The Health Cost Of Lockdowns- Death Tolls From Increased Suicide, Blood Shortages, And Other Effects

[Sofia]

When people are unhealthy, their brain doesn't work properly, and people in power are often very unhealthy, and homeless people as well. The difference is which parts of the brain are not working: those responsible for conscience, or those for estimating basic facts, planning, possibilities? Like people can have different body illnesses, the brain can be sick in different ways as well. It is really a lottery which health problem someone or his family members will get.

 

[energyandstruct]

I don't see how that goes against my point that people need shelter and there is readily available shelter, but okay.

Shelter is not only an aspect of modernity, it's been fairly fundamental to human cultures, even premodern ones.

And b vitamins are not a panacea. Many of the environmental toxins that cause health issues cant simply be dealt with by giving people a bunch of b vitamins.

 

[Collden]

I don't think all medical interventions have a poor success rate. Intubation does, and is extremely unpleasant. thats why i have no intubation on my advance directive. But for moderate cases, intravenous fluids and oxygen can help.

But also as I pointed out in my last comment even if you said "**** it" and just decided to let people with underlying conditions and the elderly die, which I don't think we are up for as a society, the sheer amount of people infected even without a lockdown would massively disrupt the economy. What a lot of people miss is that what is called a "mild" case of covid-19 just means a case that doesn't need hospitalization, but can be pretty severe in terms of causing a loss of function. If 50 percent of the workforce simultaneously came down with a nasty flu, that would badly affect the economy.

Secondly, a ton of the underlying conditions that make people vulnerable to this are very, very common, so it's not just some tiny percentage of old people that would die.

If we go by the Wuhan study, 78 and 80%, respectively, of those who received intravenous fluids and non-invasive oxygen, ended up dead. I think moderate treatment looks better simply because its the healthier people who receive it, but without controlled studies, impossible to know. Whats clear is that odds of getting seriously ill and dying depends much more on the health of the patient than on the healthcare available to him.

Its uncertain how much the healthcare can do to help people sick with Covid-19, but what is certain is the harm done by our response to this epidemic. First of all by dedicating most of our resources towards treating covid-19 there are vastly less resources available to help people with other illnesses who might actually benefit from healthcare, not to mention all the already weak and sick people in the hospital who are at an increased risk of infection due to all covid-19 patients congregating there. Secondly, we are going to incapacitate much of our medical personnel who will have a very high viral exposure and fall ill at a much greater rate than the average population.

This is just the crippling effect our response will be having on the healthcare system, but then there are all the other harms already mentioned with increased domestic abuse, increased drug abuse, people with mental health problems who will be hit very bad by social isolation, people losing their jobs and homes. These are very real negatives of lockdown compared to the entirely hypothetical positives of trying to slow the spread of the virus. The virus will eventually spread everywhere, so its not clear that it will make a difference to total death toll whether that happens slowly or quickly.

There isn't even any evidence that shutdown is doing any good so far. Italy is now on more than 3 weeks of total lockdown and their death toll is still accelerating, whereas Sweden, which is about 1 week behind Italy, in contrast has imposed almost no restrictions and is still handling the outbreak pretty comfortably.

 

[energyandstruct]

There isn't even any evidence that shutdown is doing any good so far. Italy is now on more than 3 weeks of total lockdown and their death toll is still accelerating, whereas Sweden, which is about 1 week behind Italy, in contrast has imposed almost no restrictions and is still handling the outbreak pretty comfortably.

There's really no good way to do a controlled experiment. A full lockdown is less good than , for example, locking down specific areas of the country early enough to prevent spread (we could and should've done this in the Pacific northwest and bay area in america, but it's now too late) or track and trace with accurate tests, like Singapore and South Korea are doing.

What is evident is that there are several countries with somewhat different norms that have far more successfully contained the virus than western countries have. And this may be partially due to social norms about mask wearing and social distancing and collective good > individual freedom that are less prevalent in western countries.

