Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   COVID19 (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/covid19/)
-   -   2020 Suicides Lower Despite Warnings (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/covid19/133517-2020-suicides-lower-despite-warnings.html)

400000Dead 04-02-2021 04:49 PM

2020 Suicides Lower Despite Warnings
 
2,600 less than 2019 numbers.

I guess all that fear mongering about lockdowns was just nonsense. I guess we'll just add that to the list of things that you were wrong about.

https://www.newsweek.com/suicides-fell-2600-2020-despite-donald-trumps-lockdown-warnings-1580585

AntiPeter 04-02-2021 05:11 PM

Your lack of empathy for the damage lock downs have done is abhorrent. You are a disgusting, dishonest human being.

If you or Newsweek had actually read the science:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778234?guestAccessKey=0b94e087-4b87-458d-b869-a1aa164eb8a6&utm_source=silverchair&utm_medium=ema il&utm_campaign=article_alert-jama&utm_content=olf&utm_term=033121


Increases in other leading causes, especially heart disease, Alzheimer disease, and diabetes, may also reflect disruptions in health care that hampered early detection and disease management. Increases in unintentional injury deaths in 2020 were largely driven by drug overdose deaths. Final mortality data will help determine the effect of the pandemic on concurrent trends in drug overdose deaths.

400000Dead 04-02-2021 05:15 PM

Solid pivot. But the topic was Suicides.

Andy Dufresne 04-02-2021 05:38 PM


Originally Posted by 400000Dead (Post 3215552)
2,600 less than 2019 numbers.

I guess all that fear mongering about lockdowns was just nonsense. I guess we'll just add that to the list of things that you were wrong about.

https://www.newsweek.com/suicides-fell-2600-2020-despite-donald-trumps-lockdown-warnings-1580585

That’s cute, sweetheart. Now do depression, domestic violence, and unemployment.

You are literally too stupid to insult, I believe.

ACEssXfer 04-02-2021 05:43 PM


Originally Posted by 400000Dead (Post 3215565)
Solid pivot. But the topic was Suicides.

Well, a lot of people's lives haven't been ruined yet. We haven't seen the full fallout from this. Do you think the suicides in Jan-April or Mayish of 2020 had anything to do with covid other than a small percentage? Lockdowns didn't begin in force last year until the very end of March. The federal govt is also propping up a lot of people that would otherwise be in big, big trouble.

That same article also mentions an increase of 17,000 drug overdose deaths. 17,000 more and thats only counting until August. The average is usually around 70,000. This is a 24% increase. Is 24% a small number or nah? "If it saves even one life"......................................Right?

Andy Dufresne 04-02-2021 05:48 PM

If you’d like to read some raw data (you won’t), here’s a solid report.

https://mhanational.org/sites/default/files/Spotlight%202021%20-%20COVID-19%20and%20Mental%20Health.pdf


The number of people looking for help with anxiety and depression has skyrocketed. From January to September 2020, 315,220 people took the anxiety screen, a 93 percent increase over the 2019 total number of anxiety screens. 534,784 people took the depression screen, a 62 percent increase over the 2019 total number of depression screens.

More people are reporting frequent thoughts of suicide and self-harm than have ever been recorded in the MHA Screening program since its launch in 2014. Since the COVID-19 pandemic began to spread rapidly in March 2020, over 178,000 people have reported frequent suicidal ideation. 37 percent of people reported having thoughts of suicide more than half or nearly every day in September 2020.

People screening at risk for mental health conditions are struggling most with loneliness or isolation. From April to September 2020, among people who screened with moderate to severe symptoms of anxiety or depression, 70 percent reported that one of the top three things contributing to their mental health concerns was loneliness or isolation
https://i.imgur.com/BfrALoK.jpg

Gordie H 04-02-2021 06:03 PM

I’d be careful with this. I haven’t looked into the numbers myself but it’s not unusual for suicides to happen well after the trauma. There's no doubt consequential second / third order effects (many which may be difficult to measure) have occurred and will continue occurring. It’s another facet of this whole tragic situation that we, as a country, failed to mitigate.

