So, no actual data?

The solution is to risk even more lives by sending people back to work? Again, I’d like to see the data behind that calculation.

If you’re interested in people’s lives, maybe we can work on universal healthcare, increasing minimum wages, or guaranteeing sick-leave?

So you want to risk people life by not allowing them to work ?

Provide data that shows it is a larger risk. Without that data you are arguing based on ideology not facts.

The thing about not working is that we have government mechanisms to help those people. We can beef up social security, unemployment benefits, or direct payments. Then people can go back to work afterwards. Work will always exist. It exists even now with a “closed” economy.

The thing about dying is that it’s pretty final.

>We can beef up social security, unemployment benefits, or direct payments

If you give people money for not working, who are going to work then ? Money will become meaningless if you can't use to buy stuff.

==Money will become meaningless if you can't use to buy stuff.==

I don't follow this line of thought. We already give people money for not working (examples are social security and unemployment benefits). None of that has made money obsolete. Why would a temporary measure in the midst of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic?

Why don't I see people make this same argument about businesses getting money from the government? Will money become meaningless for businesses? Do people stop trying to earn money once they reach a certain level? Elon Musk certainly hasn't.

Ok tell me then, let say the government give people money for not working then why would people then want to work on let say grocery store where you suggest its risky ?

So you want to risk people’s lives by forcing them to work?

And yes, it is forcing. Amazon, a fantastic example right now, is removing the ability for warehouse workers to stay at home, unless they take unpaid leave. No pay, no healthcare benefits, unless you go into a warehouse and risk your lives.

I didn't say force, if you don't want to work then don't work.

Ok, I'll bite: where are the coffins of all the people who have died in the last four weeks from not working?

Because I can show you lots of coffins from people in NY and Italy who went to work whilst the pandemic was raging.

you don't think no people will die by not be able to afford basic necessities due to not working ?

Oh, I do.

So show us the model (we still do that right?) when the death by virus numbers are less than the death by poverty numbers.

But you can't becuase you didn't. You just "feel" its time.

So if the death by poverty is less than death of virus, then continue lockdown ? Must be sucks to be the one who dying due to poverty caused by lockdown.

Of course not, and here is why: lockdown is not binary, there are degrees of lockdown.

So, when you help us all out with the model of deaths-by-lockdown that informed your decision, we can all benefit from it by comparing it against the latest, updated death-by-covid-19 models and making an informed choice about the degree (if any) of lockdown to pursue.

The lesser evil.

But of course no such model exists. Its all just emoting. Happy to be wrong.

So both are evil, must be suck to be the one affected by the "less" evil decision.

Every time someone responds to you, you pivot.