RE: X5 Unrelated, but Good Information in Times of Need - Page 24

bcredliner · #**231** 04-23-2020, 03:51 PM

No, I am not looking at it from the perspective of the unemployed or the economy. I am looking at it from the standpoint of facilitating more deaths verses saving lives.

First, note that the number of new cases in Texas is still increasing. Texas has yet to define any plan for reopening other than open as much as possible as soon as possible, per the Governor, beginning May 1 or sooner. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick says "there are worse things than dying". The governor says he will do it safely but has not stated any conditions for reopening just that it is time.

How and when states or cities reopen is not about any one person. It is about all of us as one. The humane and responsible course of action is a reopening with an in depth plan of sufficient testing each and every day. It is a plan to measure, by adequate testing, the number of new cases and a sufficient number of personnel to trace back the persons the new case has exposed. Texas does not have the testing capability as yet nor the personnel to do the tracing. There may be job opening for that though I don't expect Texas will give either necessity consideration.

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'.

Sponsored Links

bcredliner · #**232** 04-23-2020, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EODguy

Not sure where you heard that but I personally have been to almost every shit-hole in the world and most times it was without that support.

As for this Chinese virus... if you believe the number of confirmed infections (tested) and that there aren't a bunch of extra DMF'rs laying around then mortality rates will either stay pretty much the same as they are now.

So yes 98% of those infected will not die by more people getting infected. There will just be the same percentages but with higher numbers.

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

If 2% dying is OK. What percent dying is not? And are you OK if someone you care deeply about is in that 2%?

Overboost · #**233** 04-23-2020, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EODguy

I prefer to quote the Constitution or the Founding Fathers, but nothing says you have to go to a place that has people NOT social distancing...

Couldn't agree more. If you are scared, then stay home.

Until someone tells me how my mortgage and bills will be paid by fairies or pixie dust then get out of the way and let me earn a living.

crystalworks · #**234** 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.

EODguy · #**235** 04-23-2020, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcredliner

If 2% dying is OK. What percent dying is not? And are you OK if someone you care deeply about is in that 2%?

I'm saying that if right now it's 2% then a larger amount of people IF infected would not be an increase in % and the "swine flu" pandemic a few years ago had over 60,000 deaths just in the USA alone (over 4-5 months)

A 2% risk is almost nothing when you look at who you personally know of that has died over the last 12 months from anything other than the kung flu.

There was a time in Afghanistan and Iraq that 12% of the guys on the teams were killed (EOD) so some random shit happens today, then some random shit happens but I'm not going to sweat it.

I keep saying that if anyone is uncomfortable with people that aren't social distancing then it's not like it effects them unless they aren't social distancing either.

America, where we don't force people to do/not do something because it makes us "uncomfortable" or else there'd still be colored drinking fountains and segregation in schools.
I want you to be safe, but I don't want it to come at the cost of forcing families to lose their ass and sleep under a bridge or to make our economy into another 3rd world shit-hole and not to mention that if people keep trying to protect themselves then the only thing different will be you can go to more stores, etc and practice distancing there too.

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

Overboost · #**236** 04-23-2020, 06:38 PM

Hooah!

bcredliner · #**237** 04-23-2020, 08:16 PM

While it makes sense that the more unemployed for some period of time will result in more potential deaths. There is no study that can be used universally. That is due to the huge number of variables between instances. Wasn't kidding, the 40,000 number originated in the movie 'The Big Short'. There was no study behind it. It was just part of the script.

A mayor does not have the authority to defy a state law. They can't open or close, or alter restrictions put in place by the state nor is the US is going to collapse.

The world will return to a new normal at some point. The way to get there sooner is to follow the guidelines to protect from spreading the virus. There is no other or less expensive solution for any of us.

If unemployment and the stimulus payments are not enough to get by then one should look for work in an essential category. There are jobs available at many places such as Amazon that are swamped with orders, business that have benefitted from the pandemic. Or smaller businesses that are deemed essential that need staff as some workers have chosen not to take the risk.

There is a major differences in fatalities from military service, suicides, traffic deaths etc. Soldiers choose to serve, one chooses to commit suicide and if an individual is killed by another driver there is punishment. One does not have the right to choose to risk another's life. They just don't.

Certainly lots of folks will choose to violate the restrictions, a small number already are. They are playing the odds that someone else will get the virus, someone else will die and ignoring any death or damage they might cause. No punishment, who will ever know, I'm not responsible for anyone else. I'm going to do whatever I want. IMO no facts are going to change their course of action unless the virus hits close to home.

crystalworks · #**238** 04-23-2020, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcredliner

While it makes sense that the more unemployed for some period of time will result in more potential deaths. There is no study that can be used universally. That is due to the huge number of variables between instances. Wasn't kidding, the 40,000 number originated in the movie 'The Big Short'. There was no study behind it. It was just part of the script.