400000Dead 04-02-2021 06:15 PM


Originally Posted by Gordie H (Post 3215593)
I’d be careful with this. I haven’t looked into the numbers myself but it’s not unusual for suicides to happen well after the trauma. There's no doubt consequential second / third order effects (many which may be difficult to measure) have occurred and will continue occurring. It’s another facet of this whole tragic situation that we, as a country, failed to mitigate.

My point isn't to delve into the tragedy of the nation's suicides, but to dispel the myth that the anti lockdown crowd said with absolute certainty that there would be a spike.

Anything beyond an apples to apples comparison from 2019 and 2020 is speculation.

Who knows, maybe everyone not working 3 jobs and spending time with their kids naturally brought the rate DOWN.

snackysmores 04-02-2021 06:25 PM

One of my LE buddies said their domestic violence and disturbance calls went through the roof as people just sat around at home and drank / did drugs. He also works in a sh!thole area so there's that.

Firefighterpilo 04-02-2021 06:44 PM


Originally Posted by snackysmores (Post 3215607)
One of my LE buddies said their domestic violence and disturbance calls went through the roof as people just sat around at home and drank / did drugs. He also works in a sh!thole area so there's that.

I can verify this also in the city I work. I have personally had more suicides and OD the past year then we have ever encountered. I have been on more then my share of COVID deaths, but not a single one would be described as “unexpected”. They have all been very obese, elderly with multiple comorbidities. but the real travesty is how many young and healthy have been cutdown by, drugs, violence and suicides during this lockdown.

Not to even discus the deaths I have encountered that would have been preventable if people would have gone to the hospital when their symptoms first appeared. Instead the media has them scared of COVID and going to the hospital while they are actively having a heart attack . I don’t need charts and graphs to tell me what I see and live everyday.

sdj1986 04-02-2021 06:59 PM

Anecdotal, I know, but suicides at my old university have been a huge issue in 2020. Hard times imagine not due to the lockdown. I don’t believe the numbers this idiot is posting.

StallWeezy 04-02-2021 07:01 PM

Very stupid

goinaround 04-02-2021 10:19 PM


Originally Posted by AntiPeter (Post 3215562)
Your lack of empathy for the damage lock downs have done is abhorrent. You are a disgusting, dishonest human being.

If you or Newsweek had actually read the science:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778234?guestAccessKey=0b94e087-4b87-458d-b869-a1aa164eb8a6&utm_source=silverchair&utm_medium=ema il&utm_campaign=article_alert-jama&utm_content=olf&utm_term=033121


Increases in other leading causes, especially heart disease, Alzheimer disease, and diabetes, may also reflect disruptions in health care that hampered early detection and disease management. Increases in unintentional injury deaths in 2020 were largely driven by drug overdose deaths. Final mortality data will help determine the effect of the pandemic on concurrent trends in drug overdose deaths.

How much do you love to be controlled? Absolutely disgusting. You really need somebody to do your thinking for you? Go away.

FlewUnderWires 04-03-2021 01:06 AM

So....is that still anywhere close to 550,000? And it’s not like any of us are discrediting mental health and the need to provide care. Man some of you are so hypocritical.

FlewUnderWires 04-03-2021 01:14 AM

And what about the depression and PTSD of healthcare workers that are struggling and overworking themselves while their patients rapidly decompensate while people scream at them that they are lying about deaths to inflate the numbers or being threatened with gun violence by family of patients when they aren’t allowed to visit. Also at least one suicide was a direct result of the January 6 terrorist attack. There are more causes for suicide than just lockdowns and the effects of them. The crowd that doesn’t care at all if hundreds of thousands die from this, trying to feign sympathy is appalling.

Mesabah 04-03-2021 03:13 AM

One thing to put into perspective, if the Flu vaccine fails one year, it will probably be worse than Covid.
https://i.ibb.co/3v78CfH/mortality-rates.jpg

ACEssXfer 04-03-2021 04:20 AM


Originally Posted by FlewUnderWires (Post 3215700)
So....is that still anywhere close to 550,000? And it’s not like any of us are discrediting mental health and the need to provide care. Man some of you are so hypocritical.

