Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday July 30 2020, @09:49AM   Printer-friendly
from the lockdowns-were-supposed-to-be-just-one-part-of-defense-at-depth dept.

Economists warn of 'widespread costs' from lockdown:

Blanket restrictions on economic activity should be lifted and replaced with measures targeted specifically at groups most at risk, say economists.

[...] They argue that while the extent to which the lockdown contributed to a subsequent slowing in the rate of new infections and deaths is not easy to estimate precisely, it seems clear that it did contribute to these public health objectives.

However, they say it is "very far from clear" whether keeping such tight restrictions in place for three months until the end of June when they began to be lifted was warranted, given the large costs. They say that the costs of carrying on with such a lockdown are likely to have become significantly greater than its benefits.

Debate over the global dilemma continues.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday July 30 2020, @02:01PM (6 children)

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 30 2020, @02:01PM (#1028609) Journal

    While that happens, it's more difficult, so less frequent.

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:09PM (4 children)

    Absolutely and verifiably untrue.

    Take the Brits, as they're a fine example of strict gun control. Their homicide rate per capita is up not down since strict gun control was implemented back in the mid-60s. By around fifty percent.

    Here in the US, murder rates appear largely unrelated to per capita gun ownership. Not lacking just a causal relationship but even a decent correlative one.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday July 30 2020, @07:59PM (2 children)

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 30 2020, @07:59PM (#1028867) Journal

      Got a reference I could check that thing on the British on? The US case is complex, since rural populations have different needs than urban populations. I can certainly see rural populations having a need for guns...if nothing else it helps avoid rattlesnakes. But I also doubt the validity of the gun registration numbers. If I had wanted a gun a decade or so ago I could easily have gotten it without registration. It would probably have been wise to do so, as my father had Alzheimer's. But I'm a lousy marksman, so I wasn't interested.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday July 31 2020, @04:06AM (1 child)

        Nah, closed the tabs before I read this. Just google "historical murder rates uk" and you should find the one I used pretty easily though.

        As for guns, you can easily get one today that isn't registered. Buy it from a private individual. I mean, this is still America and you can still sell your own property, one individual to another, without registering anything with the government so long as you don't need tax paperwork for it. There's nothing even slightly illegal or even shady about doing so.

        As for rural populations needing guns more than urban ones? I've lived in both and disagree most emphatically. Guns are rarely taken out of wherever you store them in rural areas unless you're an avid hunter or have a kid that needs taught to shoot. When they are it's more often than not as a tool. You know, remove turtles from a pond, put down a horse with a broken leg, shoot a dog that's getting after your chickens or cattle, thin the local coyote population because they're becoming a nuisance... That sort of thing. The rest of nature isn't remotely as dangerous as other human beings though, so urban life is vastly more in need of firearms.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday July 31 2020, @01:44PM

          by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 31 2020, @01:44PM (#1029273) Journal

          OK. A brief search, mainly using Wikipedia pages, didn't confirm your assertion. I'll agree, though, that there's lots of noise in the data, and obviously other factors are also involved.

          --
          Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 2) by dry on Monday August 03 2020, @03:35AM

      by dry (223) on Monday August 03 2020, @03:35AM (#1030571) Journal

      It's amazing what years of austerity will do.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:12PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:12PM (#1028676)

    While that happens, it's more difficult, so less frequent.

    Your faith's gospel contradicts documented reality.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate [wikipedia.org]
    Russia, with very restrictive gun laws: 8.21 murders per 100,000.
    Meanwhile in Lithuania: 4.57 per same.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Lithuania [wikipedia.org]
    Gun crime
    Between 1995 and 2018 number of homicides using firearms has fallen by more than 98% from 252 to four, while overall number of homicides has fallen by 85% from 505 to 72.[5][2]

    4 vs 68. Which type of weapon is 17 times more dangerous than the other?