[magnus]

Seattle Times article (might be paywall) that says a UW analysis projects the peak for CA may come in the end of April.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new...the-state/

Doesn't mention magnitude but hopefully it means extra time to prepare.

Oh, link to analysis and magnitude:

https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

[magnus]

Seattle Times article (might be paywall) that says a UW analysis projects the peak for CA may come in the end of April.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new...the-state/

Doesn't mention magnitude but hopefully it means extra time to prepare.

Oh, link to analysis and magnitude:

https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

[JustAnotherFan]

Seattle Times article (might be paywall) that says a UW analysis projects the peak for CA may come in the end of April.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new...the-state/

Doesn't mention magnitude but hopefully it means extra time to prepare.

Oh, link to analysis and magnitude:

https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

Thanks for sharing. While tragic it would be remarkable if the United States escaped with 'only' 81,000 deaths (38k-162k highlighted range). 

Of course that projection depends on: "The projections assume the continuation of strong social distancing measures and other protective measures."

[JustAnotherFan]

Seattle Times article (might be paywall) that says a UW analysis projects the peak for CA may come in the end of April.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new...the-state/

Doesn't mention magnitude but hopefully it means extra time to prepare.

Oh, link to analysis and magnitude:

https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections

Thanks for sharing. While tragic it would be remarkable if the United States escaped with 'only' 81,000 deaths (38k-162k highlighted range). 

Of course that projection depends on: "The projections assume the continuation of strong social distancing measures and other protective measures."

[Mick]

Thanks for sharing. While tragic it would be remarkable if the United States escaped with 'only' 81,000 deaths (38k-162k highlighted range). 

Not to be maudlin, but I wonder how many additional deaths by suicide (and other factors) that will occur because of layoffs. Our company will begin them soon, and they will cut very deeply.

[Mick]

Thanks for sharing. While tragic it would be remarkable if the United States escaped with 'only' 81,000 deaths (38k-162k highlighted range). 

Not to be maudlin, but I wonder how many additional deaths by suicide (and other factors) that will occur because of layoffs. Our company will begin them soon, and they will cut very deeply.

[JustAnotherFan]

Thanks for sharing. While tragic it would be remarkable if the United States escaped with 'only' 81,000 deaths (38k-162k highlighted range). 

Not to be maudlin, but I wonder how many additional deaths by suicide (and other factors) that will occur because of layoffs.  Our company will begin them soon, and they will cut very deeply.

That'd be interesting to find out. I vaguely remember seeing a number like 5,000 from the last recession. This recession will be much deeper so I can imagine that will go up. At least we are heading into spring and not the dreary dark days of winter. 

On the other hand, in a backward kinda way, we'll probably see a sharp decrease in traffic fatalities.

[JustAnotherFan]

Thanks for sharing. While tragic it would be remarkable if the United States escaped with 'only' 81,000 deaths (38k-162k highlighted range). 

Not to be maudlin, but I wonder how many additional deaths by suicide (and other factors) that will occur because of layoffs.  Our company will begin them soon, and they will cut very deeply.

That'd be interesting to find out. I vaguely remember seeing a number like 5,000 from the last recession. This recession will be much deeper so I can imagine that will go up. At least we are heading into spring and not the dreary dark days of winter. 

On the other hand, in a backward kinda way, we'll probably see a sharp decrease in traffic fatalities.

[Mick]

Thanks for sharing. While tragic it would be remarkable if the United States escaped with 'only' 81,000 deaths (38k-162k highlighted range). 

Not to be maudlin, but I wonder how many additional deaths by suicide (and other factors) that will occur because of layoffs.  Our company will begin them soon, and they will cut very deeply.

That'd be interesting to find out. I vaguely remember seeing a number like 5,000 from the last recession. This recession will be much deeper so I can imagine that will go up. At least we are heading into spring and not the dreary dark days of winter. 

On the other hand, in a backward kinda way, we'll probably see a sharp decrease in traffic fatalities.

Think the murder rate will go up?  Economic desperation, etc.  Violent crime rate?

How about gun ownership?  In liberal Willow Glen in liberal Santa Clara County there were over 100 people in line at our local gun store.  Ironically, the percentage of homes owning firearms had trended down from 2018 to 2019:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/2497...a-firearm/

My guess is that there will be a sharp rebound.

