UN warns economic crisis could kill hundreds of thousands of children

[River 127,427]

The UN needs to stfu, they are the problem.

 

[Adakam 2]

The virus has the potential to kill hundreds of millions of people if left unchecked. Both directly and indirectly when people with regular emergencies cant reach medical attention, the loss of healthcare workers (if they dont go in strike as this would be like holding them hostages) would be huge.

The economy falling will kill people? Am I the only one seeing the fallacy of this? Before the virus, 30000 die of hunger EVERY DAY and it has been like that FOR YEARS, over 800 MILLION people are undernourished right now, so dont pretend that they are why you want to protect the economy right now, that is just an excuse the rich are using to convince the regular folk that the quarantine is bad. The famous 1%, along with the church, have enough money and resources to end world hunger multiple times, so im not going to swallow this bs that "the cure is worse than the disease" and its sad to see that some people here do.

[Bt1 5,213]

1 hour ago, Adakam said:

The virus has the potential to kill hundreds of millions of people if left unchecked. Both directly and indirectly when people with regular emergencies cant reach medical attention, the loss of healthcare workers (if they dont go in strike as this would be like holding them hostages) would be huge.

The economy falling will kill people? Am I the only one seeing the fallacy of this? Before the virus, 30000 die of hunger EVERY DAY and it has been like that FOR YEARS, over 800 MILLION people are undernourished right now, so dont pretend that they are why you want to protect the economy right now, that is just an excuse the rich are using to convince the regular folk that the quarantine is bad. The famous 1%, along with the church, have enough money and resources to end world hunger multiple times, so im not going to swallow this bs that "the cure is worse than the disease" and its sad to see that some people here do.

Your numbers are all over the place and from all the data we have until now, they are incorrect. 

Rich people will be fine with or without measures. The middle class and the poor are the ones who are going to pay the bills for all of this, not the rich. 

[Franz Ferdinand 2,359]

1 hour ago, ARTPOPSYCHOLOGY said:

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. 

We're talking about different rates, but to put it simply, the R is not a biological constant. It is dependent on the behaviour of the population (as well as other factors like environmental conditions). The rate is going down now because people are under lockdown, therefore the infectivity is decreasing. That is not to say the virus is getting less infectious, rather people are less prone to infection because of the lockdown. Lifting all restrictions, for instance, would simply make the rate rise again (since people will start going out again).

I'm not saying things aren't getting better, I'm saying that flattening the curve is barely half of the battle, and this victory will be fleeting unless other mitigation strategies are prepared, but in most countries there are none.

[Adakam 2]

2 hours ago, Florin said:

Your numbers are all over the place and from all the data we have until now, they are incorrect. 

Rich people will be fine with or without measures. The middle class and the poor are the ones who are going to pay the bills for all of this, not the rich. 

What numbers are you referring to? I assume the "hundreds of millions might die part". Im talking about a worldwide scenario with no measures/lockdowns. Dont underestimate what the virus can do if you let it, current death rates are made with the asumption that every sick person will have access to medical attention.

Lockdowns should stay, and if you look at my post history, youll see that im part of the group that is most affected by those lockdowns to the point where im risking starving. But I rather hang tight than look at bodies piling up. 

Money will come back, lost lives wont.

 

[Economy 52,851]

2 hours ago, Adakam said:

What numbers are you referring to? I assume the "hundreds of millions might die part". Im talking about a worldwide scenario with no measures/lockdowns. Dont underestimate what the virus can do if you let it, current death rates are made with the asumption that every sick person will have access to medical attention.

Lockdowns should stay, and if you look at my post history, youll see that im part of the group that is most affected by those lockdowns to the point where im risking starving. But I rather hang tight than look at bodies piling up. 

Money will come back, lost lives wont.

 

Lost lives will not come back and ur right

 

But the money also won't just come back. My country is already projecting a decade worth of deficits...

 

That will get payed back like never... And the annual interest will constantly be payed by us

 

Anyway restrictions need to be there. Hundreds of millions of deaths with 0 measures is perfectly plausible...

