J5V

"The studies have consistently tied unemployment to elevated death rates. A 2011 meta-analysis of international research—published in Social Science & Medicine by David Roelfs, Eran Shor, Karina Davidson, and Joseph Schwartz—found that the risk of death was 63 percent higher during the study periods among those who experienced unemployment than among those who did not, after adjusting for age and other variables." https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/failing-economy-failing-health/ "Previously declining rates of suicide reversed around the time of the recession. There were an estimated 1000 excess deaths from suicide in the UK between 2008 and 2010. Similar rises occurred in many other countries, especially in Europe and North America. Other research has shown that areas of England experiencing the greatest rises in unemployment experienced the largest increases in the number of suicides." "It is estimated that for every suicide death in England, approximately 30-40 people will present to hospital following self-harm (mainly suicide attempts). Thus the estimated increase in 1000 suicide deaths (see above) are likely to have been the tip of the iceberg of emotional distress, with possibly 30-40,000 additional suicide attempts during the first three years of the recession. Other research, using data collected in the Health Survey for England and the Multicentre Study of Selfharm in England, shows that after 2008, there was an increase in levels of poor mental health in males, and a rise in numbers of males presenting at hospital following suicide attempts." http://www.awp.nhs.uk/media/757861/policyreport-3-suicide-recession.pdf "The suicide rate accelerated after the onset of the recession. There were an additional 0.51 deaths per 100,000 per year (95 % CI 0•28–0•75) in 2008–10 – an additional 1580 suicides per year (95 % CI 860–2300). A 1 % rise in unemployment is associated with a 0.99 % increase in the suicide rate (95 % CI 0 · 60–1 · 38, p < 0 · 0001) Examined trends in the total suicide rate before and after the onset of the recession and in relation to unemployment rates." "Furthermore, a case–control study from Finland found that being unemployed was a heavy predictor of risky behaviours such as driving under the influence of drugs [97]. Cross-sectional data from the USA and Germany also discovered that unemployment was significantly related to alcohol and drug use [98–100]. Additionally, alcohol-attributable deaths rate were determined to be higher among the unemployed population during recession, says an ecological study from South Korea" "Suicidal behaviours were also linked to unemployment in several studies. A Canadian case control study found that unemployed individuals have a significantly increased risk of parasuicidal behaviour compared to their matched controls [102]. Likewise, in a large cross-national study, being unemployed was discovered to be a strong risk factor for suicidal ideation and attempts [103]. An Australian study also revealed that, in times of recession, unemployed males commit suicide at 4.62 times the rate of employed men and women 8.44 times more compared with employed females [104]. Also in times of recession a Spanish study states that being unemployed was found to be associated with suicidal ideation [105]." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4741013/ "The researchers found that increases in unemployment were associated with increased mortality from all the cancer types included in the study. The association was strongest for treatable cancers, suggesting that lack of access to care may have been a factor in these excess deaths. Also, comparing estimates of expected cancer deaths with actual deaths from 2008-10, they found that the recent global economic crisis was linked with more than 260,000 excess cancer deaths among the 35 member states of the OECD alone." On a positive note for Canadians however (not so much for our neighbours South) ... "In countries with UHC—defined in the study as countries that have legislation mandating UHC, more than 90% health care coverage, and more than 90% skilled birth attendance—the link between unemployment and excess cancer deaths disappeared, suggesting that greater access to health care played a key role in mitigating the problem. Twenty-six OECD countries were listed in the study as having UHC, while nine—Barbados, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Poland, Russia, the U.S., and Uruguay—did not have it." https://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-05-global-economic-downturn-linked-excess.html

Old science? Come on now. We're dealing in decisions made mere weeks ago about something mankind has been gathering data on for centuries.

Fair points all around and with your issues with what has been going on in some circumstances. This thing is fairly fluid and there are still lots of unknowns. I apologise for being disingenuous with some of my comments however, lots of that going around and I am far from the worst in that regard. In reference to the economy I'm mostly referring to what's happening down South which cannot be ignored since our economies are entwined. There is significant data coming out of the U.S. that shows the economic damage to be immense and far worse than what is being reported. We have issues of our own. Places like Vancouver (COVID-19: City of Vancouver at risk of bankruptcy, says mayor) and Montreal (‘It’s unprecedented’: Montreal’s economy feels impact of COVID-19) are hurting badly and getting worse. We can't just keep throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at this thing. Where is that money coming from and how will it be replaced, taxes? How much damage are we asking ourselves and future generations of Canadians to recover from? As for rights, it is always the same, isn't it? Watch the steady erosion of our rights and freedoms as we trade them for security, whether from a gun or a virus. It always seems someone is there willing to ask us to give up a little more privacy, a little more freedom, in exchange for safety and security fuelled by a fear-inducing MSM. It's not the same as getting a speeding ticket, is it? On virtually every front our freedoms are being challenged and our ability to say something about it censored and labeled as conspiracy theories and/or hate speech. Someone is always offended by some else's freedoms so let's just take them all away, one by one, until no one is offended and groupthink rules supreme. One thing is for sure. This virus, and our reaction to it, is sure exposing a lot about what is wrong with our society so please forgive me if I find Sweden's approach to this thing ... refreshing.

