An upcoming recession might actually save, not cost lives

[pitabread]

I've seen the claim floating around that lockdowns are bad for the economy and that a poor economy will lead to greater mortality rates than COVID-19.

However, in digging into the research on the economic effects on mortality rates, it appears the opposite is the case: high times for economies appear to have worse mortality rates than during recessions or depressions.

A downside to an up economy? Mortality rates increase in better times

“In developed countries, mortality rates increase during upward cycles in the economy, and decrease during downward cycles,” wrote Herbert J. A. Rolden, a researcher at the Leyden Academy on Vitality and Ageing. The academy is a research institute affiliated with Leiden University and its medical center and is supported, in part, by health-related private companies and non-profits in the Netherlands.

...

Overall, they found that for every 1% increase in gross domestic product (GDP), the death rate for men 70 to 74 years of age increased by about a third of a percentage point (0.36%). The increase was just as large for men 40 to 44 years old (0.38%).

The effect was similar for women, though smaller. The mortality rate for women aged 70 to 74 increased by 0.18% for every 1% increase in gross domestic product and 0.15% among middle-aged women.​

The article also makes reference to other studies appear to suggest the same thing: that good economic times counter-intuitively appear to increase mortality rates.

There is also research on the Great Depression in particular that suggests that again, counter-intuitively people lived longer during it:

Despite Hard Times, People Lived Longer During the Great Depression

The Great Depression was a difficult, life-altering period in the United States when millions of people struggled to find work and get by. Despite the tough times, the average life spans of Americans actually increased.

In fact, historical research shows that during the 20th century, increases in U.S. mortality often occurred during times of economic prosperity, while decreases occurred during economic depressions or recessions.
​

For anyone fearing the effects of a recession as a result of the lockdown measures and economic disruption, it appears those fears may be unfounded.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is likely diet related. When we have to cook for ourselves and save money our diets appear to be more healthy. Less fat, less salt, less meat. Restaurant and food that is already made tend to be higher in sodium than homemade.

 

[Sketcher]

I've seen the claim floating around that lockdowns are bad for the economy and that a poor economy will lead to greater mortality rates than COVID-19.

However, in digging into the research on the economic effects on mortality rates, it appears the opposite is the case: high times for economies appear to have worse mortality rates than during recessions or depressions.

A downside to an up economy? Mortality rates increase in better times

“In developed countries, mortality rates increase during upward cycles in the economy, and decrease during downward cycles,” wrote Herbert J. A. Rolden, a researcher at the Leyden Academy on Vitality and Ageing. The academy is a research institute affiliated with Leiden University and its medical center and is supported, in part, by health-related private companies and non-profits in the Netherlands.

...

Overall, they found that for every 1% increase in gross domestic product (GDP), the death rate for men 70 to 74 years of age increased by about a third of a percentage point (0.36%). The increase was just as large for men 40 to 44 years old (0.38%).

The effect was similar for women, though smaller. The mortality rate for women aged 70 to 74 increased by 0.18% for every 1% increase in gross domestic product and 0.15% among middle-aged women.​

The article also makes reference to other studies appear to suggest the same thing: that good economic times counter-intuitively appear to increase mortality rates.

There is also research on the Great Depression in particular that suggests that again, counter-intuitively people lived longer during it:

Despite Hard Times, People Lived Longer During the Great Depression

The Great Depression was a difficult, life-altering period in the United States when millions of people struggled to find work and get by. Despite the tough times, the average life spans of Americans actually increased.

In fact, historical research shows that during the 20th century, increases in U.S. mortality often occurred during times of economic prosperity, while decreases occurred during economic depressions or recessions.
​

For anyone fearing the effects of a recession as a result of the lockdown measures and economic disruption, it appears those fears may be unfounded.

They seem to consider obesity as a factor. However, this recession is featuring more people staying home due to concerns about the coronavirus. This could easily translate into less exercise, and therefore greater obesity.

 

[pitabread]

They seem to consider obesity as a factor. However, this recession is featuring more people staying home due to concerns about the coronavirus. This could easily translate into less exercise, and therefore greater obesity.

How do figure staying at home translates into less exercise?

Granted this is purely anecdotal, but I've been doing more exercise since working from home. Instead of spending a bunch of time driving to and from work, I'm using that same time to go for daily walks.

 

[Sketcher]

How do figure staying at home translates into less exercise?

Granted this is purely anecdotal, but I've been doing more exercise since working from home. Instead of spending a bunch of time driving to and from work, I'm using that same time to go for daily walks.

I've been doing less. I live in an apartment. Our gym is closed, and I know people one building over who have contracted the virus. Since their mailboxes are near mine, I avoid going out even to get my mail - that's a once-a-week event, before or after I get groceries. People around here will be going on walks in the same places, making walks seem to be more of a risk, rather than less. While this may seem over-cautious, I have family members who are at greater risk than I, and I have no desire to give it to them.

