Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

BBC: China pneumonia outbreak: COVID-19 Global Pandemic


China

Recommended Posts

@twa -

 

"Job losses cause extreme suffering. Every 1 percent hike in the unemployment rate will likely produce a 3.3 percent increase in drug-overdose deaths and a 0.99 percent increase in suicides, according to data from the National Bureau of Economic Research and the medical journal Lancet."

 

I'm having some problems with just buying this outright.

 

For starters, the implication is that the lower the unemployment rate, the lower the drug-related death rate. The stats don't back that up. The study that article talks about covers the years between 2000-2014. It appears to link the rise in drug-related deaths to the sharp rise in unemployment between 2009-2011. It also appears to compare the number of drug-related deaths in 2000 to the number of drug-related deaths in 2014. Since I'm only reading an overall synopsis of the study perhaps it goes into far more detail in terms of seeing a noticeable spike in drug-related deaths that coincides with the significant spike in the unemployment rates, but the stats don't seem to suggest that occurred.

 

Further, the opinions reached from the people who conducted the study seem to be all over the map (at least from the synopsis). Apparently, two factors that played a role in the increase in drug-related deaths were the loss of health insurance and reduced public funding for substance abuse treatment. This would seem to point to coming up with government plans to provide better health access to all and better funding for substance abuse treatment centers far in advance of any possible global pandemic instead of relaxing guidelines during the pandemic once we're in the middle of it.

 

But stranger still, another conclusion apparently reached was that the results of the study do NOT suggest "a substantial impact of factors like lower incomes or greater leisure time (which could be used to engage in health-promoting behaviors like exercise or drug treatment programs)".

 

Did you catch that? lol...reduced public funding for substance abuse treatment during recessions is a culprit in the rise of drug-related deaths, yet the lack of income and unemployment would mean more people would have the time to--wait for it--participate in drug treatment programs lol...

 

Their final conclusion, though, was "we suspect that the dominant factor linking macroeconomic conditions to adverse drug outcomes is that the fatal and near fatal abuse of opioids often (and increasingly over time) reflects a physical manifestation of mental health problems that have long been known to rise during periods of economic decline." This brings me back to what is confusing to me: the implication that the lower the unemployment rate, the lower the number of drug-related deaths (or at the very least a slowing down of the increase). Better access to healthcare, better funding of substance abuse programs, and less likelihood of an increase in mental health problems that the stress a recession and high unemployment can cause. But the stats don't seem to back that up very well. Their study stops in 2014...the charts below start in 2010 and go up to 2018.

 

The unemployment rates between 2010 - 2018, and the drug-related death totals during that same timespan. They seem to be going in different directions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

unemployment ratechart.png

death rate chart 2010-2018.jpg

 

 

 

 

And them overlapping...

 

 

death rate chart 2010-2018 overlap.png

 

 

 

I personally chalk it up to a significant rise in opioid/fentanyl use this past decade, but the increase in opioid use dates back to the last decade as well, which this study even mentions (along with heroin being cheaper). So like I said, I'm not buying that higher unemployment means a significant increase in drug-related deaths, especially to the point that it causes more of those deaths than the COVID-19 deaths the stay-at-home orders prevented.

 

 

Edited by Califan007
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wildbunny said:

 

Best option is by the end of the year. If I'm the President of a country as of now, I'm gonna start working on the "what if" other options. 


which is what @twa was suggesting. The president acting like a bafoon not withstanding.

 

That’s actually why he is such a bad president. Not because his desire to open up the county, but because he frames the argument in such a way that a reasonable discussion cannot be had.

 

You have to either want to open everything up immediately or you want everything closed for as long as it takes to save every one- with no discussion. I know that’s not your position, and I don’t want to open everything up right away.
 

But if I say “we should open the country up” I am pro trump...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, EmirOfShmo said:

I haven't seen a post from bcl05 in a while. I know he was busy at the Mayo Clinic. Plus he mentioned Mayo was about to layoff people. Hope he's doing okay. 🙏

 

 

 

I appreciate the concern - very kind of you.  I'm fine.  I'm a physician at Mayo, and MDs are not being furloughed.  We're all taking salary cuts, which isn't great, but compared to many others, I consider myself lucky.  Lots of our ancillary staff are off work, though, and that's awfully rough. 

 

I haven't been on here as much - its too infuriating and frustrating to deal with all the BS and misinformation and stupidity out there.  

 

I'm so incredibly disappointed in our country.   

  • Like 18
  • Thanks 3
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, twa said:

 

I'm a great candidate ...to die.

I think the only box I don't check is diabetes

 

in areas not overly burdened healthcare wise we can loosen up and restrict again as needed,we already have a significant % working as essential.

 

Job losses cause extreme suffering. Every 1 percent hike in the unemployment rate will likely produce a 3.3 percent increase in drug-overdose deaths and a 0.99 percent increase in suicides, according to data from the National Bureau of Economic Research and the medical journal Lancet.

https://nypost.com/2020/04/14/we-must-count-the-deaths-from-shutdowns-as-well-as-from-coronavirus/

 

 

This is an extremely misleading reading of the literature.  The most recent literature tied to the most economics in the US actually find that there is no effect or even a positive effect.

 

Including research by the NBER:

 

https://www.nber.org/papers/w19287.pdf

 

There is a more recent paper published in Lancet that says recessions increase deaths.... in Brazil.

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(19)30415-2/fulltext

 

If there is societal understanding, appreciation, and support for those that can't work during this time, there's no real reason to think that it should result in more deaths (as I've already stated in this thread, we're clearly driving down car accidents too so almost certainly deaths from them too).

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/health/coronavirus-obesity-higher-risk.html

 

Sorry if this was posted earlier. Another study on obesity and covid outcomes. Basically, it is the greatest risk factor other than being over 65. More than lung diseases, diabetes and heart problems. Pretty worrying given that 40% of Americans are obese. 
 

 

Edited by SoCalSkins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SoCalSkins said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/health/coronavirus-obesity-higher-risk.html

 

Sorry if this was posted earlier. Another study on obesity and covid outcomes. Basically, it is the greatest risk factor other than being over 65. More than lung diseases, diabetes and heart problems. Pretty worrying given that 40% of Americans are obese. 
 

 

 

Great. Now Trump will start blaming fat people for the virus. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump knew in November. 

 

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/04/17/us-knew-report-says-american-intel-threa t-coronavirus-was-shared-israel-and-nato

 

An Israeli news report on Thursday revealed that the country was told in November by U.S. intelligence about the potential threat of the coronavirus—warnings that were also made to NATO and to the White House—a clear contradiction of Pentagon claims last week that no such report existed. 

"The smoking gun has arrived," tweeted Joel Rubin, a former aide to the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...