RE: X5 Unrelated, but Good Information in Times of Need

crystalworks · #1 04-23-2020, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perrier

Seriously now.

Are you implying someone has created a plan to manage this? Or is the plan to rely on every business to figure out their own plan? If that’s the case has anyone mandated that businesses are expected to have a plan when they open? Or assume that they would?
Can a barber have 10 customers inside the shop waiting their turn? Can the bus be filled to capacity? Reopening guidelines are either not created or not published. Burying your head in the sand is not a plan.

The plan of not having a plan is not a good plan.

As Mark Twain put it. It’s not wrong doing the right thing.

Every locality is supposed to come up with their own plans. Ours has been doing a great job and communicating in a very clear matter of fact way. All of those things you mentioned have been mentioned by our mayor and county judge for how to proceed.

Are you in Canada as your profile states? Perhaps things are quite different there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcredliner

There is no verification for any percent of increase of deaths based on one percent increase of unemployment. The 40,000 deaths per increase of one per of unemployment originated from the movie 'The Big Short'.

There is plenty of correlation data available for unemployment vs mortality. The 40,000 is based off a study from the 70's I think. But even if that's wildly overestimated, your belief that every life should be saved is at odds with any increase.

People are going to die. They die every day. As Elizabeth Warren is dealing with the loss of her brother, we all deal with the loss of loved ones. Whether it be from a virus, old age, car accident, etc. At the average age of members here I'd bet most, if not all of us, have lost loved ones.

bcredliner · #2 04-24-2020, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crystalworks

Every locality is supposed to come up with their own plans. Ours has been doing a great job and communicating in a very clear matter of fact way. All of those things you mentioned have been mentioned by our mayor and county judge for how to proceed.

Are you in Canada as your profile states? Perhaps things are quite different there.

There is plenty of correlation data available for unemployment vs mortality. The 40,000 is based off a study from the 70's I think. But even if that's wildly overestimated, your belief that every life should be saved is at odds with any increase.

People are going to die. They die every day. As Elizabeth Warren is dealing with the loss of her brother, we all deal with the loss of loved ones. Whether it be from a virus, old age, car accident, etc. At the average age of members here I'd bet most, if not all of us, have lost loved ones.

It's not about people die everyday so what's the big deal. It's that our carelessness can be directly responsible for a death(s) much the same if one intentionally ran their car through a crowd.

crystalworks · #3 04-24-2020, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcredliner

It's not about people die everyday so what's the big deal. It's that our carelessness can be directly responsible for a death(s) much the same if one intentionally ran their car through a crowd.

Literally my point exactly. And we don't outlaw cars because some people drive them through crowds.

I don't know which studies you believe the results of. From past "discussions," with myself and others none that might not support your beliefs. Disregarding a 50 year old study simply because it was old is about as short sighted a thing as I've heard lately. Imagine disregarding all the studies on green house gases or ocean temps from Al Gore's time. Or oceanic work of Jacque Cousteau. Ridiculous.

bcredliner · #4 04-24-2020, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crystalworks

Literally my point exactly. And we don't outlaw cars because some people drive them through crowds.

I don't know which studies you believe the results of. From past "discussions," with myself and others none that might not support your beliefs. Disregarding a 50 year old study simply because it was old is about as short sighted a thing as I've heard lately. Imagine disregarding all the studies on green house gases or ocean temps from Al Gore's time. Or oceanic work of Jacque Cousteau. Ridiculous.

My opinion concerning the deaths due to unemployment has nothing to do with any other study. "Discussions" on any other study would need to be evaluated individually. No, I can't imagine ignoring studies on greenhouses gases though I would start reading the most recent study.

I would love to hear why communication, medication and financial opportunities of that time don't matter. This started when the study was used to contend 1% increase in unemployment resulted in 40,000 deaths. That's what I challenged. Since then I have been proven wrong that it was from a movie script and the death rate range was acknowledged in that study that it could be a low as 1,500. The process of that unemployment study might provide some basis for updating but it should not be accepted without questioning viability when it is 50 years old.