3 ms·
Nobody is saying it doesn't make sense, but does it really need to be on the same bill?
by mmcnl 7y ago
Nobody is saying it doesn't make sense, but does it really need to be on the same bill?
- kick 7y agoThings will get worse without those things, so it seems like it does.
- PeterisP 7y agoIf you want mass testing, you need to create circumstances that allow people to go and get tested. If a positive test would result in a quarantine without a financial "safety net", then people won't agree to be tested or will ignore test results and the goal of the bill will fail. Actually doing the tests and "here's what will happen if you get tested positive, and it's not horrible and won't bankrupt you" are two sides of the same coin. I mean, the end goal is not tests as such but to restrict spread of the disease. If "tests are available" but if the vulnerable parts of the population (e.g. the dude putting stuff on the shelf of your local store or the girl at the counter) don't have that safety net, then the testing was useless because they'll still go to work and infect you and others. So this safety net is a key part of the bill.