The 550,000 would've happened anyway. That's the whole point. There is no science right now that shows lockdowns did anything at all.........Other than spike all the stuff this thread is talking about.

FlewUnderWires 04-03-2021 04:50 AM


Originally Posted by ACEssXfer (Post 3215730)
The 550,000 would've happened anyway. That's the whole point. There is no science right now that shows lockdowns did anything at all.........Other than spike all the stuff this thread is talking about.

Spiked all the way....down? The original post shows thousands fewer suicides. Would there have been any less mental health impact if we were told by our neighbors and government to eat **** and let our parents die because we refuse to do anything?

Also it studies have been done. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2842WS (unless you are one of the people who don’t trust Reuters or AP. )but by your logic there also isn’t proof that they didn’t help. We also never fully locked down.

And for the people who are concerned about domestic violence and drug use, those problems aren’t limited to pandemic life and also need to be addressed by improving social services and decriminalizing users.

AntiPeter 04-03-2021 04:58 AM


Originally Posted by FlewUnderWires (Post 3215742)
Spiked all the way....down? The original post shows thousands fewer suicides. Would there have been any less mental health impact if we were told by our neighbors and government to eat **** and let our parents die because we refuse to do anything?

Also it studies have been done. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2842WS (unless you are one of the people who don’t trust Reuters or AP. )but by your logic there also isn’t proof that they didn’t help. We also never fully locked down.

And for the people who are concerned about domestic violence and drug use, those problems aren’t limited to pandemic life and also need to be addressed by improving social services and decriminalizing users.

The studies referenced are based on theoretical numerical models. They are not based on real-world empirical observation, which is a critical part of the scientific method.

Therefore, no I would not trust Reuters, or any other journalistic source because they are usually biased and don't have the expertise to identify what science is and isn't.

There have been studies done that show real world data, no computer simulations or numerical models, which show if lockdowns were actually effective.

They were not. This is science. Opinion pieces from Reuters on theoretical numerical models from months ago are not science. They are unverified theory.

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/15/e2019706118

It's a difficult thing to study and verify, but more and more data will come out over time and a consensus will eventually be determined, assuming the scientific method is used.

Mesabah 04-03-2021 05:10 AM


Originally Posted by AntiPeter (Post 3215745)
The studies referenced are based on theoretical numerical models. They are not based on real-world empirical observation, which is a critical part of the scientific method.

Therefore, no I would not trust Reuters, or any other journalistic source because they are usually biased and don't have the expertise to identify what science is and isn't.

There have been studies done that show real world data, no computer simulations or numerical models, which show if lockdowns were actually effective.

They were not. This is science. Opinion pieces from Reuters on theoretical numerical models from months ago are not science. They are unverified theory.

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/15/e2019706118

It's a difficult thing to study and verify, but more and more data will come out over time and a consensus will eventually be determined, assuming the scientific method is used.

Yes, Bayesian inference modeling has ruined science. The control model is whatever you want it to be.

AntiPeter 04-03-2021 05:14 AM

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/eci.13484

FlewUnderWires 04-03-2021 05:15 AM

“Conclusion

Although we estimate modest effects of SIP policies, our results should not be taken to imply that the actions of government officials had little effect on the pandemic. There may have been other policies that better mitigated the spread of COVID-19, although SIP orders have been arguably the most drastic and controversial policy. Furthermore, we observe nationwide trends in all outcomes, and these trends may have been highly responsive to the public health recommendations, emergency declarations, and the behaviors of high-profile politicians. Our results also do not mean that sheltering in place per se is an ineffective way to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. If SIP policies did not meaningfully increase the extent to which people actually sheltered in place or socially distanced, our results have nothing to say about the health and societal benefits of staying at home and reducing physical contact with others.

