I've been meaning to ask in /r/theydidthemath if the quarantine is actually reducing violent crime, car accidents, pollution, other infectious diseases, STDs, etc. so that we may come out break even or even ahead compared to covid deaths. Just trying to find the silver lining here.
Look at the unemployment rate. What else validation do you need? You can't just ask people to stay locked in their homes and assume everything would be ok.
I think it depends on the country, here in New Zealand we locked down early, and hard - we've only had 12 deaths - but the reduction in the road toll in the same time is roughly 20-30 so yes we're technically ahead on the deal.
Generally though, covid deaths go up exponentially while road tolls likely don't go down the same way, our trade off is probably only likely if you get in early.
In other news we're likely taking the first step of getting out of out ~1 month lock down later this coming week - our idea of getting out has been described as "lockdown with KFC", roughly equivalent to California's
If we look at the per-capita deaths, many affected countries seem to be moving towards surpassing the leading cause of death in the US, heart desease. At that magnitude, seems unlikely we are saving net lives.
Violent crime should increase. Most violent crime is domestic abuse. Now all of America's abusive parents are out of work, stuck at home with their kids who are also stuck at home. So I think the pandemic will lead to more violent crimes in the household, at least. Dunno how other parts or life will be affected.
Aside from even the fatalities, the math still is that 50% of LA is presently unemployed. While some articles are somehow gleeful in the face of this calamitous reality, there is no where near a net balance.
The Fed has spent at least $2 trillion dollars on this already. Probably closer to $6 trillion by the time we are done. It is an unimaginably large cost to shut things down relative to any possible benefit.
When you say something “saves money” do you think it’s reasonable to require such a statement attest that there is a net savings?
If I go on vacation and set my Nest to eco mode, am I saving money? Sure, certainly I may be saving $5 a day in home utilities cost on my $300/day vacation. But that is not to say that said vacation is actually saving me money.
It would be accurate to say that vacation may be costing me $295 net instead of $300 face value. But just reporting the savings would be misleading.
I don't think this comment deserves to be downvoted. It seems sensible. Sure, it's mostly sensitive to the phrasing, but careful phrasing matters in matters of finance and politics.
In Los Angeles, there may be fewer car accidents but I’m afraid the ones that do occur will be more fatal. The lack of traffic is allowing people to drive at unsafe speeds. While there is dramatically less traffic, there are still a lot of cars on the freeway. The few times I’ve driven on the freeway, there have been many high speed impatient drivers weaving unsafely between the many remaining cars.
As a back of the envelope for that "$40 Million Per Day" we used to spend, we would have gotten something of greater value. Probably far far greater value.
So we are also losing over "$40 Million Per Day" through lost traffic.
There is no silver lining, it's just giving us a minimum of the value of traffic.
Does anyone else wonder from where did they cite the costs in Table 1? I can imagine the reduction in accidents and fatalities and believe their reported numbers with the "significant" p-values but there is no information on how did they arrive at the reported costs. You had one job!
For one, this situation has nothing to do with cars, so there's no obvious lesson about cars to be drawn from it. Accidents are relatively rare, and when you frame the headline, as another commenter did, as $1 per person-day, it's a lot less impressive.
It's also not viable in a lot of places. Mass transit and living close to work, shopping, and services, is only viable in certain urban centers. NYC, DC, Boston, maybe Chicago are good. LA, not so much (but improving), Dallas, hah! And if you live in a suburb our outside the city? Car.
What will change is habits around traveling. Maybe there will be more working from home (or maybe not). Maybe cities aren't as desirable (or they still are). Maybe there's a broader economic reshuffle. Oil is incredibly cheap right now. Those are the factors that will drive car use over the next few years, not a dollar figure that is, not surprisingly, on the order of what I pay for car insurance. If a $1000 annual insurance bill doesn't keep people out of their cars, why would this headline?
Other than the obvious drop in drivers due to unemployment, I don't see a plausible way that happens.
Taking public transit is probably one of the riskiest activities the average person might undertake in their day as far as contracting a virus. Whether or not that will cause people to take their cars instead is unknown, but I can't imagine it will increase ridership in the near term.
Additionally we may see a slowing down or even slight reversal in the trends of populations becoming more urban and more dense. Living in a 400sqft apartment is doable for some people when they're spending most of their free time at bars, parks, restaurants, etc., but after enduring months of those places inaccessible the idea of living in a less-dense suburb may be appealing to people.
As an American, I hope so, but it is also pretty deeply ingrained. Cities and towns have also already been built spread out and many homes are completely dependent on getting in a car as a necessary first action. Around cities, many are also priced out of where they work with transit not up to the task.
But perhaps those who are able to WFH are getting a glimpse of what it can be like.
This seems like a low effort illogical argument to push an anti car agenda? Obviously the economic benefit of cars is far greater than $40M a day for CA. Everything we do involves risk, whether it is driving or flying or simply leaving the house. With risk comes the chance of injury and death. We still decide to go about our lives because there is immense benefit in that. So I don’t see why this is a problem.
[+] [-] JohnJamesRambo|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hannob|5 years ago|reply
Because it tells a very interesting story how many lives we're willing to accept to be lost in normal circumstances.
Cars, air pollution, avoidable infections, ... - there's a lot of harm society could avoid and doesn't.
[+] [-] mediumdeviation|5 years ago|reply
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/04/16/coronaviru...
[+] [-] evandijk70|5 years ago|reply
The first Figure in this article (Dutch) shows the number of deaths from any cause.
https://nos.nl/artikel/2330786-oversterfte-door-corona-blijf...
