Your claim that the ensuing poverty will cause more deaths then corona virus. Do you have anything to support this? You made a claim so the onus is on you to provide supporting data. I don't need to refute anything at this juncture.

It's an opinion based upon the link between mortality and poverty [1] and a potential 30% unemployment rate.

In fact, the Fed is predicting 32%. [2]

[1] https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/how-...

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/coronavirus-job-losses-could...

The person making the argument bears the burden of proof, not the person refuting it.

I'm fully aware, I'm asking of which specific point needs data to back it up. I assumed the link between poverty and mortality was blindingly obvious.

Of course poverty has bad health outcomes, and I've just cited sources in another reply.

I don't think that's the part that's tripping people up. You're kinda just hand-waving over the link between the newly unemployed facing the same conditions that create an increased mortality rate for those in poverty. Not all who are unemployed lack the means to continue living an unimpoverished lifestyle (savings, benefits, depending on a partner, budget reduction, etc) and presumably many of the unemployed will become employed again when economic conditions improve.

This is the part that isn't "blindingly obvious" and requires a bit more of a substantive argument to backup the statement that "the deaths from coronavirus will be nothing compared to the deaths caused by economic destruction".

Is your position that people who will be made unemployed as a result of the economic destruction have enough savings and that we are providing enough benefits for them to survive?

59% of Americans could not afford $1,000 in an emergency. [1]

So you're talking about an optimistic runway of $1,000 + a $1,200 one-time benefit payment. The average person will be in poverty within 60 days.

I think you're dramatically overestimating the wealth of the average American.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/21/41-percent-of-americans-woul...

Of course I’m not. I’m pointing out why looking at the mortality rate of poverty doesn’t support the argument that the economy implications of shelter in place are somehow deadlier than the disease itself.

The onus is still on you to make a meaningful argument to support that statement.

It's a prediction based on opinion and data, so I'm not able to support it beyond background references.

You're asking me to prove something that hasn't occurred yet.

My point is, poverty is deadly, the coronavirus response causes massive unemployment, unemployment causes poverty and so it's pretty obvious that the economic implications have a death rate associated with them that won't shake out for years. In my opinion, it'll be significantly worse.

I don't like it when people hand wave away the blight of those in poverty for personal safety. These people have awful outcomes, and they're treated as collateral damage.

The media talks about death from poverty all the time, except for now. Why? You cannot pause the economy without dramatic upheavals in industry and community.

For example, one particular study found that from the 2008 economic crisis there were nearly 5,000 excess suicides in a single year. Well, this crisis is substantially worse and will last substantially longer.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0...

> In my opinion, it'll be significantly worse.

Ah, so it's an opinion unsupported by facts or evidence. Got it.

I get the feeling you didn't read the comment, since this appears to be a strawman. I did cite a study, which you didn't acknowledge or refute.

The study linked does nothing to directly affirm your statement, which you admitted was an opinion anyways. There's nothing left to discuss.

Both do actually.