The explanation for our null findings is likely nuanced and multifaceted. One part of the explanation is that many people were already staying at home and social distancing voluntarily even in the absence of SIP policies. Another part of the explanation is, perhaps, that few people who weren’t already changing their behavior complied with the policies. After all, SIP orders appeared to cause less than a 1% decrease in mobility. There was, however, approximately a 50% decrease in mobility nationwide between February and April. The nationwide reaction to COVID-19 almost surely decreased the spread of the disease. SIP orders likely would have been more effective in slowing the spread had more people complied with them, and future SIP orders would likely be more effective if they are coupled with greater enforcement. But we find little evidence that SIP orders, as implemented, had much effect over and above all the other public messaging and voluntary behavior changes occurring nationwide. Although we find no detectable health benefits of SIP orders, we also find that they accounted for a small share of economic costs associated with the pandemic, consistent with other studies (6⇓⇓–9).

Our study is certainly not the last word on this topic. Assessing the effects of SIP orders is difficult, and more information and better designs may become available in the future that enable more precise or more credible estimates. Furthermore, our study focuses on the early months of the pandemic, and the effectiveness of SIP orders could change over time. However, the previously presented evidence on the effectiveness of SIP orders appears to be misleading, and there is currently no compelling evidence to suggest that SIP policies saved a large number of lives or significantly mitigated the spread of COVID-19. However, this does not mean that voluntary social distancing—SIP practice as distinct from policy—was ineffective.”

Maybe read your own article before you shoot yourself in the foot or argue in favor of the opposition? They state that voluntary initial shelter in place undoubtedly helped. And that has places enforced or had populations actually adhered to SIP orders that it would have helped. We never locked down. People still travelled. Went to states that were open so they could eat in a Waffle House and brought it home. It’s not that they didn’t help. It’s that we never even tried.

rickair7777 04-03-2021 06:07 AM

All the excess suicides were counted as covid deaths. Duh.

Descendto450 04-03-2021 07:33 AM


Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 3215828)
All the excess suicides were counted as covid deaths. Duh.

can we lump the overdose deaths in there as well?? While we are at it just shove all the deaths under covid for 2020 isn’t that how hospitals made their small fortunes!!

Furloughedboi 04-03-2021 09:13 AM


Originally Posted by FlewUnderWires (Post 3215756)
“Conclusion

Maybe read your own article before you shoot yourself in the foot or argue in favor of the opposition? They state that voluntary initial shelter in place undoubtedly helped. And that has places enforced or had populations actually adhered to SIP orders that it would have helped. We never locked down. People still travelled. Went to states that were open so they could eat in a Waffle House and brought it home. It’s not that they didn’t help. It’s that we never even tried.


Are you just so defensive of the failure of how we handled covid that you aren’t reading what you’re writing?
They said, and I paraphrase, “SIP didn’t really do much. Yes, it saved lives, but not nearly as many as the officials say.” Yes, it worked in the beginning (no duh, people were actually scared in the beginning and actually stayed home). But you can’t SIP forever, and that’s exactly what this study is showing. It’s showing that in a controlled environment, SIP works. But in REAL LIFE, it doesn’t work. People are people and it is inhumane to expect people to be afraid and not leave their house for an undisclosed amount of time.
In real life, you can’t eradicate a virus that is highly contagious by just hiding from it. People are designed to live their lives, and that’s what they did.

In a perfect world, we could kill the virus in 3 weeks by not a single person leaving their house. But this isn’t a perfect word; some people have “essential” jobs, some people have terrible homes, some people have no homes, some people don’t care about the rules, the list goes on and on.

This study shows what many have been saying all along (not the MSM or progressive politicians); the SIP orders were terrible because they don’t account for real life circumstances.

It doesn’t matter how many models show it SHOULD work because the reality is they don’t work.

And further, they’re flawed from the very beginning. The goal of SIP is to stop the spread of a virus. That doesn’t line up remotely with the goal of life. Life goals are feed your family, work, provide, have fun, visit family, do new things, be active. Life isn’t about stopping a virus. So you can’t throw a bunch of orders on a nation and expect them to follow it without question when it doesn’t line up with the other important aspects of life.

