Should we bring back lockdowns?

Amanda Diaz said:The same Supreme Court that ruled everything was fine, even though Article 17 couldn't be any clearer?

Maybe one day the majority will finally wake up and realize what that task force and a few political cronies in that court have actually done. I doubt it, but I'll leave that possibility open.

Personally, I always find myself quietly relying on some middle schooler’s haiku about gorillas in the jungle: "No gorilla owns the night."

Amanda Diaz said:Corporations have been running the US for the last hundred years, not just since the 70s. So, your whole point is totally off base.

By the way, the biggest winners during these lockdowns are the corporations—they’ve never been richer or more powerful. Lockdowns are destroying small and medium-sized businesses. These are the exact same businesses you so eloquently claimed the government would protect by taking on a larger role—the very same ones the government wiped out by shutting them down.

Not really, at least not how it works now. A corporation today basically means: manufacture wherever it’s cheapest and has zero environmental rules, sell wherever it’s most expensive, and pay taxes wherever they’re lowest.
I wasn't saying the government should start companies and run the whole market, just use strict laws to make sure the playing field is actually fair. That's why I mentioned countries with heavy regulation, whether they're one-party states or democracies.
Sadly, I think corporations are gonna feast on this situation specifically because governments are protecting them and doing whatever they say. So the issue is corrupt politics, not the state itself...

Raymond Fisher98 said:Do you have any data on the "excess" deaths compared to previous years?

And look, we're an older nation, so it’s totally normal for death rates to climb every year since our population is aging fast.

Plus, Americans generally don't take great care of their health—way too many smokers and people struggling with obesity out there...

Honestly, if COVID didn't have such killer marketing, we'd probably just think we were having a really bad flu and pneumonia season.

In 2020, we had exactly zero flu deaths, whereas a normal year sees several thousand. That isn't surprising to anyone.
Here is an interesting clip from an American news outlet from 2019. I see no difference other than some idiot decided to call it Corona and now everything needs to be locked down, when two years ago nobody cared because it was just called the flu. And the fact that people are losing their minds over all this doesn't matter to anyone.
https://www.facebook.com/47876689565...4050542457063/

Amanda Diaz said:The same Supreme Court that ruled everything was fine, even though Article 17 couldn't be any clearer?

Maybe one day the majority will finally wake up and realize what that task force and a few political cronies in that court have actually done. I doubt it, but I'll leave that possibility open.

The Supreme Court is packed with Republican hacks. Even if they weren't, it wouldn't be hard for them to change the Constitution if nobody complains. A German official changed their constitution because of COVID-19... But since nobody is protesting here, they are simply managing the situation however they please.

wearypilot34 said:Economic crises leave permanent scars. There is no such thing as a temporary dip followed by a seamless return to the previous trajectory. We will undoubtedly see a loss of life driven solely by economic fallout—not even mentioning the secondary effects, particularly those hitting young people and children.

The actual scale of that loss of life... well, that is perhaps a conversation for another time.

Are we talking about the global scale or just here in America?

Some "progressive" German politician is actually pushing for a new kind of "Climate Lockdown" once this is all over, suggesting we should just stay put because citizens don't really need to be traveling anyway.
The idea is that we should sacrifice our summer vacations and winter getaways for some supposed higher purpose.
From one lockdown straight into the next, these reckless and spineless authorities are clearly doing a fantastic job of looking out for their people.

Megan Green72 said:Are we talking about the global scale or just here in America?

Both.

wearypilot34 said:Naturally, economic fallout leaves its mark on life expectancy. It isn't the patrons of the breweries who suffer from their closure, but certainly the owners and the staff. And it isn't just breweries shutting down...