If we go by the Wuhan study, 78 and 80%, respectively, of those who received intravenous fluids and non-invasive oxygen, ended up dead. I think moderate treatment looks better simply because its the healthier people who receive it, but without controlled studies, impossible to know. Whats clear is that odds of getting seriously ill and dying depends much more on the health of the patient than on the healthcare available to him.

I feel like wuhan is an interesting case study but ultimately starker and higher death toll than average, due to how blindsided they were by the virus.
I got a case of covid 19 that didn't cause low oxygen but caused intense hypertension and tachycardia and worsened POTS. The intravenous fluids and ativan they gave me was actually very helpful. Maybe it was only palliative but I think palliative care is a moral duty of the healthcare system. And in that case giving people fluids ans oxygen (less invasive and uncomfortable than intubation) is probably ethically justified no matter their outcomes. But again, it may also help their outcomes a lot...

Its uncertain how much the healthcare can do to help people sick with Covid-19, but what is certain is the harm done by our response to this epidemic. First of all by dedicating most of our resources towards treating covid-19 there are vastly less resources available to help people with other illnesses who might actually benefit from healthcare, not to mention all the already weak and sick people in the hospital who are at an increased risk of infection due to all covid-19 patients congregating there. Secondly, we are going to incapacitate much of our medical personnel who will have a very high viral exposure and fall ill at a much greater rate than the average population.

All of these problems you mentioned with healthcare workers are issues that are caused by having an insufficient response to the pandemic. Even if everyone went back to work tomorrow no hospital is just going g to start refusing to treat old people and let them die for eugenicists reason . So even if you tell everyone to go back to work to save "the economy" it wouldn't help the healthcare workers or help there be more health resources for people. It would just lead to more burden of the healthcare system, as the spread would be way faster , and the curve not flattened enough to spread out the use of healthcare system.

The virus will eventually spread everywhere, so its not clear that it will make a difference to total death toll whether that happens slow

What makes a difference is how overburdened the healthcare system is and the speed of the pandemic. Either way many people are going to get it (although I would point out that many countries have kept their numbers reasonably low so it's not an inevitability that in every country half the population has to get sick) but it will make a lot of difference in terms of supportive care and ability of the healthcare system to cope, if the deaths and cases are spread out. Spreading out 5he cases also allows for the ability of improving testing and treatment, basically it buys time.

A more targeted and robust testing system could actually make a full on lockdown less necessary, but wed need to have way more testing capacity than we already do.

 

[LeeLemonoil]

But my point is that drastic changes are going to happen regardless. The economy is going to be radically restructured and people will lose their jobs. The question is whether we are going to try and resuscitate capitalism or not, not whether we choose for radical changes to happen or not happen. (They will happen regardless)


I think you overrate how many players with unprecedented intelligence and omniscience there are. Despite all the myths AI are not gods and the singularity has not happened.

All of the villainous bankers that stand to lose the most from this, like Lloyd Blankfein , are actually urging people back to work, so the so called illuminati is on the opposite side of what I am calling for. and it makes you wonder, if these bankers are so intelligent and have so much control of the markets , how come they didn't see this coming?

This is why I fundamentally disagree with many conspiracy theories, because they overrate the amount t of omniscience and intelligence of key players.

The pandemic isnt even a "black Swan", it is not unprecedented or unpredictable and yet basically every capitalist and banker failed to predict it. So I don't think natural changes or revolutions are impossible bc of AI or central banker illuminati.

Everyone who believes in those kind of conspiracies puts too much faith in the ruling class.


I mean, if you are implying it would be bad to print money to pay people instead of resurrecting their jobs, bc it would be deflationary, I feel like that would ignore how we've printed so much more money just to hand out to corporations that cant weather this, like airlines and stuff.

I guess printing money for unemployment could be deflationary at a large enough scale but I don't see how it's a worse outcome than bailing out huge corporations that debt have essential roles.