 

But I do however think we should also be looking more at the net benefits vs cost of each measure

 

A full lockdown for a year and a half is not realistic. So we need to start looking at what stuff actually makes the biggest difference and what stuff is costing us a lot for trivial benefits

 

Keeping arenas, gyms, and clubs or bars might make a huge difference in transmissions... Some small businesses maybe not as much

 

I think we should consider re-opening most of the economy soon as just restricting the parts where the risk of very rapid transmission is highest

 

The government can't just keep paying ppl to do nothing so they can feed themselves. That's not sustainable even in the richer countries. In some Countries like India ppl are already going hungry and the lockdowns just started

 

[sicilymanora 24]

6 hours ago, Adakam said:

The virus has the potential to kill hundreds of millions of people if left unchecked. Both directly and indirectly when people with regular emergencies cant reach medical attention, the loss of healthcare workers (if they dont go in strike as this would be like holding them hostages) would be huge.

The economy falling will kill people? Am I the only one seeing the fallacy of this? Before the virus, 30000 die of hunger EVERY DAY and it has been like that FOR YEARS, over 800 MILLION people are undernourished right now, so dont pretend that they are why you want to protect the economy right now, that is just an excuse the rich are using to convince the regular folk that the quarantine is bad. The famous 1%, along with the church, have enough money and resources to end world hunger multiple times, so im not going to swallow this bs that "the cure is worse than the disease" and its sad to see that some people here do.

Viruses and bacteria come and go all the time and if you look at the numbers of infected people from other viruses/bacteria, you will understand that COVID19 is relatively milder. Nobody is disputing that people die from hunger every day, but why cause it to swell even more? Viruses like these come and go all the time and none of those has ever warranted a response like this. Just remember there was 60.8 Million people infected with H1N1 in a span of one year in the US alone. 

As for your comments about the economy, let me copy and paste this:

The economy is NOT just about stocks and money, that is an incredibly narrow way of thinking about the economy. There are many factors that make the economy and for your sake, I won't get into all the details.

What you need to know is that the longer this lock down drags on, the more EVERYONE gets affected. It's not just the rich people who will suffer from this.

Most of the people who will suffer from this is the POOR, LOW income, and MIDDLE class people. As long as everything is in lock down, these people will not have any income (Aside from that measly $1200). People need income to buy food, pay for rent/mortgages, loans, credit, and other expenses. If they are unable to pay for food, they will starve. If they are unable to pay for their loans, they will default and apply for another loan which will put them in even more debt. If they are unable to pay for their mortgages, they will default and could lose their homes and become homeless. Fact is, most Americans have no collateral. Low-Middle income Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and little to no assets. So if their income is reduced or disappear, they are done. 

The only way around this is for people to start earning an income again, and that cannot happen if the economy is in lockdown! People will STARVE. They will LOSE their HOMES! And just guess who their homes are going to if they default? THE BANKS!

If you guys think this lockdown will hurt the big conglomerates and rich people - think again! The fed is printing out TRILLIONS of dollars (6 to be exact, and counting) as part of their quantitative easing measures and guess who their giving the bulk of that money to? CORPORATIONS and RICH PEOPLE! Guess who is going to pay for the newly printed 6 trillion of dollars? YOU. Tax payers! The government is willingly BAILING OUT all the huge corporations for MILLIONS of dollars while the average American gets a measly $1200. It doesn't end there for the rich people! Just check out their stimulus plan - UP TO $1.6 MILLION in tax deductions!!!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Want proof? Here you go! 

---> https://nypost.com/2020/04/16/43k-us-millionaires-will-get-stimulus-averaging-1-6m-each/

---> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/15/tax-change-coronavirus-stimulus-act-millionaires-billionaires

---> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-stimulus-checks-millionaires-wealthy-tax-break-loophole-a9466476.html

---> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-finance-202/2020/03/30/the-finance-202-the-treasury-department-and-the-federal-reserve-will-spend-500-billion-bailing-out-businesses-big-questions-remain-about-how/5e810e39602ff10d49ad784c/

---> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-fed-balancesheet/feds-balance-sheet-swells-to-record-6-13-trillion-idUSKCN21R3FR

---> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/15/business/economy/fed-banks-dividends-virus.html

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

$1.6 MILLION DOLLARS!