During the Corona outbreak, almost double the amount of people are dying compared to the same time last year.
[+] [-] dehrmann|5 years ago|reply
There are fears it will increase domestic abuse.
[+] [-] gizmo686|5 years ago|reply
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/chart-us-weekly-coronavirus-...
[+] [-] dehrmann|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] product50|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] divbzero|5 years ago|reply
4,500 ≈ average deaths per month in 2017 [1]
6,125 = confirmed COVID-19 deaths from 2020-04-01 through 2020-04-15 [2]
[1]: https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/2017/t...
[2]: https://github.com/nychealth/coronavirus-data/blob/master/ca...
Note that 6,125 doesn’t include COVID-19 deaths or non COVID-19 deaths, and is for the first half of April only.
[+] [-] Taniwha|5 years ago|reply
Generally though, covid deaths go up exponentially while road tolls likely don't go down the same way, our trade off is probably only likely if you get in early.
In other news we're likely taking the first step of getting out of out ~1 month lock down later this coming week - our idea of getting out has been described as "lockdown with KFC", roughly equivalent to California's
[+] [-] yread|5 years ago|reply
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMms2009984?query=RP
Cancers are not getting diagnosed early almost 50% in recent weeks than usual. That means worse stages at diagnosis and worse prognosis
https://www.iknl.nl/nieuws/2020/door-de-covid-19-crisis-zijn...
[+] [-] hyko|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] javierluraschi|5 years ago|reply
See https://twitter.com/javierluraschi/status/125160533393750016...
[+] [-] scottlocklin|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robbiep|5 years ago|reply
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/04/16/could-ame...
[+] [-] nsomaru|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacobwilliamroy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snovv_crash|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qplex|5 years ago|reply
Oh, we could pretty much save the planet and live happily ever after if we could keep it like this.
Only to find some rock barreling down on us some day, but ah... I digress.
[+] [-] onetimemanytime|5 years ago|reply
Everything you said above are really down in North Korea, and have been so for decades. I doubt they're doing OK
[+] [-] zaroth|5 years ago|reply
The Fed has spent at least $2 trillion dollars on this already. Probably closer to $6 trillion by the time we are done. It is an unimaginably large cost to shut things down relative to any possible benefit.
[+] [-] aianus|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zaroth|5 years ago|reply
If I go on vacation and set my Nest to eco mode, am I saving money? Sure, certainly I may be saving $5 a day in home utilities cost on my $300/day vacation. But that is not to say that said vacation is actually saving me money.
It would be accurate to say that vacation may be costing me $295 net instead of $300 face value. But just reporting the savings would be misleading.
[+] [-] carbocation|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pokstad|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lukevdp|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imjustsaying|5 years ago|reply
It is more accurate to say due to the shutdown.
[+] [-] aaron695|5 years ago|reply
As a back of the envelope for that "$40 Million Per Day" we used to spend, we would have gotten something of greater value. Probably far far greater value.
So we are also losing over "$40 Million Per Day" through lost traffic.
There is no silver lining, it's just giving us a minimum of the value of traffic.
[+] [-] seesawtron|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rchaves|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dehrmann|5 years ago|reply
For one, this situation has nothing to do with cars, so there's no obvious lesson about cars to be drawn from it. Accidents are relatively rare, and when you frame the headline, as another commenter did, as $1 per person-day, it's a lot less impressive.
It's also not viable in a lot of places. Mass transit and living close to work, shopping, and services, is only viable in certain urban centers. NYC, DC, Boston, maybe Chicago are good. LA, not so much (but improving), Dallas, hah! And if you live in a suburb our outside the city? Car.
What will change is habits around traveling. Maybe there will be more working from home (or maybe not). Maybe cities aren't as desirable (or they still are). Maybe there's a broader economic reshuffle. Oil is incredibly cheap right now. Those are the factors that will drive car use over the next few years, not a dollar figure that is, not surprisingly, on the order of what I pay for car insurance. If a $1000 annual insurance bill doesn't keep people out of their cars, why would this headline?
[+] [-] Exmoor|5 years ago|reply
Taking public transit is probably one of the riskiest activities the average person might undertake in their day as far as contracting a virus. Whether or not that will cause people to take their cars instead is unknown, but I can't imagine it will increase ridership in the near term.
Additionally we may see a slowing down or even slight reversal in the trends of populations becoming more urban and more dense. Living in a 400sqft apartment is doable for some people when they're spending most of their free time at bars, parks, restaurants, etc., but after enduring months of those places inaccessible the idea of living in a less-dense suburb may be appealing to people.
[+] [-] asveikau|5 years ago|reply
But perhaps those who are able to WFH are getting a glimpse of what it can be like.
[+] [-] freeone3000|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ars|5 years ago|reply
I try to rarely leave the house, so when I go I buy enough groceries for 2 weeks or more. That would not be possible without a car.
With a car I also have a lot less contact with other people.
I feel really bad for those people who don't have cars - bus service is severely reduced, and I bet they are having a very hard time.
[+] [-] chapium|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattigames|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] briandear|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ngcc_hk|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onetimemanytime|5 years ago|reply
I go to Vegas. Lose $100K in poker but win $190 at slot machines. How did I do?
[+] [-] Redoubts|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] downerending|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tonyedgecombe|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _bxg1|5 years ago|reply
!!!!
[+] [-] zxcvvcxz|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] NoblePublius|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sieabahlpark|5 years ago|reply
Bad title and bad article.
[+] [-] transfire|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaysea|5 years ago|reply