Isn't covid-19 the #1 cause of death in NYC right now? And not, like, starvation?

Saying the cure is worse than the disease shows a frightening lack of both empathy and objective reasoning. I don't want to construct a strawman, but I worry that what "reopen" people are really saying is "I don't care if X% of the US population dies - as long as I'm not one of them - if it means I can try to go back to normal."

And try is the key word there. I would argue the main thing keeping people at home is not stay-at-home orders, but fear. Correctly-calibrated, sensible fear of getting a disease that has better odds of killing you than lots of other sources of risk in modern life.

I think it's frightening that people like you are missing the bigger point here: X% of the population was going to die anyways, and these numbers are getting skewed out of proportion. Triggering a major recession will cause more deaths and despair over the long term. Start thinking for yourselves rather than believing everything you hear.

Hospitals are now FINANCIALLY INCENTIVIZED to lump as many patients as possible into the "Covid" column. Look at the stats on the sudden drop in historical "Other" column deaths in comparison to the "Covid" column (for this year)...they basically align perfectly....which tells you that hospitals are flagging people who were going to die anyways as "Covid" related.

> Look at the stats on the sudden drop in historical "Other" column deaths in comparison to the "Covid" column (for this year)...they basically align perfectly.

There is no drop in "other" column deaths. The excess all-cause mortality rate is actually substantially higher than the number of diagnosed Covid deaths [1].

There are certain commenters on various social media sites posting CDC all-cause mortality charts showing a "drop" in recent all-cause deaths, except that's purely an artifact of the reporting lag (deaths take a couple weeks to show up in the stats so if you try to look up the number of deaths that happened within the past 1-2 weeks you will get an undercount). It sounds like you have been duped by one of those people.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/28/us/coronaviru...

>Hospitals are now FINANCIALLY INCENTIVIZED

In case that sounds outlandish, the supposed numbers according to USA Today:[1]

"Jensen said, “Hospital administrators might well want to see COVID-19 attached to a discharge summary or a death certificate. Why? Because if it’s a straightforward, garden-variety pneumonia that a person is admitted to the hospital for – if they’re Medicare – typically, the diagnosis-related group lump sum payment would be $5,000. But if it’s COVID-19 pneumonia, then it’s $13,000, and if that COVID-19 pneumonia patient ends up on a ventilator, it goes up to $39,000.”"

[1]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/24/fac...

That is why you look at excess deaths in area. And excess deaths are quite high. They make situation look worst then confirmed covid deaths.

Hospitals don't need formal covid patience. They need more testing.

The economic collapse also brings death. The 2009 recession saw a huge spike in suicides, and this does not account for the deaths of the poorer parts of the world whose citizens are one paycheck away from starvation.

The death rate is actually far lower than we initially thought, we can see this from all the antibody tests coming out. 1/5 of NYC is now estimated to have already contacted the disease.

Your argument is absolutely a strawman. You are not making your argument in good faith and assume that people just want to let people die so they are not inconvenienced.

You should read the real arguments people who want to open actually make. Here are few examples that show that it may actually be better for (some) people to go back to work.

1. People die from suicide, drug use and alcoholism all of which increase quite a bit when there are economic issues. Its not clear if more people will die from this or any increases that could come from reopening. Somebody dying form suicide isn't better or worse than dying from corona virus.

2. Even if people do not die from the above they quite possibly will have a lower life expectancy from having depression, using drugs and alcoholism so people will die sooner. If 10 people die 1 year earlier (from drugs, alcohol, etc) is it worse than 1 person dying 10 years earlier (from virus)? It is a toss up and up to debate. This is of course assuming that somebody wouldn't get the virus and die in quarantine but they would if they were not in quarantine. This is not a sure thing. The person is still going out to the grocery store and could get the virus there. Obviously quarantine is not stopping everybody from getting it.

3. If somebody has the antibodies it appears like they will not get reinfected (at least until there are enough mutations so probably this season). If those with the antibodies go back to work there would be no increase in deaths. In fact it would quite possibly lower the number of deaths.

4. As far as I know there are no vaccines for any corona viruses. That could mean that this virus won't have a vaccine. The only way to stop it may be to build up herd immunity. This means we need people to get infected. Why not let the people who are least likely to die when they get it go back to work.

Where you live determines whether this it true or not. That's why we should have more granular policy decisions.

Which of your family and friends are you willing to sacrifice for your job?

Literally killing people for the sake of "the economy" is a disgusting notion to even attempt to defend.

The system is entirely broken.

In the US alone, hundreds of thousands of people die a premature death due to obesity.

In fact, obesity is so bad in most first world countries, people are calling it an obesity pandemic (sounds familiar).

Does that mean the government should force McDonald's to serve healthier foods? And force McDonald's to stop using all the shitty ingredients and chemicals they put in their food?

Or maybe the government should regulate Coca Cola, which is infused with so many chemicals that it is a proven toilet cleaner?

Hundreds of thousands of people a year die from obesity, because of these food corporations taking advantage of human taste buds and making these terribly unhealthy foods which taste great and provides an overwhelming amount of calories.

If the government makes it illegal for people to consume over a certain amount of calories or forcibly regulate certain fast food or junk food companies to make better food, I'm sure they can save hundreds of thousands of lives from an early death to obesity.

Another example - hundreds of thousands of people die from vehicular accidents per year in the US. Should the government quarantine all cars? After all, if we don't have cars, there would be no deaths from car accidents.

Fact of the matter is, the government can regulate many things in an attempt to save lives, but there are many consequences, especially on the topic of individual freedom.

Me personally, it's not about saving the economy per se, it is more about having the freedom to choose what I want to do. I want to be able to eat like shit, I want to be able to drive, I want to be able to run my business when there is a somewhat dangerous virus running around.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin

Sorry but if all you can think of when there's an incredibly contagious virus for which there are few treatments and no cure is "BUT WHAT ABOUT MEEEEEEE?????" then I know all I need to know.

You missed valachio's point entirely. Quit being so smug and try to consider things from a different perspective.

>I want to be able to run my business when there is a somewhat dangerous virus running around.

This is literally "but what about ME?!???"

They're saying they want the CHOICE to be theirs, not the governments.

There's a fundamental difference between the underlying freedom that facilitates a choice to exist and the topic/behaviors relating to the choice itself.

Poor diets are not highly contagious.

Maybe not in a traditional sense, but certainly there are strong social pressures to eat similar things to those around you. Advertising can strongly affect your food choices. Smoking is also not contagious in the sense that it doesn’t immediately give you cancer: it takes years, often decades. Yet we’ve decided to outlaw it in many public places.

Ultimately decisions about diet are made by yourself and affect nobody else (unless maybe you're feeding dependents). Smoking is prohibited in public areas for the same reason that businesses are shuttered now; it subjects others who do not have a choice to a situation that is quite frankly dangerous.

We "let" people die all the time due to unhealthy choices, many of them being economically convenient. Do you have similar outrage over having a lower life expectancy than any other comparable western nation?

Do you have similar outrage when it comes to not being able to smoke in public buildings?