Let that sink in. Then look at the $1200 they deposited in your bank. Crumbs.

Fact is this lockdown will hurt LOW-MIDDLE INCOME people the most!! 

So please enough with this whole "stocks" and "money" crashing = the only factor in an economy. The economy is far more complex than just crashing stocks and crashing markets. It's incredibly ignorant and uneducated to think that the lock downs will only hurt rich people and that people who want to open the economy only care about money. 

If you have a vendetta against the rich then you should be out there protesting the MILLIONS and BILLIONS of FED printed dollars the government is spending TO BAIL THEM OUT! YOU, your fellow Americans, and most likely your future children will be paying for all of this newly printed currency (WITH INTEREST)! That's what you should be focusing on. 

Stop justifying these draconian lockdown of the economy for the sake of "hurting the rich".

It won't. 

TLDR:

You support these lock downs, you support the starvation of millions of people.

[Adakam 2]

2 hours ago, sicilymanora said:

.

I dont know if I failed to explain my point or what, but you really didnt need that wall of text.

As you said, the poor and the middle class will be the most affected ones, the rich wont be hurt by this. Thats obvious, and thats where I have a problem, if we lived in a fair world, they should be the ones to open up their wallets and take the hit, not get bailouts while the people get crumbs. If we lived in a fair world, everyone could stay at home for as long as its needed for the virus and noone should have to worry about food, bills, etc.

Things arent as simple as your tl,dr, Im not supporting a lockdown that starves millions while saving a few, Im demanding a lockdown that saves those few while the others are able to rest easy, where noone loses their jobs. Is that impossible? Realistically, in our world dominated by the high class, yes, im aware its not going to happen, but that doesnt make it impossible in theory.

How much money has been spent on avenging the 3000 lives lost at 9/11? And you tell me theres not enough resources to keep all the money-struggling population fed and well while the lockdowns do their job when the virus has killed like 40k already?

All of that is what I hope people protest for when all this is over.

 

[babylonn 126]

UN stays gaslighting the public...like what kinda headline jeez

[Whispering 18,865]

9 hours 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. 

We have rules of the road, age requirements, vision requirements, speed limits, safety rails, driver classes and tests, insurance, safety belts, crumple zones, air bags, back-up cameras, warning signals and many other safety measures for driving cars.

There is a cost and responsibility that comes with driving a car. Your license can get suspended or revoked, you can go to jail for violating rules, driving conditions can shut down roads or driving completely for periods of time.

Same thing with a deadly virus, there will be some rules and regulations to protect society as a whole.  

[SharkmanthaC 115,045]

I teach children that live in poverty and food is an issue every day. It really concerns me that it took a worldwide pandemic to make people realize just how improvised some children are. 
 

(And yes I know there are more facing it because of the economic factors.)

[NCgaga 4,345]

11 hours ago, Economy said:

We need to balance things to look at net benefit

 

Closing concerts and clubs and large gatherings may make a big difference in rate of spread in relation to cost

 

Shutting down every small business probably not

 

Ppl have really criticized Sweden's version of the shutdown where the restrictions in place are less severe

 

But their Government has a point in my opinion. Their measures are actually sustainable and manageable over the long term. What were all doing cannot be sustained for the next year and a half without ending society as we know it

This 100 percent. 

[Diamond heart99 5,262]

19 hours ago, blankpaper said:

I’ve been saying this whole time that an economic collapse will kill tons of people and there needs to be a trade off somewhere where we reopen and just deal with it. And people always come at me for caring more about money than lives, like going into a depression is going to just mean a little less spending money or something  The economy (or lack thereof) can be just as deadly 

Correct. 

[Fresco 1,688]

If we get some proven treatments and lots of the drugs, people will get back to the new normal quickly. If the virus isn't fatal, people will take the risk of infection.  Remdesivir, zinc, etc.

 

 

[Diamond heart99 5,262]

3 minutes ago, NCgaga said:

This 100 percent. 

Sweden’s plan works because of space. You can’t do what they did in NYC for example and probably not most parts of Los Angeles.

But in some states it would work.