 

[keith99]

I've been doing less. I live in an apartment. Our gym is closed, and I know people one building over who have contracted the virus. Since their mailboxes are near mine, I avoid going out even to get my mail - that's a once-a-week event, before or after I get groceries. People around here will be going on walks in the same places, making walks seem to be more of a risk, rather than less. While this may seem over-cautious, I have family members who are at greater risk than I, and I have no desire to give it to them.

I go out for a bike ride almost every day and always see people out walking. More to far more than I saw before the epidemic.

BUT I live in the suburbs of Los Angeles. Where I ride is through single family homes. The result is plenty of space. Walking, running or riding is pretty safe. Well most of where I ride is single family homes. I just realized one route I take goes through an industrial area and also apartments. Come to think of it in both of those I do net see nearly as many out walking.

Your situation is definitely indicative of one situation where people will get less exercise. Those who live in an apartment building that has exercise facilities, not closed, are very apt to get less to far less exercise.

 

[pitabread]

I find it odd that people in apartments couldn't necessarily get exercise. You don't a gym for that; there are numerous body weight exercises that can provide a good workout.

 

[Albion]

For anyone fearing the effects of a recession as a result of the lockdown measures and economic disruption, it appears those fears may be unfounded.

It's usually the lockdown that is identified as the cause of needless deaths, not just the recession that is caused by it.

 

[pitabread]

It's usually the lockdown that is identified as the cause of needless deaths, not just the recession that is caused by it.

Most of the claims I've seen have referenced the economic downturn being the core issue, not the lockdown itself. Hence all the cries to restart the economy.

Though if you want to argue that the lockdown itself is causing more harm (e.g. fatalities) than the pandemic would then by all means present the data that supports that.

I know there have been some benefits to the lockdown, including reduction of pollution related deaths and lowering of crime rates. Certainly there has been economic harm as a result of lost incomes, but how that is translating into physical harm (e.g. fatalities) hasn't been made clear. And as the data in the OP indicates, economic downturns are historically correlated with fewer deaths.

 

[pitabread]

So nobody wants to talk about this? With all the fear-mongering about the downturn of the economy, nobody wants to look at the evidence for what actually happens?

 

[rambot]

It's usually the lockdown that is identified as the cause of needless deaths, not just the recession that is caused by it.

Evidence?

 

[pitabread]

Evidence?

I've been asking for evidence for weeks. Never seen any forthcoming.

 

[flicka]

"might" is a mighty tricky word

 

[rambot]

"might" is a mighty tricky word

I'm sure you caught why they used "might save lives" instead of "will cost lives" which is the common refrain.

It's because there is plenty of documented history to support it. It has happenned before.

.Overall, they found that for every 1% increase in gross domestic product (GDP), the death rate for men 70 to 74 years of age increased by about a third of a percentage point (0.36%). The increase was just as large for men 40 to 44 years old (0.38%).

between 1950 and 2008

 

[ArmenianJohn]

They seem to consider obesity as a factor. However, this recession is featuring more people staying home due to concerns about the coronavirus. This could easily translate into less exercise, and therefore greater obesity.

If people are doing LESS exercise with the MORE time that they have from the "lockdowns" then the problem isn't the lockdowns but the people who simply choose not to exercise. This situation lends to people getting much more exercise than they normally would.

 

[Hans Blaster]

ncluding reduction of pollution related deaths

I suspect this is the source of the correlation seen in the OP. (Note that the report isn't about the current death rate, just a correlation of death rates to economic activity.) Fossil fuel usage went down during the great recession and is generally tied to our economic activity level. (With long-term trends from changes in industry type and pollution regulations.)

My hope is that the cleaner air available in/near many cities in lockdown will provide impetus to reduce health impacting air pollution in the near term.

 

[Sketcher]

If people are doing LESS exercise with the MORE time that they have from the "lockdowns" then the problem isn't the lockdowns but the people who simply choose not to exercise. This situation lends to people getting much more exercise than they normally would.

Please see my previous post as to why I'm not exercising as much during the lockdown, as opposed to pre-lockdown. As for time, I get a whole hour more per day since I still work full-time from home. Half of that goes to more sleep.

 

[jollybear]

It is likely diet related. When we have to cook for ourselves and save money our diets appear to be more healthy. Less fat, less salt, less meat. Restaurant and food that is already made tend to be higher in sodium than homemade.

Hello subductionzone. Do you remember me?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello subductionzone. Do you remember me?

Somewhat.

 

[jollybear]

Somewhat.

Where did we meet? Tell me.