Unemployment leads to shorter lifespans:
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/sci.../2016/8290435/

The economic crisis will also result in lower incomes for most of the population. The gap between the wealthiest and the poorest spans a full 14 years, covering the entire spectrum.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2733322

Life Expectancy by Household Income
Higher household income was associated with higher life expectancy (Figure 1A). For the years 2011 to 2015, men with income in the bottom 1% had a life expectancy of 70.6 years (95% CI, 69.6-71.6), while men in the top 1% had a life expectancy of 84.4 years (95% CI, 83.4-85.4 years), a difference of 13.8 years (95% CI, 12.3-15.2) (eTable 2 in the Supplement). Women in the bottom 1% had a life expectancy of 78.0 years (95% CI, 77.1-78.9) and women in the top 1% had a life expectancy of 86.4 years (95% CI, 85.7-87.1), a difference of 8.4 years (95% CI, 7.2-9.6) (eTable 2 in the Supplement).

Of individuals with income in the lowest 1%, 50.6% (95% CI, 50.4%-50.8%) lived in single-person households (Figure 2), while only 9% (95% CI, 8.9%-9.1%) of individuals in the top 1% of income were single-person households. Of individuals in the bottom 1% of income, 18.2% (95% CI, 18.0%-18.4%) had a university education, and of individuals in the top 1% of income, 53.9% (95% CI, 53.6%-54.1%) had a university education. Life expectancy was higher for individuals with higher education in All levels of income (Figure 1B and C), and the shape of the curves showing life expectancy by income were similar when stratifying by level of education.

The indirect loss of life will dwarf the actual deaths from COVID-19. It’s interesting how there are no similar projections for this, unlike those "off the cuff" estimates for COVID-19. You know, the kind where they claim 150,000 people will be dead by Christmas and other nonsense like that.

America is probably going to keep everything under lock and key until just a few days before Easter. Then, they’ll try to market themselves as "COVID-free," but let's be real—most other countries won't care. They're either going to bring back their own restrictions or demand proof of vaccination before you even land.

My bet? Economically speaking, the US in 2021 is going to look way better than 2020. But we have to factor in the fact that plenty of people across the West have already lost their jobs.

Chloe Robinson5 said:All that's true, but you gotta be poor your entire life for it to actually shorten your lifespan, not just deal with 2 or 3 bad years out of 78. Plus, I think this shows the government stepping up in the economy more, which maybe isn't all bad (not talking about America specifically, just globally). Look, I think the measures are ridiculous, especially how they play out here, but globally we might be seeing a shift that isn't necessarily a total disaster. Even imperial empires collapsed and things ended up better for the little guy than before. Plenty of examples out there...

So, you really believe it's good for the economy when the government bans people from working?

wearypilot34 said:Both.

Look, saying people in America are gonna die because of an economic crisis is just wrong. Yeah, we’ll be broke—sure. But we aren't gonna be dropping dead from starvation because nobody can find a job. No way.
In countries that are already struggling—places where people are actually starving even before COVID-19 hit—an economic crash could definitely spike the death toll caused by the crisis.

Rachel Allen55 said:America is probably going to keep everything under lock and key until just a few days before Easter. Then, they’ll try to market themselves as "COVID-free," but let's be real—most other countries won't care. They're either going to bring back their own restrictions or demand proof of vaccination before you even land.

My bet? Economically speaking, the US in 2021 is going to look way better than 2020. But we have to factor in the fact that plenty of people across the West have already lost their jobs.

How can they demand anything if they haven't even secured the vaccines by then? The rollout is lagging. Not everyone will be vaccinated by the time peak season hits.

They'll probably just ask for a test result or proof of recovery or vaccination. It all comes down to the numbers.

James Phillips92 said:So, you really believe it's good for the economy when the government bans people from working?

Hell no. Maybe some old paradigms will shift, but honestly... feels a bit naive...

Sent from my Samsung using Reddit

Amy Long5 said:How can they demand anything if they haven't even secured the vaccines by then? The rollout is lagging. Not everyone will be vaccinated by the time peak season hits.

They'll probably just ask for a test result or proof of recovery or vaccination. It all comes down to the numbers.

And that’s exactly how you end up stuck at home.