They did use it in the movie. But Dr. Harvey Brenner was doing work/studies in the 70's on the subject. That's where they got it from. After doing some more research, it seems 1500 deaths per 1% increase of unemployment is more accurate. So, we're projecting up to 25% (ish), so that's ~30,000 deaths.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcredliner

If unemployment and the stimulus payments are not enough to get by then one should look for work in an essential category. There are jobs available at many places such as Amazon that are swamped with orders, business that have benefitted from the pandemic. Or smaller businesses that are deemed essential that need staff as some workers have chosen not to take the risk.

^Wow. You live in a bubble.

Edit: Seems there are different figures ranging from 1500 - 37000. The movie rounded up from 37000, for dramatic effect I assume.

Quote:

The actual figure in academic research is a 37,000 increase for each percentage-point rise in the unemployment rate. It comes from a book called “Corporate Flight: The Causes and Consequences of Economic Dislocation” by Barry Bluestone, Bennett Harrison and Lawrence Baker.

“Corporate Flight” was published in 1982 and mainly had to do with companies moving operations overseas. I couldn’t reach Bluestone, Harrison or Baker, but last week I was able to contact Wade Thomas, who teaches economics and business at SUNY Oneonta and who quoted those figures in his own co-written 2005 book called “Economic Issues Today: Alternative Approaches.”

Here’s the paragraph from Thomas’ book that applies: “According to one study [the one by Bluestone et al.] a 1 percent increase in the unemployment rate will be associated with 37,000 deaths [including 20,000 heart attacks], 920 suicides, 650 homicides, 4,000 state mental hospital admissions and 3,300 state prison admissions.”

Overboost · #**239** 04-23-2020, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcredliner

If unemployment and the stimulus payments are not enough to get by then one should look for work in an essential category. There are jobs available at many places such as Amazon that are swamped with orders, business that have benefitted from the pandemic. Or smaller businesses that are deemed essential that need staff as some workers have chosen not to take the risk.

Great Cuomo talking points. You must have got that from the victim in chief himself.

I am in desperation for trying to find some kind of temporary work to make ends meet and I checked Amazon and other "essential categories" and they just don't seem to have any positions available for a 62 year old man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcredliner

Certainly lots of folks will choose to violate the restrictions, a small number already are. They are playing the odds that someone else will get the virus, someone else will die and ignoring any death or damage they might cause. No punishment, who will ever know, I'm not responsible for anyone else. I'm going to do whatever I want. IMO no facts are going to change their course of action unless the virus hits close to home.

My father passed less than 2 weeks ago and buried him this past week in a service that only one family member could attend before even getting the coroner's official cause of death. Is that close enough to home for you?

I honestly don't have any words for you other than I know where you can shove your opinions. Just make sure to wash your hands.

EODguy · #**240** 04-24-2020, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcredliner

There is a major differences in fatalities from military service, suicides, traffic deaths etc. Soldiers choose to serve, one chooses to commit suicide and if an individual is killed by another driver there is punishment. One does not have the right to choose to risk another's life. They just don't.

I'm going to cover this little gem right here...

How in anyway does opening businesses put someone more at risk from another person's actions?

The answer is it doesn't!!

Example: If your happy ass has gone outside the house to buy food and other essentials since this started, then your risk will not be increased by going to more places (if YOU keep taking precautions)

As for the differences in deaths only suicides are different as that is a person doing something that WILL guarantee the end of their life.

A soldier a takes a higher RISK not a certain outcome. The real problem is that too many people are falsely equating more places = more risk and not understanding that if..... Precaution #1 works at the grocery store, then Precaution #1 will also work at some other business. No plan mentioned by anyone has said let's open everything and FORCE people to stand close together at a store and prohibit them from wearing PPE. If that was being said I'd fight that too, but what you're asking for is for others to suffer losing houses, jobs, family members to regular medical issues because you believe it somehow will make your mask and gloves better.

This is so easy.

If you're so worried about the virus.... Don't go outside.

Don't talk to anyone face to face.

Wear your PPE.

Don't do any work at an essential job due to increased risk

.

Do not touch cash.

Do not allow products into your safe space unless it's been sanitized.

And the most important thing is....

Enjoy PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and enjoy not putting the boots to another person's livelihood.

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

Sponsored Links