[Mick]

Thanks for sharing. While tragic it would be remarkable if the United States escaped with 'only' 81,000 deaths (38k-162k highlighted range). 

Not to be maudlin, but I wonder how many additional deaths by suicide (and other factors) that will occur because of layoffs.  Our company will begin them soon, and they will cut very deeply.

That'd be interesting to find out. I vaguely remember seeing a number like 5,000 from the last recession. This recession will be much deeper so I can imagine that will go up. At least we are heading into spring and not the dreary dark days of winter. 

On the other hand, in a backward kinda way, we'll probably see a sharp decrease in traffic fatalities.

Think the murder rate will go up?  Economic desperation, etc.  Violent crime rate?

How about gun ownership?  In liberal Willow Glen in liberal Santa Clara County there were over 100 people in line at our local gun store.  Ironically, the percentage of homes owning firearms had trended down from 2018 to 2019:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/2497...a-firearm/

My guess is that there will be a sharp rebound.

[2006alum]

Thanks for sharing. While tragic it would be remarkable if the United States escaped with 'only' 81,000 deaths (38k-162k highlighted range). 

Not to be maudlin, but I wonder how many additional deaths by suicide (and other factors) that will occur because of layoffs.  Our company will begin them soon, and they will cut very deeply.

Great to hear, both for you and your employees, that you've been able to avoid it so far, and fingers crossed you can weather it. Thus far, I'd need more than one hand (and probably more than two) to count the number of close friends or family members who have been furloughed or have had to close their businesses (possibly forever) due to this. I think small business owners will be hurt the hardest in the end, and I'm not sure the federal bailout bill had very much for them in it vis-a-vis large corporations.

Fingers crossed no suicides, though more than ever social solidarity and supporting one another will be key. I've been sending texts of support as well as information on how to obtain benefits, etc., and also making calls to check in and give folks' the opportunity to vent, have a shoulder to lament on, or just hear from a friendly face(time). 

COVID-19 is proving John Donne true: no man is an island.

[2006alum]

Thanks for sharing. While tragic it would be remarkable if the United States escaped with 'only' 81,000 deaths (38k-162k highlighted range). 

Not to be maudlin, but I wonder how many additional deaths by suicide (and other factors) that will occur because of layoffs.  Our company will begin them soon, and they will cut very deeply.

Great to hear, both for you and your employees, that you've been able to avoid it so far, and fingers crossed you can weather it. Thus far, I'd need more than one hand (and probably more than two) to count the number of close friends or family members who have been furloughed or have had to close their businesses (possibly forever) due to this. I think small business owners will be hurt the hardest in the end, and I'm not sure the federal bailout bill had very much for them in it vis-a-vis large corporations.

Fingers crossed no suicides, though more than ever social solidarity and supporting one another will be key. I've been sending texts of support as well as information on how to obtain benefits, etc., and also making calls to check in and give folks' the opportunity to vent, have a shoulder to lament on, or just hear from a friendly face(time). 

COVID-19 is proving John Donne true: no man is an island.

[burger]

Thanks for sharing. While tragic it would be remarkable if the United States escaped with 'only' 81,000 deaths (38k-162k highlighted range). 

Not to be maudlin, but I wonder how many additional deaths by suicide (and other factors) that will occur because of layoffs.  Our company will begin them soon, and they will cut very deeply.

It turns out that economic downturns do not cause large numbers of excess deaths.  During the 08-09 recession, mortality rates in the US actually declined: https://www.npr.org/2018/01/09/576669311...ion-deaths

We find that in areas where the unemployment rate is growing faster, mortality rates decline faster. So during the Great Recession in the U.S., we saw increases in the unemployment rate of about 4-5 percentage points, so that translates to about 50,000 to 60,000 fewer deaths per year, the same order of magnitude as the number of people who die from influenza and pneumonia every year.

This is true back to the recessions of the 70s.  Why?

When the economy is worse, people have less money to spend. They may go out and have unhealthy meals less often. They may smoke less or drink less. They may drive less. That's kind of what people have in mind when they're thinking about why increases in unemployment are linked to decreases in mortality.

