UN warns economic crisis could kill hundreds of thousands of children

[babylonn 126]

6 minutes ago, SamanthaC said:

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.)

It's so sad but sometimes it takes moments like these to make people realize what's truly important and not. Hopefully all these kids make it to the other side of this even better off 

[Adakam 2]

2 hours ago, Economy said:

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

 

I agree and I never said that the lockdown should stay until the vaccine, but it all should be done little by little. 

What im saying is that we, the common people, shouldnt ever have to think something like "open up so I can eat even if it means someone might die of a terrible disease", and at least in a country that spends 700 billion a year on its military, that really shouldnt be the case.

One thing id like to add, we shouldnt underestimate the effects thay a bad lockdown removal could have on the health system, because if it gets truly overwhelmed, the death rate, not only of Covid but of many other diseases and emergency situations can blow up, and the psychological effects on healthcare workers could be extreme. Saw a post that broke my heart of a nurse saying "stop calling me a hero, im being turned into a martyr against my will, im a hostage here".... so whatever happens with the lockdowns has to take them into consideration. The stress of the amount of patients and deaths where they suddenly become the patient's only company, is just too much to handle, and the extra exposure to higher viral loads, doesnt help.

 

[SharkmanthaC 115,045]

21 minutes ago, babylonn said:

It's so sad but sometimes it takes moments like these to make people realize what's truly important and not. Hopefully all these kids make it to the other side of this even better off 

Seriously, if anyone is able to please donate to your local food banks. My husband did a story this week on how there are so many people using foods from them and how the food banks are having trouble getting food. 

[uo111 5,282]

11 hours ago, 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 wave would have a 7-14 day delay. How long ago did Australia completely reopen?

 

Also the R value you are referring to changes with how easily the virus spreads. The R value less than one is artificially lowered due to lockdowns and social distance measures. It’s not like we got it there and it will stay there even if we reopen like nothing ever happened.

[Franz Ferdinand 2,359]

We need testing capabilities. This is literally the main thing countries need to re-open their economies: they need the capacity to test a significant amount of their population. That is what is missing, and why re-opening the economies in many places is simply not feasible.

Ideally, countries should enforce an initial total lockdown to contain the virus and get it down to a manageable level, while ramping up the testing. Once rapid, widespread testing is available, you can quickly trace new infections (and test possible infections who've had contact) and enforce a quarantine on those select individuals, so no wide lockdown is needed. We see countries like South Korea, Iceland, Estonia, and Singapore, who've been able to manage the initial wave successfully due to their focus being first on mass screenings. 

[Bt1 5,213]

3 hours ago, Whispering said:

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.  

That's what I've said. We always had the option to stop cars to stop car accidents, but we made those rules to limit the accidents.

That's what we should do with this virus also. Lockdowns arent the solution. We bought some time with them, but they must be replaced with other social distancing measures.

[Bt1 5,213]

9 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.

 

That's your choice and you can make that choice even when the lockdowns arent there.

I know that I wont start doing things that I consider dangerous just because the lockdowns will stop. I will however appreciate some flexibility. 

Money wont come back. The poor and the middle class will pay this bill in the next decade.

And your numbers wont happened. The virus isnt as deadly as you think, according to the studies made so far. 

 

[Economy 52,854]

9 hours ago, Adakam said:

I agree and I never said that the lockdown should stay until the vaccine, but it all should be done little by little. 

What im saying is that we, the common people, shouldnt ever have to think something like "open up so I can eat even if it means someone might die of a terrible disease", and at least in a country that spends 700 billion a year on its military, that really shouldnt be the case.

One thing id like to add, we shouldnt underestimate the effects thay a bad lockdown removal could have on the health system, because if it gets truly overwhelmed, the death rate, not only of Covid but of many other diseases and emergency situations can blow up, and the psychological effects on healthcare workers could be extreme. Saw a post that broke my heart of a nurse saying "stop calling me a hero, im being turned into a martyr against my will, im a hostage here".... so whatever happens with the lockdowns has to take them into consideration. The stress of the amount of patients and deaths where they suddenly become the patient's only company, is just too much to handle, and the extra exposure to higher viral loads, doesnt help.

 

Just a side point I wanna make here

 

$700 Billion on military is insane and a waste and I hate it when nations spend so much on "defence"

 

But to give u an idea $700 Billion is 4% of US GDP or about 2 weeks of annual economic output

 

When u say a nation that spends that much on guns and about feeding themselves...

 

I don't think ppl even fathom how much money is lost from a shutdown in even just one week

 

Now 2 weeks economic cost would not actually be equivalent to the US military budget since not every single business and job is closed (for example grocery stores are open, basic services etc)

 

But I'm just trying to give an idea of how costly the shutdown actually is. Military would be a drop in the bucket compared to this if sustained

 

My Country Canada is already forecasting a decade worth of deficits for this year alone and that's assuming emergency measures are only in place a total of 4 months (1/3 of the year)