You have no data to support this.
In fact, the Fed is predicting 32%. [2]
[1] https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/how-...
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/coronavirus-job-losses-could...
Of course poverty has bad health outcomes, and I've just cited sources in another reply.
This is the part that isn't "blindingly obvious" and requires a bit more of a substantive argument to backup the statement that "the deaths from coronavirus will be nothing compared to the deaths caused by economic destruction".
59% of Americans could not afford $1,000 in an emergency. [1]
So you're talking about an optimistic runway of $1,000 + a $1,200 one-time benefit payment. The average person will be in poverty within 60 days.
I think you're dramatically overestimating the wealth of the average American.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/21/41-percent-of-americans-woul...
The onus is still on you to make a meaningful argument to support that statement.
You're asking me to prove something that hasn't occurred yet.
My point is, poverty is deadly, the coronavirus response causes massive unemployment, unemployment causes poverty and so it's pretty obvious that the economic implications have a death rate associated with them that won't shake out for years. In my opinion, it'll be significantly worse.
I don't like it when people hand wave away the blight of those in poverty for personal safety. These people have awful outcomes, and they're treated as collateral damage.
The media talks about death from poverty all the time, except for now. Why? You cannot pause the economy without dramatic upheavals in industry and community.
For example, one particular study found that from the 2008 economic crisis there were nearly 5,000 excess suicides in a single year. Well, this crisis is substantially worse and will last substantially longer.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0...
Ah, so it's an opinion unsupported by facts or evidence. Got it.