This is true back to the Great Depression, in fact: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/us/po...ssion.html

There are more suicides during economic downturns, but this is offset by lower mortality from other causes.

[burger]

Thanks for sharing. While tragic it would be remarkable if the United States escaped with 'only' 81,000 deaths (38k-162k highlighted range). 

Not to be maudlin, but I wonder how many additional deaths by suicide (and other factors) that will occur because of layoffs.  Our company will begin them soon, and they will cut very deeply.

It turns out that economic downturns do not cause large numbers of excess deaths.  During the 08-09 recession, mortality rates in the US actually declined: https://www.npr.org/2018/01/09/576669311...ion-deaths

We find that in areas where the unemployment rate is growing faster, mortality rates decline faster. So during the Great Recession in the U.S., we saw increases in the unemployment rate of about 4-5 percentage points, so that translates to about 50,000 to 60,000 fewer deaths per year, the same order of magnitude as the number of people who die from influenza and pneumonia every year.

This is true back to the recessions of the 70s.  Why?

When the economy is worse, people have less money to spend. They may go out and have unhealthy meals less often. They may smoke less or drink less. They may drive less. That's kind of what people have in mind when they're thinking about why increases in unemployment are linked to decreases in mortality.

This is true back to the Great Depression, in fact: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/us/po...ssion.html

There are more suicides during economic downturns, but this is offset by lower mortality from other causes.

[chrisk]

Thanks for sharing. While tragic it would be remarkable if the United States escaped with 'only' 81,000 deaths (38k-162k highlighted range). 

Not to be maudlin, but I wonder how many additional deaths by suicide (and other factors) that will occur because of layoffs.  Our company will begin them soon, and they will cut very deeply.

Great to hear, both for you and your employees, that you've been able to avoid it so far, and fingers crossed you can weather it. Thus far, I'd need more than one hand (and probably more than two) to count the number of close friends or family members who have been furloughed or have had to close their businesses (possibly forever) due to this. I think small business owners will be hurt the hardest in the end, and I'm not sure the federal bailout bill had very much for them in it vis-a-vis large corporations.

Fingers crossed no suicides, though more than ever social solidarity and supporting one another will be key. I've been sending texts of support as well as information on how to obtain benefits, etc., and also making calls to check in and give folks' the opportunity to vent, have a shoulder to lament on, or just hear from a friendly face(time). 

COVID-19 is proving John Donne true: no man is an island.

A grant of 250% of monthly salaries is much more than in previous recessions.

[chrisk]

Thanks for sharing. While tragic it would be remarkable if the United States escaped with 'only' 81,000 deaths (38k-162k highlighted range). 

Not to be maudlin, but I wonder how many additional deaths by suicide (and other factors) that will occur because of layoffs.  Our company will begin them soon, and they will cut very deeply.

Great to hear, both for you and your employees, that you've been able to avoid it so far, and fingers crossed you can weather it. Thus far, I'd need more than one hand (and probably more than two) to count the number of close friends or family members who have been furloughed or have had to close their businesses (possibly forever) due to this. I think small business owners will be hurt the hardest in the end, and I'm not sure the federal bailout bill had very much for them in it vis-a-vis large corporations.

Fingers crossed no suicides, though more than ever social solidarity and supporting one another will be key. I've been sending texts of support as well as information on how to obtain benefits, etc., and also making calls to check in and give folks' the opportunity to vent, have a shoulder to lament on, or just hear from a friendly face(time). 

COVID-19 is proving John Donne true: no man is an island.

A grant of 250% of monthly salaries is much more than in previous recessions.

[2006alum]

A grant of 250% of monthly salaries is much more than in previous recessions.

Is this what you're referring to?

• Give $350 billion in loans for small businesses to cover salary, wages and benefits, worth 250% of an employer’s monthly payroll, with a maximum loan of $10 million.
  

A loan of 250% of an employer's monthly payroll isn't going to be especially useful for many small businesses that have been ordered by the state to close for 60-90 days, such as dentists, orthodontists, barbers, etc. And many small businesses have already closed and laid off employees, so loans like this are unfortunately too little, too late. 