If you wanna drink the koolaid and think you’re saving lives, by all means, be a hero. But don’t put your life choices on others and expect them to do the same without question.

Firefighterpilo 04-03-2021 09:19 AM


Originally Posted by Furloughedboi (Post 3215972)
Are you just so defensive of the failure of how we handled covid that you aren’t reading what you’re writing?
They said, and I paraphrase, “SIP didn’t really do much. Yes, it saved lives, but not nearly as many as the officials say.” Yes, it worked in the beginning (no duh, people were actually scared in the beginning and actually stayed home). But you can’t SIP forever, and that’s exactly what this study is showing. It’s showing that in a controlled environment, SIP works. But in REAL LIFE, it doesn’t work. People are people and it is inhumane to expect people to be afraid and not leave their house for an undisclosed amount of time.
In real life, you can’t eradicate a virus that is highly contagious by just hiding from it. People are designed to live their lives, and that’s what they did.

In a perfect world, we could kill the virus in 3 weeks by not a single person leaving their house. But this isn’t a perfect word; some people have “essential” jobs, some people have terrible homes, some people have no homes, some people don’t care about the rules, the list goes on and on.

This study shows what many have been saying all along (not the MSM or progressive politicians); the SIP orders were terrible because they don’t account for real life circumstances.

It doesn’t matter how many models show it SHOULD work because the reality is they don’t work.

And further, they’re flawed from the very beginning. The goal of SIP is to stop the spread of a virus. That doesn’t line up remotely with the goal of life. Life goals are feed your family, work, provide, have fun, visit family, do new things, be active. Life isn’t about stopping a virus. So you can’t throw a bunch of orders on a nation and expect them to follow it without question when it doesn’t line up with the other important aspects of life.

If you wanna drink the koolaid and think you’re saving lives, by all means, be a hero. But don’t put your life choices on others and expect them to do the same without question.

Beautifully put.

FlewUnderWires 04-03-2021 10:12 AM

You can do literally all of your life goals covid-safe without needing to go to clubbing, to a football game, Disneyland or to Dennys. The article explicitly says that preventative measures saved lives. I’m sorry you need to be told what to do in order to elicit any compassion or benefit for anyone other than yourself. It SHOULD come naturally.

highfarfast 04-03-2021 10:24 AM


Originally Posted by FlewUnderWires (Post 3215996)
You can do literally all of your life goals covid-safe without needing to go to clubbing, to a football game, Disneyland or to Dennys.

Unless you own a club or are a bartender. Unless you own a business connected to football or are employed by a business dependent on football. Unless you work at Disneyland or own or work at a Dennys.

Unless you own a business or work for a business that is interconnected to any of the above businesses.

400000Dead 04-03-2021 10:28 AM


Originally Posted by highfarfast (Post 3216000)
Unless you own a club or are a bartender. Unless you own a business connected to football or are employed by a business dependent on football. Unless you work at Disneyland or own or work at a Dennys.

Unless you own a business or work for a business that is interconnected to any of the above businesses.

I asked this at the beginning of the pandemic, I'll ask it again.

How many lives saved would it take to make shelter in place worth it to you?

1,000?
1,000,000?
1,000,000,000?

We're all rational men and women. There has got to be a calculus where mitigation to save X lives is worth the temporary sacrifices and expenditures we've suffered.

What's your number?

Firefighterpilo 04-03-2021 10:30 AM


Originally Posted by 400000Dead (Post 3216004)
I asked this at the beginning of the pandemic, I'll ask it again.

How many lives saved would it take to make shelter in place worth it to you?

1,000?
1,000,000?
1,000,000,000?

We're all rational men and women. There has got to be a calculus where mitigation to save X lives is worth the temporary sacrifices and expenditures we've suffered.

What's your number?

Thats the point the lockdowns have ruined countless lives and saved a negligible if any amount. Lock downs have only worked to ruin people and help no one.

