The 99% of us who are losing our jobs and eating through our savings shouldn't be forced into a moral dilemma of working to remain solvent vs. quarantine/distancing to protect others. This is entirely a failure of government to quickly and effectively manage the pandemic with country-wide health measures as well as adequate economic support, especially for the most vulnerable. A check for $1200 is an insult.

Your premise is moot. The economic support isn't there, whether or not people "should" face this decision, they are.

'thomasmcgalvin' stated that all non-essential workers are either taking COVID-19 seriously, or are hoaxers. He dismisses what is probably the majority of people -- normal working people who understand there is a risk, but who still want to work in order to avoid a personal economic disaster.

> Not once did anyone raise any alarms about, maybe these young people shouldn't go into this line of work...

Maybe you're just going for rhetorical force but you are factually wrong. Plenty of people have "raised alarms" about e.g. concussions caused by playing football.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/22226487/nfl-concussions...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concussions_in_American_footba...

And there have been consequences.

https://www.nflconcussionsettlement.com/

First, you missed the main point of the comment, contrasting the way society reacts to different risks. Second, the consequences of concussions and CTE are well-known, that's why they make for a good example. Despite being aware that playing football increases one's risk, including the settlement you link to, there have not been any serious efforts to shut down the NFL -- or to ban college, high school or junior football (more dangerous due to the younger age of participants and exponentially higher number of players). The draft was televised for 3 days on 3 channels last week, the largest sports event in weeks, yet we heard no demands to shut down the NFL from Fauci, Birx, Cuomo, any mainstream media, politicians, WHO, doctors, etc.

For better or worse people play sports voluntarily because they enjoy it. That's very different than succumbing to a contagious viral infection, eh? I don't see what the two have to do with each other.

I feel for the people who have lost their jobs, I have family who have lost their jobs and are trying right now to figure out how to pay their May rent and bills and buy food. It's scary. My mom has lived in the same place so long that her rent is about 1/3 of what her neighbors pay. If she misses some payments I doubt they'll try to evict her, at least not for a few months anyway, but they will likely try to break her lease and charge her 3x her rent. She can't afford that and would be forced to move, probably to a different state. That alone could kill her from stress even before factoring in the additional exposure to possible infection. What I'm saying is, even though I'm a healthy computer nerd, this is still very personal for me.

FWIW I think the simplest thing would be for the government to just give people money. But what do I know?

I agree generally that at some point we will cross the line where the economic and financial harm will outweigh the harm from Covid-19. (The trick is know when that line is reached. Apparently the EPA values a human life at about $7m. Other calculation come to about $130k/year.)

Couple of point (all my opinions):

1. Without the "hoaxers" and deniers we would be able to trust the people to "observ[e][...] sanitization & social distancing measures". To some extend the strict measures are necessary due to those groups.

2. Concussions are not contagious, so the NFL players are making decisions about their own health only. With Covid-19 you take responsibility for _other_ people.

3. The fact that one can be financially ruined this way points to deeper problems in society that should be fixed. Rather than forcing sick people back to work and putting the ethical dilemma of working vs. the safety of others on them, we should support those in need.

High-school and junior-league football involves far more participants, at much greater risk, due to their still-developing bodies and brains, with much less ability to make wise decisions about their long-term health. Yet despite research clearly demonstrating risks, virtually all attempts to reduce or ban it have failed. Gov Cuomo certainly isn't having daily press conferences about it.

>> Bills seeking to ban tackle football for kids under 12 or 14 have been proposed — and failed — in five states to date

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2019/03/04/football-ba...

>> none of those proposed bans have come close to being passed into law

https://www.boston.com/sports/parenting/2019/03/03/massachus...

FWIW, I agree with you. I don't watch football, and I strongly believe that these kids should be protected.

At the same time you cannot _possibly_ be serious about equating the NFL drafts with the Corona virus safety measures in terms of their impact on other people and harm that can be caused!

That's like saying "Well, I might have engaged in risky behavior, but I won't practice safe sex now because these people I met last week didn't wear their seatbelts."

> Tens of millions of people have lost their job and income, while bills continue to accumulate.

The fact that the harm is this severe is a separate failure. Job losses hitting such a huge portion of the population don’t have to happen. Other countries have found ways to manage this with far less suffering.

> I'd prefer to work, observing sanitization & social distancing measures, than to have my entire financial life ruined.

It’s not just your health/life you are risking. The contacts you can’t avoid making (home, shops, medical appointments etc) are all directly impacted too.

> It's fair to acknowledge the potential risks of contracting COVID-19, and still decide, I'd prefer to work, observing sanitization & social distancing measures, than to have my entire financial life ruined.

In the places I've worked, it would be impossible to observe social distancing. Open office plans mean you're usually within six feet of someone else.

Sure, totally impossible ::eyeroll:: Open-office type jobs are overwhelmingly computer-facing and easy to do from home. Even if not, a bit of creativity goes a long way -- work in shifts, alternate which days people come in, spread out desks and utilize conference rooms for more space, wear masks.

Two decades ago I was discouraged from even hobby level soccer due to concussion concerns. In retrospect, the lack of exercise should probably have been a bigger health concern...

They made a whole movie about it and had congressional investigations and everything.

>than to have my entire financial life ruined.

You know we can just literally choose to not have this problem, instead of buying into other people's narratives.

>Not once did anyone raise any alarms about, maybe these young people shouldn't go into this line of work

Actually plenty of people do. It's just not a very thrilling subject to the U.S. populace.

>You know we can just literally choose to not have this problem, instead of buying into other people's narratives.

Try saying this after a few months of lockdown, when a severely damaged economy leads to food shortages, and printing money does nothing to help.

There is no evidence that we are headed toward food shortages. We actually have surpluses. The issue now and in the future is one of alignment and market forces.

The economy cannot be modelled as a linear system; it is a pseudo-chaotic system.

If one poorly-chosen element is labelled as a "non-essential business", it can cause all the other metaphorical Jenga blocks to collapse.

Yeah, this is just like the WHO announcing "no evidence" antibodies provide some immunity. It just means no one has done a scientific study of how to collapse the food supply on a massive scale. These sorts of "everything is peachy neat keeno" claims are like Fauci saying the "risk to the US is low" back in February. There is a nontrivial risk we are headed toward food shortages. We should get back in a safer, more well understood configuration for food production and distribution.

So you believe the ability to produce food, which we've historically produced too much of and let go to waste, is just going to poof into thin air because a select portion of the population doesn't have money flow.

What a ridiculous statement.

> we can just literally choose to not have this problem

how can people facing financial ruin right now choose not to have it?

That clearly isn't what they mean, they are talking about society taking steps to minimize the financial harm.

The feasibility of succeeding at that is a different thing than your question.

So technically correct is the best kind of correct? The feasibility of succeeding makes the point moot, and frankly makes it sound like puerile moralizing. You might as well say, in the wake of a murder, "well your society could stop murder altogether if they decided not to kill each other".

Especially considering that we've already passed the largest economic bailout/safety net measures in world history in a matter of 3 weeks, and it looks like more is on the way. It would seem that "society" is doing its best over here given the realities of the situation, theoretical Kumbaya ideals aside.

Nothing about technically correct, just pointing out that I thought they had misread and failed to address the comment they replied to.

For a gun analogy, I go with it's like if someone said "We could choose to make it much more difficult to own a handgun" and then someone fired back with a rejoinder about that not helping the people getting shot right now. The rejoinder doesn't address the statement.

>You know we can just literally choose to not have this problem, instead of buying into other people's narratives.

No, you can't. Goods and services are scarce, legislating them to every person in a country does not lead to everyone getting them.