Society/Culture Recessions cost lives? Apparently they actually save lives.

[Chief]

"

It’s become an easy reflex in the debate over lockdowns to say that while they assist with the fight against coronavirus and save lives, they cost other lives by bringing the economy nearer to or deeper into recession.

The assumption has been that recessions cost lives, which sounds reasonable when you think about the frustration, violence and depression they engender.

But in Australia, over four decades of economic cycles it hasn’t been based in fact. Today a team led by Kadir Atalay from the University of Sydney report on an examination of death records dating back to 1979 that shows that, if anything, Australia’s recessions have saved lives.

Young people, especially young men, are less likely to die in road accidents in recessions. In this recession even more so, because of the way in which lockdowns and working from home have kept cars off the roads.

The team found no evidence of more deaths from heart disease, respiratory disease, pneumonia, flu or suicide during recessions.

They caution that their results are Australia-specific and might not apply to countries such as the United States that don’t have an Australian-style universal health system.

"

So you think economic downturns cost lives? Our findings show they don't

In Australia, among young men, recessions might save hundreds of lives per year.

theconversation.com

 

[Caesar]

The consequences of economic collapses are so complex and messy that trying to extract a single resulting mortality figure is fairly futile.

It's fairly straightforward to see that lower economic activity means less traffic on the roads and less motor vehicle accidents. Less easy to tease out are the flow-on health effects of (say) children growing up in a family with parents out of work.

 

[Lethality]

Same goes for restrictions, they save a lot of lives outside of their intended virus suppression, and this is often not accounted for when certain pundits are weighing it all up. It's false to just compare the negative affects of lockdown to the lives saved from the virus. There are plenty of unintended positives as well.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Clearly, if people don't have a job because of a recession they are not going to drive their car, or even have a car,

Why not go the next steps? Government mandated recessions. Banning cars will reduce road deaths. If you prevent people playing sport it will reduce broken bones and sprains. If you lock people in their homes it will reduce deaths from infectious diseases. If people were never born this pain would all be avoided.

 

[Chief]

This is not a claim that recessions are good.

 

[Frank Bunn]

This is not a claim that recessions are good.

It sort of does. It saves lives.

 

[Chief]

It sort of does. It saves lives.

OK.

 

[Evolved1]

"Financial recessions and their socioeconomic sequelae can have diverse consequences for population health, a fact that has attracted considerable attention since the 2008 global financial crisis. It has long been known that economic conditions can influence suicide rates. The depression of the late 1920s to early 1930s was associated with marked rises in suicide, especially in men, which parallelled increases in unemployment. The Asian economic recession of 1997-98 was also followed by rising suicide rates, which reflected financial and unemployment indices".

Economic recession and suicide

The association is clear but government response may limit its extent Financial recessions and their socioeconomic sequelae can have diverse consequences for population health, a fact that has attracted considerable attention since the 2008 global financial crisis.1 It has long been known that...

www.bmj.com

 

[Seeds]

"

It’s become an easy reflex in the debate over lockdowns to say that while they assist with the fight against coronavirus and save lives, they cost other lives by bringing the economy nearer to or deeper into recession.

The assumption has been that recessions cost lives, which sounds reasonable when you think about the frustration, violence and depression they engender.

But in Australia, over four decades of economic cycles it hasn’t been based in fact. Today a team led by Kadir Atalay from the University of Sydney report on an examination of death records dating back to 1979 that shows that, if anything, Australia’s recessions have saved lives.

Young people, especially young men, are less likely to die in road accidents in recessions. In this recession even more so, because of the way in which lockdowns and working from home have kept cars off the roads.

The team found no evidence of more deaths from heart disease, respiratory disease, pneumonia, flu or suicide during recessions.

They caution that their results are Australia-specific and might not apply to countries such as the United States that don’t have an Australian-style universal health system.

"

So you think economic downturns cost lives? Our findings show they don't

In Australia, among young men, recessions might save hundreds of lives per year.

theconversation.com

So what you are saying is we should let creative destruction do its work. Not try to prevent recessions using keynesian policies. Is that your argument?

 

[EasternTiger]

LOL peak chief.

 

[Evolved1]

LOL peak chief.

