(08-28-2020 03:33 PM)Flippmb Wrote: The suicide INCREASE during the shutdown equals the number of deaths from Covid. I thought it noteworthy that, in this age group, our actions are killing about as many people as the disease. I'm also trying to give some context to just how low the Covid death numbers are for this age group. I could have made other comparisons to an average year:
Cause of Death, Age Group 0-24
Traffic Accidents - 7,000
Suicides - 6,800
Homicides - 5,800
Congenital Anomalies - 5,700
Accidental Poisonings - 5,100
Drownings - 1,200
Kidney Disorders - 1,100
Flu - 1,000
Covid - 667
All Causes - 46,400
It seems to me that emphasizing the increase in a what is a very, very low number, instead of putting into context what is still a very, very low number, is really missing the point.
81% of Covid deaths in the U.S. have been in people 65 and older. That number increases to 93% if we include those who are 55 to 64. We are doing real damage to our young people. Send the kids to school. Let them play ball. And, keep them away from grandma, grandpa, and anyone with an underlying condition.
Right now, we are sacrificing our young for the sake of the old.
Gee you're mixing and conflating a bunch of stuff. First of all, that chart shows all deaths up thru age 24. We're talking about kids up to only 17 or 18 - and beginning at about age 5 or 6. So we need to cut those numbers way down. Like nearly in half if we're going to compare them to school-age children - which is what we're doing. Second of all, I think it's a huge leap to say "our actions are killing about as many people as the disease". To say shutdowns and mask wearing and school closings are "killing" kids is WAY too big a leap. Are some kids committing suicide because of the shutdowns, etc.? Probably. But how many of those were fragile and the next relationship breakup would have caused it anyway? Of course no way to tell. But more germane..............how could we tell whether the 'cause' was missing school,
vs. the overall anxiety and stress of the pandemic itself? [
"Mom.........there's nothing to DO!"] We can't. In fact, I'd almost bet the latter - but that would entail *me* making a leap of logic, so I won't.
(Imo) it's totally irresponsible and incorrect to say that "our actions" are causing those suicides. In fact, that's about TWO leaps in logic.
As to the context data.......all fine and good (with adjustments to account for the age discrepancies), but again, to compare these things is conflating different actions and results. Because 7,000 kids (and it'd of course be good if you quoted the source) die in car accidents, it's ok to let more die - and more in their families die by opening up schools? ALL unnecessary deaths should be minimized (within reason - and that's probably where'd we'd differ). Because 1000 die from flu, we shouldn't try to prevent those, or other deaths? It's ok to lose 1000 (or even 10!) to COVID because 5,700 die of congenital abnormalities? The 'logic' of that argument is lacking. Well - absent, really.
When a dozen or two young children die in cribs because they get choked on the rails, things get changed. When enough kids die from choking on small toys, things get changed. When enough small children die in car crashes due to not being able to be restrained, things change. Even if when those car seats don't work well, enough.......things even change then. There are people working on solutions to keep kids from dying in hot cars. I.e., things change. ALL deaths that can be prevented should be.
You say, "keep them away from Grandma, etc.". Good luck with that. One could argue that that might just be worse, from an emotional point of view. Many kids are *raised* by their grandparents. Or at least spend time with them after school while both (IF there are two) parents work.
You say "
we are sacrificing our young for the sake of the old". While there's actually some truth to that, likely, the converse is "we are sacrificing our old for the sake of our young". While that's a philosophical/moral question................try posing that to a state legislator, governor, mayor, etc. You won't get very far with that stance or even concept. If we were in a starvation situation where those kinds of decisions needed to be made, that's one thing; but that's not where we are.
In other words, and very importantly..............
this is NOT a binary decision - and it's very misleading and pejorative to try and paint it as such. It does not have to be one or the other. We can keep Gramps and Junior both alive! Your argument is strictly flawed by trying to make that a simple either/or decision.
So I feel that *you* are missing the point. Well, really, you're only missing part of it - but the most important part. We don't know what 'damage' we're causing kids by having schools closed, wearing masks, etc. Kids are VERY resilient. I suspect you know that. While I can see the attempt to connect those things to a suicide, the evidence in just not there - and I would say irresponsible to connect them that way.
(And I have seen other authors trying to make that correlation, but I feel it's very misguided.)
To delay in-person school a few months to save, oh, 10-20-30,000+ lives (purely a wild guess just used for argument's sake; there's no way we could ever know) seems like a VERY small price to pay. And remember..........it's not like they're totally missing out on learning. While remote learning is a very imperfect substitute, it's not like they're sitting still academically. Not to mention, there *are* advantages to learning at home in many cases. Sure, it's a mixed bag, but it's so very far from a total loss.