Just yesterday, for every 100,000 Americans (infected AND not infected) 0.74 died from the corona virus. That was in just one day. The potential suicide rate increase would 0.78 of 100,000 over the course of a year would take a year to get. It pale in comparison to what the corona virus is currently doing.
"over the course of the year" isn't how you calculate that.
Economic impacts don't just magically go away in a snap.
The economic impacts people are facing will likely be haunting some folks for 2-5 years.
...but even that aside. If Cuomo really does have the position that "every life is worth saving no matter what the economic impacts", why hasn't he banned cars in the state of NY?
That would certainly save lives, yes?
...about 40,000 per year based on current numbers.
Why are lives lost in automobile accidents "the cost of doing business", but lives lost to covid are not?
His position also fails to acknowledge the pragmatic reality that "Human well being" isn't a simple line that neatly bisects "alive"/"dead" and there are varying degrees of human cost (up to and including death).
If you make a policy that saves 3 lives, but results in 20,000 people having their lives ruined and living in utter misery (hunger and poverty), any reasonable policy maker would call that policy a failure.
The far left seems to understand "the misery index" fairly well when it's not presented in the context of comparing Covid to something else.
From an overall policy standpoint (for keeping a functioning society), 26 million people losing their jobs is worse than 100,000 people losing their lives.
Any policy maker that claims to not acknowledge this is either A) being deliberately disingenuous for political reasons, or B) isn't worth their salt as a policy maker.
In Cuomo's case, it's A. He's not a stupid guy. He's been in politics for decades (as has his family, and the family he married into). He understands the concepts of benefit:risk trade-off.
Which is precisely why he hasn't banned a number of different things (that carry potential risks, up to and including death) that provide a net positive financial impact on his states' economy.
I already mentioned the automobile example (that causes 40k deaths in the US anually)
There are a lot of wineries and craft breweries in his state that draw tourism and revenue to this state's coffers... alcohol related deaths cause 90k deaths per year.
He allows tobacco to be sold in his state, nationwide, that's 500,000 deaths.
He allows unhealthy food to be sold in his state...that comes with a "human lives price tag"
Not singling him out for those aspects, every governor does... However, what every governor doesn't do, is trot out some sob story about how "if it saves even one life, it's worth it no matter the economic cost"...while allowing a number of other things that are linked to loss of human life.
If he had banned cars, tobacco, alcohol, and unhealthy food in his state over the last five years, I may more willing to believe his talking point. But he hasn't, so I don't...
