UN warns economic crisis could kill hundreds of thousands of children

[Economy 52,845]

14 minutes ago, Franz Ferdinand said:

There are two issues here. One, 2% of the population dying over what period of time? You're right that maybe over a year the economic impact wouldn't be too high. Over a period of, say, 6-8 weeks, it does make a difference. The other big problem is that the 2% figure isn't correct. The mortality rate for COVID-19 has been estimated to be between 0.07-10%, depending on the health system and the population. With all restrictions lifted, I can guarantee you the death rate would be up to 15%, maybe even 20%. We simply do not have the resources to combat too many people getting sick at the same time, and this virus is particularly great at infecting people quietly and becoming severe quickly. An initial total lockdown was and in most countries still is necessary. Science needs to play catch-up. It really won't be safe to restart activities until testing capabilities are greatly expanded, and the number of infections dwindles to a manageable/traceable amount.

Even over a short period the impacts can't possibly be larger than most ppl not working and doing nothing

 

Secondly I seriously doubt the death rate would go that high

 

The percentage of people that get sick enough to need to be on ventilators to survive that would die if they don't have access to healthcare I don't think is 15% to 20% tho exact numbers are not known

 

Not to mention a very high portion of people who need ventilators and get put on one still does anyway https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/02/826105278/ventilators-are-no-panacea-for-critically-ill-covid-19-patients

 

The difference can't possibly be 15% to 20% death rate. None of the numbers I've seen suggest it would be that high even if health system got overwhelmed.

 

Even the higher estimates of the real death rate (trying to take into account milder cases that don't get tested and confirmed) don't go much above 1%

 

To get a 15% death rate would imply that well over 90% of the most severe cases now in hospitals are getting saved that wouldn't if healthcare was overwhelmed. 20% would imply a 95% saved rate of severe cases

 

The numbers are no where near that high unfortunately. But it also means the death rate would not be that high

 

[ARTPOPSYCHOLOGY 6,283]

7 minutes ago, Franz Ferdinand said:

There are two issues here. One, 2% of the population dying over what period of time? You're right that maybe over a year the economic impact wouldn't be too high. Over a period of, say, 6-8 weeks, it does make a difference. The other big problem is that the 2% figure isn't correct. The mortality rate for COVID-19 has been estimated to be between 0.07-10%, depending on the health system and the population. With all restrictions lifted, I can guarantee you the death rate would be up to 15%, maybe even 20%. We simply do not have the resources to combat too many people getting sick at the same time, and this virus is particularly great at infecting people quietly and becoming severe quickly. An initial total lockdown was and in most countries still is necessary. Science needs to play catch-up. It really won't be safe to restart activities until testing capabilities are greatly expanded, and the number of infections dwindles to a manageable/traceable amount.

 
But people who take this argument never look at the other side of it, where an estimated 300-750,000 had the virus all over the world and had mild symptoms or were asymptotic and would make the mortality rate also decrease. There’s evidence to suggest that 75% of the world saw the worst of the virus and it’s time to plan how to safely resume to some type of normalcy with precautions and stipulations in place. I am the farthest thing from a Trump supporter, but the plan that he laid out yesterday ensures that there is safety and a 14 day window where cases are not increasing before states are allowed to open. And whether you want to admit it or not there are downsides to continue to stay like this. It’s a shame the federal government won’t work to get the testing we need because it’s a matter of widespread testing and $ given to states to be able to start the process. 

[Franz Ferdinand 2,359]

1 minute ago, Economy said:

Even over a short period the impacts can't possibly be larger than most ppl not working and doing nothing

 

Secondly I seriously doubt the death rate would go that high

 

The percentage of people that get sick enough to need to be on ventilators to survive that would die if they don't have access to healthcare I don't think is 15% to 20% tho exact numbers are not known

 

Not to mention a very high portion of people who need ventilators and get put on one still does anyway https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/02/826105278/ventilators-are-no-panacea-for-critically-ill-covid-19-patients

 

The difference can't possibly be 15% to 20% death rate. None of the numbers I've seen suggest it would be that high even if health system got overwhelmed.

 

Look at Italy, Spain, Belgium, or the UK. Death rates in all are above 10%, as high as 13% in Italy. This is considering that, although all started late, they all incurred mitigation strategies. Italy and Spain have been under total lockdown for almost a month and a half and only now are starting to see the numbers plateau, but their healthcare systems are still strained. With no restrictions, I have no doubt the death rates would be a lot higher, because the healthcare systems would not only get overwhelmed, they would completely collapse.

[Franz Ferdinand 2,359]

2 minutes ago, ARTPOPSYCHOLOGY said:

There’s evidence to suggest that 75% of the world saw the worst of the virus 

For now. Most people on the planet are still at the same risk they always were of being infected, so if restrictions are lifted, there's just gonna be another wave. This is the point, we need to make sure we are prepared for this. And we still aren't.

[Bt1 5,213]

36 minutes ago, ZacharyMark said:

 

Not closing the country would've killed hundreds of thousands due to the virus along with the thousands of other deaths people wouldn't have cared about relating to poverty and economic struggles. 

But it's not surprising that the people leading this thread aren't seeing the bigger picture as usual. 

The thing is there are countries, states without lockdowns. And those hundreds of thousands deaths cant be seen yet.

While the lockdowns have effects, they arent as big as you think. And those effects can be obtained without lockdowns. 

The negative effects on the economy are already at the worst case scenario point and that's with all the money gave by the governments worldwide. 

The saddest part is that because of the economic crisis and the money spend on trying to save the economy, all those problems you say you care about will be postponed again. 