Fundamentally, we have a level of overpopulation that is unsustainable and probably causes a lack of biodiversity that causes viruses like this to emerge. And causes many social problems. So even in a post scarcity society I wouldn't expect people to just get along. So I agre . Things wouldn't be harmonious necessarily.

But that doesn't mean keeping things the way they were before the pandemic is necessarily good. I don't believe in any utopian vision, but I do think that if just a month of shutdown would cause the loss of any business, that business was too fragile to survive in the first place.

So yes, I think it would be preferable to print money to pay people not to come to work and not to spread the virus, rather than to print money to pay dinosaur industries that shouldn't exist to keep existing.

I also don't claim that this would solve all existing problems but it would solve many. Just reducing labor hours would actually do a lot to help curb pollution and emissions.

So our point of views basically stand and fall with how much power and ability we attribute to elites. I don't think anybody is of yet omnipotent or omniscient - and there are other factors like hybris, self-righteousness etc that can undermine schemes - but I think "they" are already able to perceive and steer events considerably. I don't know who "they" are but some banks and their owners and leaders are almost certainly involved.

You hope that they are gullible and base among other things on the observation/evidence that "they" did not anticipate the current financial and economic crash.
But who sais they did not? Most conspiracy theories revolve arounf the very fcact that they not only anticipated but orchestrated the crash. Empovering the masses in the process is accoringly a fundamental part of "the plan".
I naturally don't know if any of these conspiracies are true. But your cited evidence is false. Look at the financial crisis of 2009. Who came out on top and richer than before? Big Banks and Funds. Way richer, way more influential.

These people know all about money. About economics. About how money and finance determine societies and how they are organized. Since the medieval the worldly leaders like kings and emperors were indebted to big Finance like the Fuggers. The italian banks financed almost all of Europes royalty as early as during the crusades.

Any monetary theory is pondered by them 27/7 since centuries. Any modern monetary theory that elaborates how the current financial system is bogus or dysfunctional and how printing money could be used to abolish debt and poverty is known to them. They perceive how that could end their rule - when the control of money changes.

This crisis might well be a long planned preemptive strike. They end the current monetary and fiscal order with periodic crashes and new debt accumulated before it implodes in a way you describe ... that would take away control from them. We might well see the end of the "system", but maybe not accidentally
@Amarsh213


This:

"I mean, if you are implying it would be bad to print money to pay people instead of resurrecting their jobs, bc it would be deflationary, I feel like that would ignore how we've printed so much more money just to hand out to corporations that cant weather this, like airlines and stuff.

I guess printing money for unemployment could be deflationary at a large enough scale but I don't see how it's a worse outcome than bailing out huge corporations that debt have essential roles. "

is thinking of the past then. Doesn't factor in anymore. Many assets will be devaluated and bought up. The rest gets paper money to buy food. It's of course way more complicated. You will see a branched out hierarchy and nuances, but just because the current financial and economic set-up comes at an end that does not mean the power hierarchies end with it.

I agre with the problem of overpopuation. It's in fact harnessed to divide and rule. The poorest regions of the world have the highest birth rates. No problem. But these born humans now survive due to medical and food aid and then destabilize societies all around the globe via migration. Ever see zealot leftists critizse overpopulaton and open borders? No, they actually scream for it. Again, they seem to hope that either that will by itself lead to a juste rorder when people are assisted to give birth and migrate as they please because magically the world will then see reason and share ressources justly all of a sudden against all evidence - and other factionshope that such a chaos will enuse that they can rebuild their utopia afterwards. Both will not happen. Both ways of thinking evades the confrontation with the true ruling elites and also indirectly and directly works in thir favour. Because the left are blind and stupid? No. Becuase they are manipulated. The left is ursurped.