Trust me when I say that the friends and family I have who had small businesses in these professions have not found this package useful to their circumstances, because they will not have a way to easily pay it back given the loss of revenue while having to maintain plant and other basic operating costs. The only option for some has been to shutter things altogether. The best thing out of the bill is that the self-employed can now seek unemployment insurance. But these kinds of loans don't work very well for many small business owners who have 0-5 other employees and are in industries where they aren't even legally allowed to remain open.

[2006alum]

A grant of 250% of monthly salaries is much more than in previous recessions.

Is this what you're referring to?

• Give $350 billion in loans for small businesses to cover salary, wages and benefits, worth 250% of an employer’s monthly payroll, with a maximum loan of $10 million.
  

A loan of 250% of an employer's monthly payroll isn't going to be especially useful for many small businesses that have been ordered by the state to close for 60-90 days, such as dentists, orthodontists, barbers, etc. And many small businesses have already closed and laid off employees, so loans like this are unfortunately too little, too late. 

Trust me when I say that the friends and family I have who had small businesses in these professions have not found this package useful to their circumstances, because they will not have a way to easily pay it back given the loss of revenue while having to maintain plant and other basic operating costs. The only option for some has been to shutter things altogether. The best thing out of the bill is that the self-employed can now seek unemployment insurance. But these kinds of loans don't work very well for many small business owners who have 0-5 other employees and are in industries where they aren't even legally allowed to remain open.

[burger]

A grant of 250% of monthly salaries is much more than in previous recessions.

Is this what you're referring to?

• Give $350 billion in loans for small businesses to cover salary, wages and benefits, worth 250% of an employer’s monthly payroll, with a maximum loan of $10 million.
  

A loan of 250% of an employer's monthly payroll isn't going to be especially useful for many small businesses that have been ordered by the state to close for 60-90 days, such as dentists, orthodontists, barbers, etc. And many small businesses have already closed and laid off employees, so loans like this are unfortunately too little, too late. 

Trust me when I say that the friends and family I have who had small businesses in these professions have not found this package useful to their circumstances, because they will not have a way to easily pay it back given the loss of revenue while having to maintain plant and other basic operating costs. The only option for some has been to shutter things altogether. The best thing out of the bill is that the self-employed can now seek unemployment insurance. But these kinds of loans don't work very well for many small business owners who have 0-5 other employees and are in industries where they aren't even legally allowed to remain open.

I thought there was some talk about making these loans no risk to the recipient (i.e., defaulting does not result in loss of any collateral or damage to credit rating, etc.).  Did anything like that make it into the bailout bill?  It's been difficult to find out exactly what's in there.

[burger]

A grant of 250% of monthly salaries is much more than in previous recessions.

Is this what you're referring to?

• Give $350 billion in loans for small businesses to cover salary, wages and benefits, worth 250% of an employer’s monthly payroll, with a maximum loan of $10 million.
  

A loan of 250% of an employer's monthly payroll isn't going to be especially useful for many small businesses that have been ordered by the state to close for 60-90 days, such as dentists, orthodontists, barbers, etc. And many small businesses have already closed and laid off employees, so loans like this are unfortunately too little, too late. 

Trust me when I say that the friends and family I have who had small businesses in these professions have not found this package useful to their circumstances, because they will not have a way to easily pay it back given the loss of revenue while having to maintain plant and other basic operating costs. The only option for some has been to shutter things altogether. The best thing out of the bill is that the self-employed can now seek unemployment insurance. But these kinds of loans don't work very well for many small business owners who have 0-5 other employees and are in industries where they aren't even legally allowed to remain open.

I thought there was some talk about making these loans no risk to the recipient (i.e., defaulting does not result in loss of any collateral or damage to credit rating, etc.).  Did anything like that make it into the bailout bill?  It's been difficult to find out exactly what's in there.

[magnus]

Thanks for sharing. While tragic it would be remarkable if the United States escaped with 'only' 81,000 deaths (38k-162k highlighted range). 

That figure only covers deaths til the beginning of July (though that still feels like it's better than projections)

[magnus]

Thanks for sharing. While tragic it would be remarkable if the United States escaped with 'only' 81,000 deaths (38k-162k highlighted range). 

That figure only covers deaths til the beginning of July (though that still feels like it's better than projections)

[2006alum]

I thought there was some talk about making these loans no risk to the recipient (i.e., defaulting does not result in loss of any collateral or damage to credit rating, etc.).  Did anything like that make it into the bailout bill?  It's been difficult to find out exactly what's in there.

