that will lead to an increase in deaths ?

 

I provided the closest comparison we have that can be used to attempt to answer those questions.  If you are saying there is no comparison, then your questions are purely rhetorical.  You can't say on one hand "what about the downsides" and refuse to accept any value of historical comparison that has measured many of the downsides.  If there's no comparison, then there's no point speculating about a downside we can't measure as compared to immediate harm to those who get sick and die.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Long read, and I suggest you read all of it instead of reaching a point that may support one side or the other as both are addressed. It's an MIT Technology Review that attempts to address saving the economy and stopping this virus at the same time. While there are no answers, it brings up some interesting points:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/08/998785/stop-covid-or-save-the-economy-we-can-do-both/#Echobox=1586385642?utm_source=pocket-newtab

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

 

You said, among other things:

 

I provided the closest comparison we have that can be used to attempt to answer those questions.  If you are saying there is no comparison, then your questions are purely rhetorical.  You can't say on one hand "what about the downsides" and refuse to accept any value of historical comparison that has measured many of the downsides.  If there's no comparison, then there's no point speculating about a downside we can't measure as compared to immediate harm to those who get sick and die.

Haha, if you don't think mass unemployment and social isolation will have negative impacts on public health just because it's never actually happened, so be it. We know unemployed people have worse outcomes. We know social isolation is bad for you. But hey, maybe that extra half hour of sleep and some jumping jacks in the living room will offset it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jonninho said:

I fully agree with this, and truthfully, the people who are preaching to remain in complete ISO till a vaccine of some sort is provided are likely either seniors with pensions, well established financially where the lack of income doesnt impact them or are fortunate to work from home.. but for those who arent any of those things (and there are  A LOTTTTT of them).. much of what you described earlier is not far fetched and could easily happen... the economy can not remain shut down and in lock down for a minimum of 18 months (if not longer..). Regardless, a loss of life will be taking place, whether in ISO or not.

Anyone else should qualify for unemployment where you get whatever you would from the state plus an additional $600 a WEEK federally. 

 

3 hours ago, 89Topps said:

 

I drove from Renton to Mount Vernon yesterday at 3 in the afternoon and never went under 65.  That would have been gridlock from Bellevue to Everett on a normal Friday afternoon.  

Portland still has a semblance of rush hour. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, fletch44 said:

Haha, if you don't think mass unemployment and social isolation will have negative impacts on public health just because it's never actually happened, so be it.

 

Of course unemployment and social isolation are problematic, and I've never said they are not.  There's no need to read my words uncharitably just to score a cheap dunk.  We can just have a conversation here without this straw man nonsense.

What I am saying is that without an understanding of how problematic they are, we can't compare them to the demonstrable harm caused by the virus.  My effort to look at historical examples was to hopefully get in the ballpark of what we can expect, and I was surprised by the results.  Your response is, essentially, "well, this is different."  It is!  But we're no closer to a means of comparing the economic harm of the restrictions against the harm of the virus than we were when we started, and it's not my job to prove your point for you.  Bring something to the table that supports your position, or accept that there is compelling historical evidence that economic harm can reduce mortality.

I'm a big proponent of gradually opening up restrictions once we're well over the hump.  However, doing so prematurely could mean a second wave that could lead to more people getting sick, and more dying.  We can accept as a given that these restrictions are making life difficult and miserable for many, and we can see in the numbers that COVID itself is doing the same.  Ultimately, this is going to have to come down to a decision on when and how quickly to loosen restrictions, and I'd like that to be evidence-based.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

We all have the same goals here. Get the economy opened up and return to life as semi-normal. Problem is we now have 50 outbreaks instead of one thanks to a derelict federal response and a select group of brainless governors. This key error is going to drag this out WAY longer than necessary. Baseball is a national game and every state is at a different stage in their outbreak. Working around that is practically impossible.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JE7HorseGod said:

Many of the anonymous sources in this ESPN article seem more skeptical of the "Arizona plan."

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29017716/too-much-iron-players-say-mlb-arizona-plan

Thanks so much for the article link.  Since this has a high "baseball" content to say the least I'm gonna re-post it in that thread too.  Early on some people were quoting one lone ball player who was a player rep as well saying he had the pulse of how the players felt because he was a rep etc.  Well there are several player reps in this article as well as a good cross section of players quoted who don't think the Arizona Bubbledome scenario is so great and that a lot of players wouldn't want to do it.

I also think it was smart to quote them anonymously because it allowed them the freedom to say how they really felt without ticking off their owners or the front office.

BTW it seemed discussion of players and baseball was more the other thread (coronavirus and baseball) thing to me so I posted your link there.

Edited by The Big Bat Theory
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where we're at the moment is buying time. Time to get more data to make better decisions going forward. Time to ramp up testing, better testing methods.Time to make machines to process tests. Time to come up with new therapeutic treatments. Time for companies to collaborate like Google and Apple to come together for virus tracking abilty.

Yes, very expensive and getting more so by the second with real hardship. 

Yesterday, our President said he'll soon make his most important decision he'll ever make on when and how to move forward from where we are currently, buying time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...