Look, it’s pretty simple: 1) get the shot, or don't. 2) You have to pass a mandatory test before you even board, and then hit up another one within 78 hours of landing. That’s how we do things here now. 3) If that first test comes back positive, you aren't stepping foot on the plane. Period. You're stuck staying put in whatever country you're currently in—which is exactly what they've implemented here just to keep things under control. Now, everyone’s arguing over whether that's actually constitutional or whatever, but that's the debate. If you show up and test positive—meaning you were caught bringing the virus in from wherever you were during that 78-hour window—you lose all your benefits. Your employer can let you go without any of the usual legal headaches. Honestly, if you decide to travel to a high-risk "red zone" state, you're basically asking to get fired without severance. Just a heads-up.

Look, you can say whatever you want. Just stay home. You’ve got all the freedom in the world, BUT...

They’re claiming we’ll have enough vaccines by the end of June to give everyone in the country two shots.

Megan Green72 said:Look, saying people in America are gonna die because of an economic crisis is just wrong. Yeah, we’ll be broke—sure. But we aren't gonna be dropping dead from starvation because nobody can find a job. No way.
In countries that are already struggling—places where people are actually starving even before COVID-19 hit—an economic crash could definitely spike the death toll caused by the crisis.

Look, nobody is claiming people are going to starve to death. It’s about the ripple effects: chronic stress, worse nutrition, a decaying infrastructure, failing healthcare, or people skipping vital checkups because hospitals are overwhelmed by COVID-19. It’s a domino effect.

Joshua Myers432 said:Look, nobody is claiming people are going to starve to death. It’s about the ripple effects: chronic stress, worse nutrition, a decaying infrastructure, failing healthcare, or people skipping vital checkups because hospitals are overwhelmed by COVID-19. It’s a domino effect.

Honestly, my actual survival isn't even at risk (got a steady gig and everything), but the sheer stress of this crazy lifestyle sent my thyroid into total meltdown, and now I’ve gotta spend some serious time getting it back under control.

Imagine how much harder it is for folks dealing with legit, serious health issues...

Rachel Allen55 said:And that’s exactly how you end up stuck at home.

Look, it’s pretty simple: 1) get the shot, or don't. 2) You have to pass a mandatory test before you even board, and then hit up another one within 78 hours of landing. That’s how we do things here now. 3) If that first test comes back positive, you aren't stepping foot on the plane. Period. You're stuck staying put in whatever country you're currently in—which is exactly what they've implemented here just to keep things under control. Now, everyone’s arguing over whether that's actually constitutional or whatever, but that's the debate. If you show up and test positive—meaning you were caught bringing the virus in from wherever you were during that 78-hour window—you lose all your benefits. Your employer can let you go without any of the usual legal headaches. Honestly, if you decide to travel to a high-risk "red zone" state, you're basically asking to get fired without severance. Just a heads-up.

Look, you can say whatever you want. Just stay home. You’ve got all the freedom in the world, BUT...

They’re claiming we’ll have enough vaccines by the end of June to give everyone in the country two shots.

If you have any sense at all, you just stay where you are and avoid unnecessary contact.

Besides, testing isn't any more expensive than those visas we used to need for the United Kingdom.

Look at Denmark; they offer quick tests for free.
Or in Germany, you pay what you pay—about the same as a toll for driving through Canada—and you wait just as long for the results.

Megan Green72 said:Look, saying people in America are gonna die because of an economic crisis is just wrong. Yeah, we’ll be broke—sure. But we aren't gonna be dropping dead from starvation because nobody can find a job. No way.
In countries that are already struggling—places where people are actually starving even before COVID-19 hit—an economic crash could definitely spike the death toll caused by the crisis.

Of course it's true. Poor nutrition, chronic stress, increased alcohol consumption, and the various other side effects of poverty all trigger illnesses that lead to premature death. There are millions of scientific papers on this exact subject. In the US, the life expectancy gap between the top 1% and the bottom 1% is a staggering 14 years.

And let’s be honest—so many people living in developing nations are completely tied to the whims of global trade... if things go sideways there, the fallout could be even more devastating than what we're seeing here.

Yeah, we generally need visas to get into the USA anyway.

Jesse Hughes6 said:Yeah, we generally need visas to get into the USA anyway.

It would have taken until 2013...