As is the nature of any fast-moving legislation, it's been very hard to find out exactly what's in it, but there's a NY Times piece from yesterday that sheds at least broad light on how it works. In relevant part:

The $2 trillion stimulus package passed by Congress late Wednesday, which includes more than $370 billion for small businesses such as Ms. Donnelly’s, could bring much-needed help. The bill will allow banks to lend directly to businesses, and those loans will be backed by the Small Business Administration. And although there are restrictions, some of the terms are less onerous than other programs administered by the S.B.A. . . .

The stimulus package is offering small businesses S.B.A.-backed loans to pay for basic expenses. They would not have to repay portions that were spent on paying employees, a mortgage, rent or utilities. The banks lending the money would be reimbursed for those portions by the Treasury Department, which is receiving $377 billion to fund the program.

This seems to suggest that the loans aren't really loans for all those expenses, but effectively grants, although I'm not certain if "paying employees" includes paying a salary to the small business owner. And it doesn't seem clear how long this covers - 1 month? 2 months? 6 months?

And if it doesn't also cover salaries for the small business owners, the three folks I know would each be SOL anyway. But the bigger problem is that in the case of two friends/family who have already had to shutter their small businesses with 1-5 employees, I think this is probably too little, too late. They did so right away so they and their employees could get on unemployment benefits, so would they need to rehire their employees after they get a loan to cover their payroll costs? And if they qualify for unemployment benefits but their salary is not covered under these SBA loans, isn't that kind of a terrible catch 22?

[2006alum]

I thought there was some talk about making these loans no risk to the recipient (i.e., defaulting does not result in loss of any collateral or damage to credit rating, etc.).  Did anything like that make it into the bailout bill?  It's been difficult to find out exactly what's in there.

As is the nature of any fast-moving legislation, it's been very hard to find out exactly what's in it, but there's a NY Times piece from yesterday that sheds at least broad light on how it works. In relevant part:

The $2 trillion stimulus package passed by Congress late Wednesday, which includes more than $370 billion for small businesses such as Ms. Donnelly’s, could bring much-needed help. The bill will allow banks to lend directly to businesses, and those loans will be backed by the Small Business Administration. And although there are restrictions, some of the terms are less onerous than other programs administered by the S.B.A. . . .

The stimulus package is offering small businesses S.B.A.-backed loans to pay for basic expenses. They would not have to repay portions that were spent on paying employees, a mortgage, rent or utilities. The banks lending the money would be reimbursed for those portions by the Treasury Department, which is receiving $377 billion to fund the program.

This seems to suggest that the loans aren't really loans for all those expenses, but effectively grants, although I'm not certain if "paying employees" includes paying a salary to the small business owner. And it doesn't seem clear how long this covers - 1 month? 2 months? 6 months?

And if it doesn't also cover salaries for the small business owners, the three folks I know would each be SOL anyway. But the bigger problem is that in the case of two friends/family who have already had to shutter their small businesses with 1-5 employees, I think this is probably too little, too late. They did so right away so they and their employees could get on unemployment benefits, so would they need to rehire their employees after they get a loan to cover their payroll costs? And if they qualify for unemployment benefits but their salary is not covered under these SBA loans, isn't that kind of a terrible catch 22?

[Mick]

It turns out that economic downturns do not cause large numbers of excess deaths.  During the 08-09 recession, mortality rates in the US actually declined: https://www.npr.org/2018/01/09/576669311...ion-deaths

Possibly, during recessions. Not during the Great Depression. The suicide rate spiked:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi...my/279961/

[Mick]

It turns out that economic downturns do not cause large numbers of excess deaths.  During the 08-09 recession, mortality rates in the US actually declined: https://www.npr.org/2018/01/09/576669311...ion-deaths

Possibly, during recessions. Not during the Great Depression. The suicide rate spiked:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi...my/279961/

[burger]

It turns out that economic downturns do not cause large numbers of excess deaths.  During the 08-09 recession, mortality rates in the US actually declined: https://www.npr.org/2018/01/09/576669311...ion-deaths

Possibly, during recessions.  Not during the Great Depression.  The suicide rate spiked:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi...my/279961/

I mentioned suicides in the part of my post you didn't quote.  Overall mortality rates during the Great Depression went down, not up: https://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17290

Population health did not decline and indeed generally improved during the 4 years of the Great Depression, 1930–1933, with mortality decreasing for almost all ages, and life expectancy increasing by several years in males, females, whites, and nonwhites. For most age groups, mortality tended to peak during years of strong economic expansion (such as 1923, 1926, 1929, and 1936–1937). In contrast, the recessions of 1921, 1930–1933, and 1938 coincided with declines in mortality and gains in life expectancy.

