I initially had said simply "STAY HOME", but it's just not possible/advised for people in situations such as the ones you mention.

But your point is right. "If possible" means "unless it's absolutely essential for your survival or the survival of others".

I wonder if you'd be so absolute if this meant your job ceasing to exist.

Yes, it's a risk vs. benefit calculation where the risk is very very high. And not only risk to yourself but risk to others...

The risks of large portions of the economy shutting down and millions of people losing their jobs is also very significant, particularly in a country where so many live so close to the edge of disaster. It's a difficult balance, but it feels like the economic fallout is sometimes lost on the readers of HN, most of who would quite comfortably live through a period of complete lockdown.

Forget losing jobs - without a lockdown, millions of people will lose their lives. Including many of our loved ones. We already know this from Italy and Wuhan, where entire families have died one by one in their homes. The only way to save some of these lives is to flatten the curve to avoid overrunning hospitals, and reduce deaths before a cure or vaccination is widely available.

People's jobs are going to cease to exist on account of this whether they want it or not. What anyone wants or feels has nothing to do with it. This is what is going to happen, period.

Exactly - I'm tired of hearing people say "oh but the economy". How good do you think millions of dead people are going to be for our economy? Would you rather lose your job or your parents?

I'd rather my job ceased to exist than my parents or grandparents. Because that's the choice we're making now as a society.

Easy to say when you don't seriously have to face your children becoming homeless. While it certainly isn't as dramatic as a pandemic, there are severe human consequences of completely shutting down the economy. I'm sure I don't need to repeat the stats that showcase how close to the edge much of America lives - 40 million Americans don't consistently have access to enough food[1]. 1 in 6 children don't have access to enough food (which has massive effects on development and long-term health). 22 million children rely on school lunches as their primary source of nutrition[2]. Food insecurity is directly correlated with higher rates of diabetes and obesity[3]. Half of America has a negative net worth. Unemployment is correlated with alcohol and drug abuse[4].

Pretending that the only disaster we are facing is medical is blinding yourself to the reality that we are trying to navigate our way between twin catastrophes.

[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/03/13/us/ap-us-virus-o...

[3] https://www.feedingamerica.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/2...

[4] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/07/how-job-l...

And there aren't severe human consequences from millions of people dying in the next few months? Easy to say when you don't seriously have to face the possibility of your parents and grandparents dying, I guess. Remember that the mortality rate for people 80+ is 1/7, which isn't far from a game of Russian roulette.

Plus, all the school districts that have shut down so far have continued to offer meals for students AFAIK.

Source: - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/lamvo/coronavirus-death... - https://www.santaclarausd.org/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&D... - https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Bay-Area-school-closures...

I actually very much do need to seriously face that possibility. And I still think complete isolation is too extreme.

This is where the government needs to step in and guarantee healthcare, paid sick leave, and improve unemployment. It's already starting to happen. We'd be in much better shape if we were already closer to European countries in this regard, though.