400000Dead 04-03-2021 10:32 AM


Originally Posted by Firefighterpilo (Post 3216005)
Thats the point the lockdowns have ruined countless lives and saved a negligible if any amount. Lock downs have only worked to ruin people and help no one.

If that's how you feel, then you're not paying attention.

You guys love to throw around the 2 million death predictions when it suits you. That was if we did nothing.

So by that account, mitigation saved 1.5 million Americans.

FlewUnderWires 04-03-2021 10:35 AM


Originally Posted by highfarfast (Post 3216000)
Unless you own a club or are a bartender. Unless you own a business connected to football or are employed by a business dependent on football. Unless you work at Disneyland or own or work at a Dennys.

Unless you own a business or work for a business that is interconnected to any of the above businesses.


That’s what the government assistance was SUPPOSED to be used for, rather than bailing out Tom Brady. Sports still happened. Bars were allowed to serve Togo cocktails. There were huge campaigns to get people to order takeout more. Those businesses in many states never fully shut down. Hell, even my favorite board game store started selling curbside growler fills. There are ways to adapt. There are covid essential jobs that always needed workers. Saving corporations and jobs that can be replaced or mitigated are not worth lives.

Andy Dufresne 04-03-2021 10:45 AM


Originally Posted by FlewUnderWires (Post 3216011)
That’s what the government assistance was SUPPOSED to be used for, rather than bailing out Tom Brady. Sports still happened. Bars were allowed to serve Togo cocktails. There were huge campaigns to get people to order takeout more. Those businesses in many states never fully shut down. Hell, even my favorite board game store started selling curbside growler fills. There are ways to adapt. There are covid essential jobs that always needed workers. Saving corporations and jobs that can be replaced or mitigated are not worth lives.

You people are vile. And stupid. But mostly just vile.

400000Dead 04-03-2021 10:46 AM


Originally Posted by Andy Dufresne (Post 3216015)
You people are vile. And stupid. But mostly just vile.

You really need to come up with a new word, Black Warrior. 'Vile' is how I ID'd your new account.

I'm sure it's how I'll find your next one.

FlewUnderWires 04-03-2021 10:48 AM


Originally Posted by Andy Dufresne (Post 3216015)
You people are vile. And stupid. But mostly just vile.

“This message brought to you by the ******* your feelings and I don’t care if anyone over 50 dies crowd.”

Mesabah 04-03-2021 10:57 AM


Originally Posted by 400000Dead (Post 3216004)
I asked this at the beginning of the pandemic, I'll ask it again.

How many lives saved would it take to make shelter in place worth it to you?

1,000?
1,000,000?
1,000,000,000?

We're all rational men and women. There has got to be a calculus where mitigation to save X lives is worth the temporary sacrifices and expenditures we've suffered.

What's your number?

You would also have to separate from family members, almost all the spread is household. Shelter in place only works if there is a vaccine program that is ongoing with it as well.

400000Dead 04-03-2021 10:59 AM


Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 3216021)
You would also have to separate from family members, almost all the spread is household. Shelter in place only works if there is a vaccine program that is ongoing with it as well.

No one is answering my question.. Huh.
What's your number, Mesabah?

Mesabah 04-03-2021 11:04 AM


Originally Posted by 400000Dead (Post 3216022)
No one is answering my question.. Huh.
What's your number, Mesabah?

Only my immediate family members, sorry to be cold hearted.

Descendto450 04-03-2021 11:04 AM


Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 3216021)
You would also have to separate from family members, almost all the spread is household. Shelter in place only works if there is a vaccine program that is ongoing with it as well.

The UK is currently a prime example of that.

400000Dead 04-03-2021 11:05 AM


Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 3216027)
Only my immediate family members, sorry to be cold hearted.

I can't even be mad. I appreciate your honesty.


Edit: Hold up. There's more to it than this. If enough people die from disease, then society will break down. That breakdown poses a threat to your immediate family. Would you still prefer no mitigation and take your chances later in the Mad Max Thunderdome?


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:38 PM.


User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands