41–50 of 196 posts
I've been meaning to ask in /r/theydidthemath if the quarantine is actually reducing violent crime, car accidents, pollution, other infectious diseases, STDs, etc. so that we may come out break even or even ahead compared to covid deaths. Just trying to find the silver lining here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m also expecting some long term after-effects that will increase diabetes and heart disease as most people are locked up.
Really? Maybe my local experience is an outlier but I've seen significantly more people cooking meals at home and exercising. The number of daily runners in my neighborhood has easily increased 10x. Are gluttony and sedentary lifestyles not the major contributors for type-2 diabetes and heart disease?
Also, heart disease and type-2 diabetes are years in the making, and a month of moderate exercise and better eating won't make up for it overnight. Not to mention added stress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? Maybe my local experience is an outlier but I've seen significantly more people cooking meals at home and exercising. The number of daily runners in my neighborhood has easily increased 10x. Are gluttony and sedentary lifestyles not the major contributors for type-2 diabetes and heart disease?
Has the number of runners increased more than the number of people going to gyms/sports leagues/swimming pools has dropped?
I've been meaning to ask in /r/theydidthemath if the quarantine is actually reducing violent crime, car accidents, pollution, other infectious diseases, STDs, etc. so that we may come out break even or even ahead compared to covid deaths. Just trying to find the silver lining here.
will US learn to be less car-centric after this?
No amount of pandemics can smoosh buildings closer.
An example—Overtoom in Amsterdam: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3620058,4.8722503,3a,75y,96....
will US learn to be less car-centric after this?
For one, this situation has nothing to do with cars, so there's no obvious lesson about cars to be drawn from it. Accidents are relatively rare, and when you frame the headline, as another commenter did, as $1 per person-day, it's a lot less impressive.
It's also not viable in a lot of places. Mass transit and living close to work, shopping, and services, is only viable in certain urban centers. NYC, DC, Boston, maybe Chicago are good. LA, not so much (but improving), Dallas, hah! And if you live in a suburb our outside the city? Car.
What will change is habits around traveling. Maybe there will be more working from home (or maybe not). Maybe cities aren't as desirable (or they still are). Maybe there's a broader economic reshuffle. Oil is incredibly cheap right now. Those are the factors that will drive car use over the next few years, not a dollar figure that is, not surprisingly, on the order of what I pay for car insurance. If a $1000 annual insurance bill doesn't keep people out of their cars, why would this headline?
When you say something “saves money” do you think it’s reasonable to require such a statement attest that there is a net savings? If I go on vacation and set my Nest to eco mode, am I saving money? Sure, certainly I may be saving $5 a day in home utilities cost on my $300/day vacation. But that is not to say that said vacation is actually saving me money. It would be accurate to say that vacation may be costing me $2…
I don't think this comment deserves to be downvoted. It seems sensible. Sure, it's mostly sensitive to the phrasing, but careful phrasing matters in matters of finance and politics.
I've been meaning to ask in /r/theydidthemath if the quarantine is actually reducing violent crime, car accidents, pollution, other infectious diseases, STDs, etc. so that we may come out break even or even ahead compared to covid deaths. Just trying to find the silver lining here.
Everything you said above are really down in North Korea, and have been so for decades. I doubt they're doing OK