Let's hope I'm very wrong. And I might well be wrong. As expalined, either your assesment is right that this is an accidental crisis, then all I've just written is conspiracy drivel, I hope so. I'm unsure - might still be a rsult of the extraordinary situation that I like other people go into a kind of panic mode. It is also possible that you are in denial and maintain the hope that a brighter future is on the horizon. That too could be exlplained psychologically.
That's another point. Everything is now approaching "expalinability" - we know the broad patterns of collective reactions to crisises - can be exploited. Neither you or I know but debating the possibilities cannot hurt either way.

 

[energyandstruct]

So our point of views basically stand and fall with how much power and ability we attribute to elites. I don't think anybody is of yet omnipotent or omniscient - and there are other factors like hybris, self-righteousness etc that can undermine schemes - but I think "they" are already able to perceive and steer events considerably. I don't know who "they" are but some banks and their owners and leaders are almost certainly involved.

You hope that they are gullible and base among other things on the observation/evidence that "they" did not anticipate the current financial and economic crash.
But who sais they did not? Most conspiracy theories revolve arounf the very fcact that they not only anticipated but orchestrated the crash. Empovering the masses in the process is accoringly a fundamental part of "the plan".
I naturally don't know if any of these conspiracies are true. But your cited evidence is false. Look at the financial crisis of 2009. Who came out on top and richer than before? Big Banks and Funds. Way richer, way more influential.

i don't see how occam's razor wouldn't just favor the idea that the ruling class colludes in plain sight to funnel money, bc the bourgeois liberal democracy is a government by the ruling class, so a wealth transfer to banks that messed up is not some grand conspiracy. They didn't predict stuff, they just didn't need to, they practically can't fail. Too big to fail

 

[LeeLemonoil]

Occam‘s Razor is a legit tool, if you have the big picture.
We don’t.

I can apply Occam’s Razor with confidence if one of my kids tries to lie his way out of trouble with Phantastic tales. I can apply Occam’s razor with confidence when some craftsman botched up a job and finds silly excuses for why he did or didn’t something. A murder in court. You name it. But complex issues without much objective data can’t be subject to Occam. You apply it to a tiny aspect of what is going on. And it might be correct. But what if it’s a deliberate part of a bigger plan. Then Occam’s razor lets you assess only the aspect but subsequently fools you about the consequences. I can also apply Occam’s razor to you applying Occams Razor. You are scared and want to believe in the most basic and unscary option. Right? Wrong? Why wrong? Because I can’t apply Occams Razor objectively? Why can you? Can anyone?
Wouldn’t Occams Razor speak for the existence of great schemes or plots because isbt it likely that multi-billionaires are so entitled and so used to getting everything would want more than Justin money? Wouldn’t they want power and the power to prevent anyone to take away their power? People conspire for their advantages since forever. On any level. Why wouldn’t the most powerful? Aren’t they the most powerful because they are masters of conspiring in the first place?

 

[Hugh Johnson]

In economics, deflation is a decrease in the general price level of goods and services.[1] Deflation occurs when the inflation rate falls below 0% (a negative inflation rate). Inflation reduces the value of currency over time, but sudden deflation increases it. This allows more goods and services to be bought than before with the same amount of currency. Deflation is distinct from disinflation, a slow-down in the inflation rate, i.e. when inflation declines to a lower rate but is still positive.[2]​

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation

Printing money is inflationary. Deflation happens when the money supply contracts. Also, shutting down the economy via quarantine measures is inflationary, although there are complexities to that.

 

[Waremu]

LOLOL, I've been around people with the FLU and only was sick for two days. TWO DAYS.

Good. Then when you get corona w

Prove it, using existing facts and data. No predictions allowed.