All the data shows that with or without the measures, the rich people will be fine. The poor and the middle class are the ones at risks from this situation. That's actually the point ot the article. It's important to note that they are talking only about children. 

[ARTPOPSYCHOLOGY 6,283]

11 minutes ago, Franz Ferdinand said:

For now. Most people on the planet are still at the same risk they always were of being infected, so if restrictions are lifted, there's just gonna be another wave. This is the point, we need to make sure we are prepared for this. And we still aren't.

This is unequivocally incorrect. If that was the case, places like Australia wouldn’t be reopening. They aren’t lead by a corrupt leader like the US is either. The virus has peaked and flattened in serval countries and the R has also gone below 1 which is the literal statistic that says the risk of being infected and how many other people one person who has COVID can infect. A simple google search can provide this information. 

[LGMonster95 13,704]

If people lets this virus do its thing then It's going to be A LOT worse than some of y'all imagine because most hospitals will start collapsing and more people will start dying because of that and not just old people are dying from this sh*t but also young and healthy people aswell, sorry if I'm being too hard but nobody is 100% safe from it. Also some of you should take in consideration that there's a possibility that this virus could mutate into something even more dangerous if we don't take actions against it while also thinking about solutions about the economy. We need to weaken this virus to the point of not being that much of a danger (there's already positive examples in some countries) then I'm sure we will deal with our economy aswell

[Franz Ferdinand 2,359]

Just now, ARTPOPSYCHOLOGY said:

This is unequivocally incorrect. If that was the case, places like Australia wouldn’t be reopening. They aren’t lead by a corrupt leader like the US is either. The virus has peaked and flattened in serval countries and the R has also gone below 1 which is the literal statistic that says the risk of being infected and how many other people one person who has COVID can infect. A simple google search can provide this information. 

The R-nought is unchanged, though. So what is your point?

[Bt1 5,213]

9 minutes ago, LGMonster95 said:

If people lets this virus do its thing then It's going to be A LOT worse than some of y'all imagine because most hospitals will start collapsing and more people will start dying because of that and not just old people are dying from this sh*t but also young and healthy people aswell, sorry if I'm being too hard but nobody is 100% safe from it. Also some of you should take in consideration that there's a possibility that this virus could mutate into something even more dangerous if we don't take actions against it while also thinking about solutions about the economy. We need to weaken this virus to the point of not being that much of a danger (there's already positive examples in some countries) then I'm sure we will deal with our economy aswell

While you are right, nobody is 100% safe from everything. Statistics say that young and healthy people have more chances to die from a car accident than from covid. 

And yet we didnt stop using cars. Just like with cars, we need the economy, so we better start to find other measures that could impact this virus, until we have a treatment or a vaccine. 

[Maleficent 6]

i said this on april 2nd 

i was laughed at and this was the response 

[TheBannedShadow 3,424]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

It's so easy to focus on the deaths specifically from this now cuz it's all over the news and we are in a lockdown for it etc

 

But think about the daily deaths in Africa from poverty especially children... Think of the deaths even in developed world we could avoid if healthcare was better funded

 

The Trillions globally being used right now to try to keep economy alive. Think of how many lives die constantly we could save with the same amount of money being lost on this crisis

 

Humans are so good at focusing a lot on something new that's getting a lot of attention while ignoring old news

 

It sounds so Nobel to waste all our resources to save a few million... Meanwhile all this time we could have saved a much greater number of lives with the same amount of money

 

If it was truly about human life... We wouldn't only be concerned with an issue once it affects developed world tbh

 

We've had other issues killing lives that were cheaper to fix than this and u could save a greater number of people for the same cost. But because this is a new thing frightening people in the rich countries.... Suddenly its justified for us to go broke to save lives in developed nations since our lives seem to be of more value than elsewhere

Thanks for the Ted talk.

But I am aware of all the things you put in your reply. 

[LGMonster95 13,704]

4 minutes ago, Florin said:

While you are right, nobody is 100% safe from everything. Statistics say that young and healthy people have more chances to die from a car accident than from covid. 

And yet we didnt stop using cars. Just like with cars, we need the economy, so we better start to find other measures that could impact this virus, until we have a treatment or a vaccine. 

Statistics are just numbers and only good at the end of this pandemic. I don't think it's going to be THAT BAD like how some of those sources are saying, there's a lot of over-exaggerations nowadays. From what I've heard there's already a really good treatment and a vaccine could come in 12 months if people don't find something else that could work

[Bt1 5,213]

Funny that u think people are over-exxagerating the numbers. The people who dont agree with the lockdowns think the same thing. 

Yeah, a vaccine could come in 12 months ( 6 - 18 months scientists say), but that's the problem. We cant keep the lockdowns so much without having other effects like you see in the article here. That's why the lockdowns must be replaced with other social distancing measures. 

 

[ARTPOPSYCHOLOGY 6,283]

1 hour ago, Franz Ferdinand said:

The R-nought is unchanged, though. So what is your point?

What are you talking about? It does change as the AMOUNT of people who could be infected decreases. Do you not watch any of the press conferences done by any country, state, or by the WHO? NY went from a 1.7 to a .9. I’m not saying they should reopen anytime soon, but things are getting better. It’s alarming that you can’t agree with that. 

[ARTPOPSYCHOLOGY 6,283]

45 minutes ago, LGMonster95 said:

Statistics are just numbers and only good at the end of this pandemic. I don't think it's going to be THAT BAD like how some of those sources are saying, there's a lot of over-exaggerations nowadays. From what I've heard there's already a really good treatment and a vaccine could come in 12 months if people don't find something else that could work

Thanks. The person you quoted also fails to realize how the initial projections completely were off and were overblown. Even the # cited in this article is a worst-case scenario.