I'm not trying to minimize suicides as a problem.  But overall, recessions don't cause result in more lives lost in the US.

[burger]

It turns out that economic downturns do not cause large numbers of excess deaths.  During the 08-09 recession, mortality rates in the US actually declined: https://www.npr.org/2018/01/09/576669311...ion-deaths

Possibly, during recessions.  Not during the Great Depression.  The suicide rate spiked:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi...my/279961/

I mentioned suicides in the part of my post you didn't quote.  Overall mortality rates during the Great Depression went down, not up: https://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17290

Population health did not decline and indeed generally improved during the 4 years of the Great Depression, 1930–1933, with mortality decreasing for almost all ages, and life expectancy increasing by several years in males, females, whites, and nonwhites. For most age groups, mortality tended to peak during years of strong economic expansion (such as 1923, 1926, 1929, and 1936–1937). In contrast, the recessions of 1921, 1930–1933, and 1938 coincided with declines in mortality and gains in life expectancy.

I'm not trying to minimize suicides as a problem.  But overall, recessions don't cause result in more lives lost in the US.

[2006alum]

It turns out that economic downturns do not cause large numbers of excess deaths.  During the 08-09 recession, mortality rates in the US actually declined: https://www.npr.org/2018/01/09/576669311...ion-deaths

Possibly, during recessions.  Not during the Great Depression.  The suicide rate spiked:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi...my/279961/

It's worth noting those numbers cover years that were almost a decade after the stock market crash of 1929 and when folks had already endured quite a lot of suffering. And that suffering was much more extreme than anything we are likely to face.

My dad grew up during the great depression, and his childhood was truly a grapes of wrath type story. Until his family moved from Kansas to California in the late 1930s, he, his parents, and his seven siblings got to take one bath per week, all using the same water, one after another. (And the tub was in the backyard and filled by heating a tea kettle one pot at a time.)

At Christmas, his uncle would come into town and his gift to my father and his siblings was one orange each. A single orange was the highlight gift of Christmas.

When they finally were able to move to California, they didn't have room to include his grandmother, so they left her in Kansas, essentially to die, because no one would be able to take care of her once they left, but they had neither the room nor the resources to bring her with them.

We are a long, long way off from the great depression.

[2006alum]

It turns out that economic downturns do not cause large numbers of excess deaths.  During the 08-09 recession, mortality rates in the US actually declined: https://www.npr.org/2018/01/09/576669311...ion-deaths

Possibly, during recessions.  Not during the Great Depression.  The suicide rate spiked:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi...my/279961/

It's worth noting those numbers cover years that were almost a decade after the stock market crash of 1929 and when folks had already endured quite a lot of suffering. And that suffering was much more extreme than anything we are likely to face.

My dad grew up during the great depression, and his childhood was truly a grapes of wrath type story. Until his family moved from Kansas to California in the late 1930s, he, his parents, and his seven siblings got to take one bath per week, all using the same water, one after another. (And the tub was in the backyard and filled by heating a tea kettle one pot at a time.)

At Christmas, his uncle would come into town and his gift to my father and his siblings was one orange each. A single orange was the highlight gift of Christmas.

When they finally were able to move to California, they didn't have room to include his grandmother, so they left her in Kansas, essentially to die, because no one would be able to take care of her once they left, but they had neither the room nor the resources to bring her with them.

We are a long, long way off from the great depression.

[Mick]

I mentioned suicides in the part of my post you didn't quote.  Overall mortality rates during the Great Depression went down, not up: https://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17290

Mortality rates are not equivalent to suicide rates.  Mortality has to do with overall death and your study cites six separate causes of death.  In at least two parts of your linked document, it mentions that suicides went up, not down, particularly at the outset of the Great Depression.

