"care" are saying that reported number of deaths at nurseing homes, is alot higher than normal.

In the UK during this periode of time (april 1st to now), around 7500 more people have died than "normal".
While the coronavirus deaths at nurseing homes, in the UK, since april 1st is only reported as 1400.

Basically there could be "another" ~6100 deaths in the UK due to coronavirus.

And depending on the area I can see that being reasonable. Some countries can probably loosen the restrictions, some states can do so too, but the poster child for your view point I'd argue is the president of the United States and when he makes tweets about liberating Michigan (where I live), a state with the third most deaths from Corona in the nation, he can fuck right off. There are reasonable discussions to be had but "liberate Michigan" tweets aren't a part of it. 

While I agree with Trump, he is not my poster child.I'm not american, I would argue that most of the users here aren't, so I couldn't care less what he says about one specific situation.I just happen to agree with him on something that I have already made up my mind(and continue to believe I'm correct) way before he or any other president said anything.

I just want you guys to go to the end with your logics.You think that locking down everything might make everyone feel more safe, but what about the person that will have his business ruined because of this and commit suicide(believe me it's more common than you think)?Or those in developing countries that might actually starve to death because he was fired because of the lockdowns(since the employeer couldn't afford to keep the company afloat and pay him)? Or people dying of curable diseases because they couldn't afford paying their health care because they were unemployed and the public healthcare couldn't slot a place for him in time?

Just want you all to think that, the ones defending a more moderate and reasonable "lockdown" is also thinking on the lives of the others, so that we can all mitigate the damage of the virus.

^ that is stupid.

Science says otherwise.
They have "proven" how long a incubation time on avg there is.
So its not that people were already infected 2 months or more ago and are now getting sick.

Its that the "shutdown" isnt perfect, in stopping spread.

Now does this mean you shouldnt try to stop spread? just because it isn't 100% effective? ofc not!
Some mitigation is better tha none.

taken from Neogaf:

Covid-19 and Mongol siege:

-Dude, can't we open the gate?
-We've discussed it already, mongols are still there.
-But my cabbages!
-MONGOLS!
-But we are sitting around like this FOR WEEKS!
-That's how siege works.
-But mongols haven't killed anyone for several days already.
-That's because we are all behind the walls.
-How do you know? Maybe mongols are not as dangerous as you think!
-...
-I mean, how bad could it be? They certainly won't kill us ALL, right?
-That's exactly what they'd do
-But my cabbages...

"you can plan the best plan in the world, but it will serve you nothing if people don't stick to the plan.If the lockdown is not being respected, it means that you haven't concocted a plan that adapts to the culture and behaviour of the place that the lockdown will affect." - Nautilus.

Rekkless people will cost lives, stupid people will cost lives, impatient people will cost lives, people not respecting the lockdown will cost lives.

Thats just how the world is.

Doesnt mean you shouldnt try to prevent needless deaths.
Yes, it would be great if people stopped doing things that made the spread go faster, or last longer.
That way we could all sooner return to a normal world.

Sadly theres enough asshats around, thats never gonna work out that way.
This will take time to get through. 

You cant place all the blame on the people makeing plans to get people through this time, with as little deaths as possible.
Most has to be placed at the people that arn't following the guidelines asked off them.

We can talk about mitigating economic impacts, and cooling down the lockdown, but you should not downplay the number of deaths that could occur from a dangerous, highly contagious respiratory virus like this. There are about 800,000 suicides a year and historically economic depression increases suicide rates about 30-40%. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/09/suicide-and-the-economy/279961/

"Roy was one of at least 40,000 Americans who took their own lives that year and the next, the two-year span that suicide rate spiked to its highest recorded level ever: more than 150 per 1 million annually." 

This is not a massive increase from the standard levels as we can see from current stats:

"The suicide rate increased 33 percent from 1999 through 2017, from 10.5 to 14 suicides per 100,000 people (NCHS Data Brief No. 330"

Which would be 105 per 1 million. 

And if you look at the great depression in general this did not cause a huge spike in deaths as one would assume based on your concern of greater deaths during economic strife.

https://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17290

So yeah, we can talk about the possible economic strife that this quarantine can cause, but I would need convincing that a global great depression would cause more deaths than the possible 10m that can quite reasonably occur from Corona (could honestly be as high as 100m). 

Quick update with the rising tide after Easter

Europe had a bigger Easter dip and thus a bigger resurgence, also helped by France suddenly reporting a lot of extra cases.
NY reported a lot of extra deaths last week hence the extra hill in the reported deaths for the USA

Europe

Daily reported cases were going back up in general, only Austria managed to recover quickly from the uptick and continues to go down. Russia is already in 4th place now for daily reported cases. France had a spike in reported cases and reclaims the top spot.


Reported deaths recovered a bit faster. Spain and Italy keep swapping places. Sweden stopped counting during Easter and is now back where they were. The reported deaths are starting to pile up in Russia, Norway still sitting pretty.

God, read before you post.Never said the virus took 2 months to finish incubating, I said that they were everywhere since January.And so started spreading from there.By the time the lockdowns started happening, there were already many known people infected, and god knows how many that were without knowing.At that stage, the lockdown has little use, since most were infected and the ones that werent, are locked up with the ones that are.With a 2 week incubation period give or take, it's easy to infect other in this scenario.

The same I can say about the opposite.You say about not downplaying the potential deaths of this virus, but you are downplaying the potential disaster, both financial and lifes, that this economic crisis can have.That is the thing: we both care about helping and saving everyone, we just have different approaches, or different beliefs.

I am not in the mood to go searching now for how much they estimate the global GPD will be down, or the estimates of unemployment that that will cause, but it's far more worriyng that for me, and all it's possible consequences, than the direct deaths that the virus will cause.

Just to leave it out there: i don't believe in the slightest in those estimated death tool numbers, especially with many countries already being able to get the virus in control and its deaths decreasing, some of them implementing full lockdowns and others partial ones.Again, personal opinion.

But yeah, I'm now done with this whole corona discussion.Probably gonna come back after 2 or so weeks, to butt heads with you guys again, but I think I have made my point and my view clear.Thanks for the discussion Torillion, it was really nice.

User Requested removal

I appreciate an amicable discussion on this as well. My apologies if I took out some level of my frustration at local politics/rallies on you. I understand that people can die from economic hardship, but I haven't found evidence of these huge increases from economic depressions that would need to happen for your concerns on deaths to be plausible in my mind. If we want to talk about life quality as well that's an argument, but I don't think the deaths argument is doable.