Agreed. My only point here was that Sweden wasn't just going off on a tangent here. The data drove the decision at that time and as I said, they have made modifications since. They have studied these pandemics for a long time and their decisions were, after all, based on science, which was the insinuation.

You persist in looking at data from now. Let's revisit in a year or two. Did we (sacrifice lives for economy)? How do you know we won't end up in exactly the same place? How many spikes and lock-downs are you predicting we'll have? Oh I see. Insinuating lying? Riiiiiight.

"The science behind the Swedish strategy While the Prime Minister has drawn criticism from many for this stance, it’s actually data from the health authorities that is the driver. " https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/03/30/why-swedens-coronavirus-approach-is-so-different-from-others/#739b22ce562b “Sweden has gone mostly for voluntary measures because that’s how we’re used to working,” Tegnell added. “And we have a long tradition that it works rather well.” Since you don't trust people in a democratic government what form of government are you advocating? In this excellent paper written by Martin Holmberg he shows how well Sweden has studied the viruses in the past 200 years including Spanish Flu. It's a good read, give it a go. "The past 200 years of influenza epidemics in Sweden are examined with a special focus on key social structures—households, schools, transportations and the military. These are shown to have influenced the progression of influenza pandemics. Prevailing beliefs around influenza pandemics have also profoundly influenced intervention strategies. Measuring long-term trends in pandemic severity is problematic because pandemics are non-linear events where the conditions surrounding them constantly change. However, in a linearised view, the Spanish flu can be seen to represent a historical turning point and the H1N1 2009 pandemic not as an outlier, but following a 100-year trend of decreasing severity. Integrating seasonal and pandemic influenza, and adopting an ecosocial stance can deepen our understanding and bring the ghost-like pandemic past to life." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5629937/

Sweden has said all along that this was never about "herd immunity". Their approach has been that they've seen these viruses come and go many times before and that this one will be no different -- it'll infect them, peak, subside, and be gone, just like every other virus in the past. It's not a novel (new) corona virus to them, just another in a long line (229E (alpha), NL63 (alpha), OC43 (beta), HKU1 (beta), MERS-CoV, MERS, SARS-CoV, (SARS), SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19. Sweden says their approach is nothing new, they've always taken this tact, it is the rest of the world, with their lock-down of it's citizens and the trashing of their businesses and economies that are conducting the untested experiment, not them. They've put their trust in their population to do what is necessary and they aren't going to over-react, panic, instill fear and angst in their population, and destroy their economy. In other words they don't need big brother ramping up the hype machine to impose it's will, with potentially disastrous results, on their populace. Imagine, people actually deciding for themselves what is best for them as if it were their lives and their choice. How refreshing! It's not like they've done nothing. They have practiced social distancing, working from home when possible, etc. They prepared extra beds and had the facilities in place to handle a huge surge in cases that might overwhelm their health system but that never happened. You're right, in the end there might be little to no difference in mortality AND they won't have trashed their economy with persistent lock-downs. You say it's a hell of a gamble on their part but it's a hell of a gamble on our part too and we're the ones that have wandered off into uncharted waters.

Yessir!

Yup, same here in Ontario. Wife was out yesterday and said no one was wearing masks and social distancing seems to be relaxing. I ordered some stuff from Lowes online. Drove over there today and parked in a designated pick-up spot where they brought my order out to me. Works. It shouldn't get like Italy. Completely different demographics and the air pollution there is horrible.

Dr Mike Ryan, the WHO’s top emergencies expert, asked about Sweden’s strategy of shunning lockdowns and allowing most schools and businesses to remain open, told a virtual news conference on Wednesday: “If we are to reach a ‘new normal’, in many ways Sweden represents a future model.” https://www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic/2020/04/30/who-says-swedens-coronavirus-strategy-could-be-a-future-model-post-lockdowns/

Empathy for who, Fauci? I'm sure he'll be fine unlike the tens of unemployed millions. Yes, let's see what the final numbers are. As for the ministers and their followers, if people in the high risk group choose to expose themselves what are you going to do? Some of these people choose to play with venomous snakes too, not something most of us would recommend.

Fauci has been wrong, a lot. Jan. 21st he said there was nothing to worry about, go enjoy the Superbowl. Feb, 17th he said don't worry, the threat is "minuscule" and to worry about "the flu". Then he turned around and predicted what? 240,000 deaths! By April he said to lock-down the country until there are no more deaths. Well, they didn't need 135,000 hospital beds but there's what, 20 or 30 million American without jobs? Meh, take a seat. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. He can take Birx with him.

