Joe according to the experts, fewer people died of starvation during the depression.
"Public health analysts were puzzled by the improvements in mortality that occurred during the 1930s. Just what caused this gratifying showing it is difficult to say."
https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/12297/how-many-people-in-the-us-starved-to-death-during-the-great-depression
What you seem to be saying: /A big hit on the economy does not cost lives. People still receive excellent health care and mortality goes down. Not much money but oh but honey, ain’t we got fun and long life.
The reality: Wealthy nations can and generally do provide good health care for there citizens. For certain nations, the average life span is way much higher than it has even been in human history. Much higher than it was in the United States in the 1930’s. Which nations? Wealthy nations. If this country takes a big hit in the economy, requiring years to recover, it won’t just cost money. It will cost lives.
Did many Americans starve to death in the 1930’s? No. But I take a skeptical look at your statics. Did Malnutrition shorten lives? Absolutely.
Sweden has, by far, the largest number of cases and fatalities in Scandinavia, compared with its neighbors Denmark, Norway and Finland, which each have 10,281, 7,996 and 5,573 confirmed cases, respectively, according to the latest figures from Johns Hopkins University.
Cases of the novel coronavirus in Sweden have reached at least 23,918, with its death count at 2,941, as of Thursday, according to the latest figures from the country's health ministry.
Yes. But how many lives will be lost from the economic downturn in the years to come? Will they be able to continue to offer the excellent health care for their citizens?
Will Denmark, Norway and Finland end up losing as many in the long run? That depends. If a vaccine found, if it is rushed out and given to millions, if there are no surprises about unknown dangers from a rushed vaccine, which may cost lives, then yes, Sweden’s policy will have cost lives. About one tenth of one per cent of the population.
But even if all this happens, will it cost more lives in the long run, if Denmark’s and Norway’s health care takes a big hit? I’m not so sure.
If a vaccine is not found soon enough, let’s say it takes 18 more months, Denmark and Norway will lose as many lives and wreck their economy.
It’s awfully easy to talk about “marginal gain in lives saved“ when you’re not the one dying.
Questions:
What is the value of a human life?
Answer:
No value can be put on it. It is of infinite value. No cost must be spared to save a life, any life.
Real Answer:
About 4 to 5 million dollars, if we are talking about a few lives.
Spending too much on some will cost the lives of others. Some sort of balance estimate must be made. Because if you don’t you may end up costing more lives than you save.
If we can save 500,000 lives should we do this? I’m not sure. If it costs 2 trillion dollars, or 10 trillion dollars to do so, saving those lives may cost us more than 500,000 lives down the road, if our economy is wrecked too much.
It’s easy to argue for policies that may cost many more lives than we will lose to COVID-19 this year if you’re no the one dying yet.
Absolutely ridiculous. COVID-19 cases are increasing at all time record highs in almost every state and you want everything opened up again so more people can get sick and keep spreading this virus?
What was the point of locking down in the first place if you want to open before the first wave is even over?
Spikes are occurring because states opened up before it was safe.
False. High deaths occurred in New York not because restrictions were lifted too soon. They occurred because there were no restrictions until it was too late. Governors found out about the impending tidal wave. But they didn’t want to take unprecedented actions. They just hoped things would somehow work out. They didn’t and they were forced to suddenly over react.
In Sweden, things were different. Politicians made the decisions based on consultations with medical experts. They told them that the government must act and must act now. But they recommended that the shutdown be limited. They reacted early with moderate, nor over, reactions.
No visiting of nursing homes. Keep the schools running. Have the population wear masks. Limit mass gatherings. Keep the economy running.
Over time this, if the rate of infection is low enough, the hospitals won’t be overrun and the population will obtain “herd immunity”. This seems to be happening. The number of deaths per day keep going down and down.
They decided not to gamble everything on finding a quick and safe and effective vaccine. This might not happen and if it doesn’t the deaths will happen anyway. At least you won’t wreck the economy and keeping a healthy economy is, in the long run, the key to a healthy population.
At the very least I wish the government has studied this and let us know their estimate on how long it will take to get a vaccine to everyone? How many lives will be saved? How many lives will be lost in the future by our economy taking a hit?
I don’t think the government has been making these calculations. They are just hoping for the best.