In fact, suicide rates increased from 17.0 per 100,000 in 1929, to 21.7 per 100,000 in 1932, the nadir of the Great Depression.

https://www.history.com/news/stock-marke...depression

And in the last Great Recession, there were 115 suicides per million in 2007 rising to 124 suicides per million in 2010.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi...my/279961/

[Mick]

I mentioned suicides in the part of my post you didn't quote.  Overall mortality rates during the Great Depression went down, not up: https://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17290

Mortality rates are not equivalent to suicide rates.  Mortality has to do with overall death and your study cites six separate causes of death.  In at least two parts of your linked document, it mentions that suicides went up, not down, particularly at the outset of the Great Depression.

In fact, suicide rates increased from 17.0 per 100,000 in 1929, to 21.7 per 100,000 in 1932, the nadir of the Great Depression.

https://www.history.com/news/stock-marke...depression

And in the last Great Recession, there were 115 suicides per million in 2007 rising to 124 suicides per million in 2010.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi...my/279961/

[BostonCard]

I mentioned suicides in the part of my post you didn't quote.  Overall mortality rates during the Great Depression went down, not up: https://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17290

Mortality rates are not equivalent to suicide rates.  Mortality has to do with overall death and your study cites six separate causes of death.  In at least two parts of your linked document, it mentions that suicides went up, not down, particularly at the outset of the Great Depression.

In fact, suicide rates increased from 17.0 per 100,000 in 1929, to 21.7 per 100,000 in 1932, the nadir of the Great Depression.

https://www.history.com/news/stock-marke...depression

And in the last Great Recession, there were 115 suicides per million in 2007 rising to 124 suicides per million in 2010.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi...my/279961/

I would not be surprise that suicides went up after the great recession, but there was also a secular pattern that continued into the recovery.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db330.htm



Looking at the trendline, I would not have been able to pick up anything unusual happening in 2007/2008.  The trendline picked up in 2006, and continued on trend into the recovery.

BC

[BostonCard]

I mentioned suicides in the part of my post you didn't quote.  Overall mortality rates during the Great Depression went down, not up: https://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17290

Mortality rates are not equivalent to suicide rates.  Mortality has to do with overall death and your study cites six separate causes of death.  In at least two parts of your linked document, it mentions that suicides went up, not down, particularly at the outset of the Great Depression.

In fact, suicide rates increased from 17.0 per 100,000 in 1929, to 21.7 per 100,000 in 1932, the nadir of the Great Depression.

https://www.history.com/news/stock-marke...depression

And in the last Great Recession, there were 115 suicides per million in 2007 rising to 124 suicides per million in 2010.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi...my/279961/

I would not be surprise that suicides went up after the great recession, but there was also a secular pattern that continued into the recovery.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db330.htm



Looking at the trendline, I would not have been able to pick up anything unusual happening in 2007/2008.  The trendline picked up in 2006, and continued on trend into the recovery.

BC

[Mick]

I mentioned suicides in the part of my post you didn't quote.  Overall mortality rates during the Great Depression went down, not up: https://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17290

Mortality rates are not equivalent to suicide rates.  Mortality has to do with overall death and your study cites six separate causes of death.  In at least two parts of your linked document, it mentions that suicides went up, not down, particularly at the outset of the Great Depression.

In fact, suicide rates increased from 17.0 per 100,000 in 1929, to 21.7 per 100,000 in 1932, the nadir of the Great Depression.

https://www.history.com/news/stock-marke...depression

And in the last Great Recession, there were 115 suicides per million in 2007 rising to 124 suicides per million in 2010.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi...my/279961/

I would not be surprise that suicides went up after the great recession, but there was also a secular pattern that continued into the recovery.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db330.htm



Looking at the trendline, I would not have been able to pick up anything unusual happening in 2007/2008.  The trendline picked up in 2006, and continued on trend into the recovery.

BC

Doesn't surprise me much, it was a mild recession.  This feels more like a Great Depression.

