Quote
ramBRO
Quote
zn
This came up before. There was already evidence a while back that there was no spike in suicides. It was discussed here.
From what I read, the whole "there will be suicides" argument came from those who echoed the idea that lockdowns would cause economic havoc, and that that havoc would be more catastrophic than the disease run wild. As the article points out, the possibility of depressions and suicides was another driving argument against lockdowns.
Actually at the time, the evidence of depression spiking was not among the presumed lockdown population, but came from people who were forced to work because their employment (like working for meat packing plants) was deemed essential.
Did you not expect to see a rise (of some sort) in the reports of suicide?
Regardless, why do you suppose that the number actually fell?
I'm wondering if the lockdowns (though limited) only kept people from seeing each other in person, but actually resulted in an increase of people staying connected via other means (i.e. phone, online, etc.).
I was completely neutral when it came to expectations. I only knew that around the country, the only people claiming it would happen were making that argument on the basis of the "cure is worse than the disease" theory, which I never bought.
Anyway we did find out that studies were saying it wasn't happening as some predicted. Those were early studies though. Your study is much more recent and IMO has more weight for that reason.
Why did they go down? I honestly don't know. It could be any number of things. In the absence of knowing, your idea makes as much sense as any other explanation.
...