If lockdowns and recessions save lives, who are we to question them?

 

[EasternTiger]

If lockdowns and recessions save lives, who are we to question them?

Look it's just the best news ever.

Based orf the findings of that study, us Victorians will probably live forever - even longer if Dan Andrews can keep winning elections.

 

[Chief]

If lockdowns and recessions save lives, who are we to question them?

This article discusses one aspect of recessions.

Only one.

Who believes this is the only aspect that should ever be considered? Name them.

 

[Kram]

LOL peak chief.

I thought that was the worm farm and vegie patch to make up for driving the 2 fossil fuel suckers in the city.

 

[Chief]

I thought that was the worm farm and vegie patch to make up for driving the 2 fossil fuel suckers in the city.

This is such a bizarre reaction.

Can you tell me why you can’t engage with the article posted? What set you off here?

 

[Chief]

LOL peak chief.

Very weird. I’m not sure what made you like this, but you aren’t useful to this board any more.

 

[Frank Bunn]

This article discusses one aspect of recessions.

Only one.

Who believes this is the only aspect that should ever be considered? Name them.

It's your thread Chief. Why don't you name them?

 

[Chief]

It's your thread Chief. Why don't you name them?

Lol!

Because I don’t know any, of course.

 

[Chief]

I thought that was the worm farm and vegie patch to make up for driving the 2 fossil fuel suckers in the city.

I’m serious, you’re fixated on something that hasn’t been an issue for a good ten years.

Ten years mate. Surely you agree it’s odd to cling to something like that? Do you want to talk about it?

 

[Kram]

I’m serious, you’re fixated on something that hasn’t been an issue for a good ten years.

Ten years mate. Surely you agree it’s odd to cling to something like that? Do you want to talk about it?

I'm not the one getting set off here mate.

 

[Chief]

I'm not the one getting set off here mate.

The other poster I am not concerned about. I’ve dealt with him.

You seem to be a special case. I’m interested in getting to the bottom of this.

Rather than stick to the thread topic in any way, you think that you need to wave some sort of flag about a comment made a good ten years ago, maybe more.

So, let’s clear the air. What is it about this topic that made you decide to attempt some sort of “devastating” attack on the person who posted it?

Are you trying to impress ET? Other posters?

 

[Kram]

The other poster I am not concerned about. I’ve dealt with him.

You seem to be a special case. I’m interested in getting to the bottom of this.

Rather than stick to the thread topic in any way, you think that you need to wave some sort of flag about a comment made a good ten years ago, maybe more.

So, let’s clear the air. What is it about this topic that made you decide to attempt some sort of “devastating” attack on the person who posted it?

Are you trying to impress ET? Other posters?

Why are you getting so worked up over a little joke? Must be something to it.

Here is the wrong place, we'll have a chat about next time you are preaching in an environmental thread.

 

[Chief]

Why are you getting so worked up over a little joke? Must be something to it.

Here is the wrong place, we'll have a chat about next time you are preaching in an environmental thread.

The something is your odd fixation that makes you pop up in odd places with a reference to a ten year old post. A post that I have no worries about: it was in reference to offsetting one’s use of a car with other practices that save resources - two examples given seem to have caused a few people to choke on their digestive biscuits.

This is an entirely different thread. Entirely different subject.

I’m interested in what triggered such a bizarre reaction. Can you tell me?

 

[Kram]

The something is your odd fixation that makes you pop up in odd places with a reference to a ten year old post. A post that I have no worries about: it was in reference to offsetting one’s use of a car with other practices that save resources - two examples given seem to have caused a few people to choke on their digestive biscuits.

This is an entirely different thread. Entirely different subject.

I’m interested in what triggered such a bizarre reaction. Can you tell me?

There's only one 'bizarre' reaction here mate. The amusing hypocrisy being noted has perhaps got to you.

As I said it's the wrong place and apologies for being OT in your thread, but we will talk again

 

[Chief]

There's only one 'bizarre' reaction here mate. The amusing hypocrisy being noted has perhaps got to you.

As I said it's the wrong place and apologies for being OT in your thread, but we will talk again

It’s OK if you don’t want to talk about it. I won’t push you. It’s obviously a tender subject.