Here.  Meticulous research, National Institute of Health.  And I quote: 
"Graphical analyses showed that the overall suicide rate generally rose during recessions and fell during expansions. Age-specific suicide rates responded differently to recessions and expansions. Nonparametric tests indicated that the overall suicide rate and the suicide rates of the groups aged 25 to 34 years, 35 to 44 years, 45 to 54 years, and 55 to 64 years rose during contractions and fell during expansions. "

Also from the 

"Conclusions. Business cycles may affect suicide rates, although different age groups responded differently. Our findings suggest that public health responses are a necessary component of suicide prevention during recessions."

Suicides during the Great Depression: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2765209/

" Suicide mortality peaked with unemployment, in the most recessionary years, 1921, 1932, and 1938."

I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.  When people are most out of work, they're more likely to commit suicide.  Why can't we understand that?

[Mick]

I mentioned suicides in the part of my post you didn't quote.  Overall mortality rates during the Great Depression went down, not up: https://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17290

Mortality rates are not equivalent to suicide rates.  Mortality has to do with overall death and your study cites six separate causes of death.  In at least two parts of your linked document, it mentions that suicides went up, not down, particularly at the outset of the Great Depression.

In fact, suicide rates increased from 17.0 per 100,000 in 1929, to 21.7 per 100,000 in 1932, the nadir of the Great Depression.

https://www.history.com/news/stock-marke...depression

And in the last Great Recession, there were 115 suicides per million in 2007 rising to 124 suicides per million in 2010.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi...my/279961/

I would not be surprise that suicides went up after the great recession, but there was also a secular pattern that continued into the recovery.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db330.htm



Looking at the trendline, I would not have been able to pick up anything unusual happening in 2007/2008.  The trendline picked up in 2006, and continued on trend into the recovery.

BC

Doesn't surprise me much, it was a mild recession.  This feels more like a Great Depression.

Here.  Meticulous research, National Institute of Health.  And I quote: 
"Graphical analyses showed that the overall suicide rate generally rose during recessions and fell during expansions. Age-specific suicide rates responded differently to recessions and expansions. Nonparametric tests indicated that the overall suicide rate and the suicide rates of the groups aged 25 to 34 years, 35 to 44 years, 45 to 54 years, and 55 to 64 years rose during contractions and fell during expansions. "

Also from the 

"Conclusions. Business cycles may affect suicide rates, although different age groups responded differently. Our findings suggest that public health responses are a necessary component of suicide prevention during recessions."

Suicides during the Great Depression: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2765209/

" Suicide mortality peaked with unemployment, in the most recessionary years, 1921, 1932, and 1938."

I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.  When people are most out of work, they're more likely to commit suicide.  Why can't we understand that?

[burger]

I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.  When people are most out of work, they're more likely to commit suicide.  Why can't we understand that?

Everyone gets it.  But it's not a whopping effect (as that graph nicely showed), and it's overshadowed by the decrease in mortality from other causes during recessions.

Was there any mental health assistance in the stimulus bill?  Would be nice to see that in the next one.  The combination of social isolation and unemployment/poverty is going to be a problem.

[burger]

I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.  When people are most out of work, they're more likely to commit suicide.  Why can't we understand that?

Everyone gets it.  But it's not a whopping effect (as that graph nicely showed), and it's overshadowed by the decrease in mortality from other causes during recessions.

Was there any mental health assistance in the stimulus bill?  Would be nice to see that in the next one.  The combination of social isolation and unemployment/poverty is going to be a problem.

[2006alum]

If there were 21.7 suicides per 100k people at the peak of the great depression, up from 2017's rate of 14.0/100k, then we're talking about a difference in rate of 7.7/100k. Multiply that by ~330m Americans today, and you're talking about a total increase of roughly 25,000 per year.

YMMV in terms of how significant that number is vis-a-vis various estimates of COVID-19 deaths and associated non-COVID-19 deaths that result from a strained and underperforming medical system.

[2006alum]

If there were 21.7 suicides per 100k people at the peak of the great depression, up from 2017's rate of 14.0/100k, then we're talking about a difference in rate of 7.7/100k. Multiply that by ~330m Americans today, and you're talking about a total increase of roughly 25,000 per year.

YMMV in terms of how significant that number is vis-a-vis various estimates of COVID-19 deaths and associated non-COVID-19 deaths that result from a strained and underperforming medical system.