 

[energyandstruct]

Printing money is inflationary. Deflation happens when the money supply contracts. Also, shutting down the economy via quarantine measures is inflationary, although there are complexities to that.

yeah I misspoke, meant inflation. But i thought the fed was lowering interest rates during the crisis, right now, so they are also pursuing some policies that may lead to deflation

 

[Hugh Johnson]

yeah I misspoke, meant inflation. But i thought the fed was lowering interest rates during the crisis, right now, so they are also pursuing some policies that may lead to deflation

Lowering interest rates is meant to increase the availability of money. Although there are complexities, it is considered inflationary.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Good. Then when you get corona

I'm sure I've had some corona viruses in my lifetime. I think I might have already had this one, if it is indeed going around.

 

[Deleted member 5487]

In economics, deflation is a decrease in the general price level of goods and services.[1] Deflation occurs when the inflation rate falls below 0% (a negative inflation rate). Inflation reduces the value of currency over time, but sudden deflation increases it. This allows more goods and services to be bought than before with the same amount of currency. Deflation is distinct from disinflation, a slow-down in the inflation rate, i.e. when inflation declines to a lower rate but is still positive.[2]​

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation

Printing money is inflationary. Deflation happens when the money supply contracts. Also, shutting down the economy via quarantine measures is inflationary, although there are complexities to that.

Inflation requires velocity, as long as wages are not increasing, which they never will.

Right now you can buy a GIANT barrell of oil for $18.
Soon you will be able to get a house for CHEAP.

I am sad to say 95% of Americans will walk out of the next 8 months with very little to their names.
401ks down 70-80%,
Pensions Destroyed
Jobs gone, never to return(energy,service,retail..etc.)
Home equity down 30% in low cost high demand cities, down 70-80% in no economy small town/college towns.

I would private jet to new zealand as well. like the above

Be safe out there, and remember don't leave your house, wash your peasant hands, don't get closer than 6 feet to people and organize into riot groups)) Becuase of mister big bad debt bubble,... i mean coronavirus.

The Greatest Depression.

 

[Deleted member 5487]

We're on the Road to Serfdom!
The Road to Serfdom - Wikipedia

Middle Class was but a blip in history. Never seen in history, never to be seen agian.

Neo-Feudalism is the new normal. These are the dark ages. 2030 will resemble the hunger games

 

[charlie]

We're on the Road to Serfdom!
The Road to Serfdom - Wikipedia

Silly Middle Class was but a blip in history. Never seen in history, never to be seen agian.

Neo-Feudalism is the new normal. These are the dark ages. 2030 will resemble the hunger games

You said you were leaving? Please make a single thread to keep your fear mongering in.

 

[Deleted member 5487]

You said you were leaving? Please make a single thread to keep your fear mongering in.

Fear Mongering? Do you not want fourm members warned, somthing that will can greatly effect their health more than PUFA?

Ban me and all my post then, I'll need atleast 10-12 hour days of working to compete anyways.

 

[Deleted member 5487]

You said you were leaving? Please make a single thread to keep your fear mongering in.

I am formally requesting a ban and post termination

 

[LeeLemonoil]

Middle Class was but a blip in history. Never seen in history, never to be seen agian.

Neo-Feudalism is the new normal

That at least is clear as day. The middle-class is the greatest achievement of western civilization. A result of centuries of struggle. And it came to fruition only after WW2. And right after it became clear that the middle-class is the fundamental and vital, only prerequisite for Democracy and Rule of Law, Elites conspired to dismantle it as quickly as possible.

 

[LeeLemonoil]

I am formally requesting a ban and post termination

ah come one, no need for that sort of flaming.

 

[Regina]

ah come one, no need for that sort of flaming.

The forum moderator is attacking him.
How should he respond?
Amarsh123 has not tried to sell anything; not gold; not even a newsletter.

Is warning about PUFA or estrogen or serotonin or fluoride or David Icke's take on corona or Big Pharma "fear mongering?"

I mean, there are hundreds of posts on this forum about penis's--hard or flaccid in great detail.
Do I want those posters banned? NO!
Do I click on their posts? NO!

If someone thinks Amarsh's posts are rubbish then don't click on them.