Always about me (blush). But what about you? I always feel so much smarter after our chats. 😉

I'm very comfortable with my perception of what's going on. I'm trying to help you out here. 😉

"Medical materials and other goods shortages caused by the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic quickly became a major issue of the pandemic. The matter of pandemic-related shortage has been studied in the past and has been documented in recent events. On the medical side, shortages of personal protective equipment such as medical masks, gloves, face shields, gear,[1] sanitising products, are also joined by potential shortage of more advanced devices such as hospital beds, ICU beds, oxygen therapy, ventilators and ECMO devices. Human resources, especially in terms of medical staff, may be drained by the overwhelming extent of the epidemic and associated workload, together with losses by contamination, isolation, sickness[1] or mortality among health care workers. Territories are differently equipped to face the pandemic. Various emergency measures have been taken to ramp up equipment levels such as purchases, while calls for donations, local 3D makers,[1][2] volunteer staffing, mandatory draft, or seizure of stocks and factory lines have also occurred. Bidding wars between different countries and states over these items are reported to be a major issue,[3][4] with price increases,[3] orders seized by local government, or cancelled by selling company to be redirected to higher bidder.[3][4] In some cases, medical workers have been ordered to not speak about these shortages of resources.[5]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortages_related_to_the_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic

No brilliant plans and yes, of course all lives matter. The virus and the damage to the economy both pose a threat to lives. We can't ignore one for the sake of the other, right? Other than isolating them I don't know how much can be done for the most vulnerable. If you have a weak immune system due to old age or sickness maybe there isn't much more that can be done. I honestly don't know. We did seem to get caught with our pants down when it came to PPE and medical supplies like ventilators.

I found this data in a piece from the LA TIMES ... "The study identified very few deaths among people under 40. More than 12,000 people in that age group were infected, but only 26 died. It is unclear if those people had other medical conditions, such as asthma or cancer, that may have made them more vulnerable. The study found that the chance of dying from COVID-19 clearly increases with age. There were no reported deaths from COVID-19 in children under 10, and other studies have suggested that children who are infected do not become very sick. These are the COVID-19 mortality rates by age calculated by the Chinese CDC: ages 10-19: 0.2% ages 20-29: 0.2% ages 30-39: 0.2% ages 40-49: 0.4% ages 50-59: 1.3% ages 60-69: 3.6% ages 70-79: 8% 80 and over: 14.8% The overall mortality rate estimated by researchers was 2.3%, but experts caution that it is likely exaggerated due to milder cases that have gone uncounted. As for the younger deaths, they represent what you would see if you pored over any disease data with a magnifying glass, experts say."

I take 3,000 I.U.s of vitamin D daily, along with zinc and vitamin C. I eat lots of fish for protein, omega 3s and B vitamins. I'm healthy and strong and plan on staying that way. I struggle with my weight so I try to get out for a walk daily. Only real problem is I'm 64 years old so I'm in the risk group. I honestly don't know how I'd fare if I caught the covid. I'm thinking I'd kick it's ass but who knows?

The problem with Hillary is, she had it in the bag ... until she didn't. How in the world did she not manage that? I think the world still reels in shock when they realize who the prez is.

What was America to do? The alternative was Hillary Clinton.

We always heard that he was such a dynamic business genius that was going to lead the nation to greatness once again. I wonder how many are believing that to be the case now.

Very sorry to hear of this. Best wishes and prayers go out to you and your family.

Very, very sorry to hear this. My condolences. My thoughts and prayers go out to your Mom and your family. Hoping for the best.

Sorry for rambling but it was such a good question I had to try to give a good answer. I didn't mention overburdening the health system because I can't see how it would get overburdened if you protected the most vulnerable. What you're missing about the economy is that a pooched economy will result in added deaths as well as suffering. The economy is vitally important to the health of the nation too. Again, if the most vulnerable are protected, it has already been demonstrated that the young and strong aren't going to succumb to this thing. How are you going to get all these sick and dead people you're referring to?

Hindsight is 20-20 and it's easy for me to prognosticate now on what should have been done before the lock-down but the truth is it was hard to know what to do. It certainly didn't help anyone to think clearly with the media blaring "Death by Covid" multiple times per day and flashing all those nasty-looking green and red coronavirus pics. To answer your first question honestly, I probably would have done exactly what we did, maybe even sooner. That said and again with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight it seems clear to me that very early on we knew the at-risk people were those with any kind of compromised immune system -- the sick and the elderly. I would have done everything possible to isolate and protect those people. After that, I would have sought out the advice of experienced health care workers from around the world and then decided on the next course of action which probably would have involved letting the kids go back to school and getting the economy rolling by letting people not at risk return to work not unlike what Sweden has done. I think sooner or later we are all going to be exposed to this virus. Yes it sucks that it can take 18 months to develop a vaccine but quarantining everyone may only drag this thing out for too long. We're about to see if that's true. I'd like to see the govt lift all restrictions on the young and strong while keeping the most vulnerable isolated and safe. If infections spike among the young and strong, as it most likely will, we can monitor it but the vast majority should be just fine. They'll build antibodies and eventually herd immunity will be achieved, something that has to happen anyway, otherwise we'll be doomed to repeat this lock-down cycle repeatedly which I don't think anyone wants. What I don't want the govt to do is let the economy collapse completely over a long period of time with devastating consequences just to delay the inevitable.