4 ms·

I saw this idea floated around on Reddit a few days ago. Basically the crux is that unemployment has a death toll, too. So if you close all non-essential busin

I saw this idea floated around on Reddit a few days ago. Basically the crux is that unemployment has a death toll, too. So if you close all non-essential businesses, unemployment rises, which increases the likelihood of people losing health insurance, losing homes, not paying electrical bills, communication (internet / phone) bills, etc. If some people lose all those things and don't have access to them again for 2+ months, and have no other safety net, they might die. Doubly so considering the hospitals may be at capacity with COVID-19 cases. So, what would be better - keep people at home and unemployed, where people die by lack of resources, or keep people going out where people die by spreading COVID-19? The third options is to keep people at their residences but either pay them or reduce their bills / mortgages etc to 0 while COVID-19 blows over. But that could take 2-18 months. It was hard enough getting $1200 once for every American household - I doubt it will continue for another 18 months until a vaccine is developed.

lonelappde 7y ago
> losing health insurance, losing homes, not paying electrical bills, communication (internet / phone) bills, etc. None of this is true because non-essential bills have also been shut down.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  None of my expenses have changed. And as far as I know, it would be a problem if I lost my income as I would still need to pay rent/mortgage, taxes, groceries, utilities, health insurance.
- cultus 7y ago
  Boy that's news to me.
- gwright 7y ago
  I think what you are saying is that discretionary expenses have been greatly reduced. That is true, but I think you then make a very big leap to assuming the savings can easily offset the fixed expenses that you mention (insurance, rent/mortgage, utilities).
lbeltrame 7y ago
> I doubt it will continue for another 18 months until a vaccine is developed. If any of the 40+ trials going on for drugs is successful and makes COVID-19 clinically manageable, it would improve the situation earlier than just waiting out a vaccine (which, like the drugs, may not work at all).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
markvdb 7y ago
You've rightly identified the question as a false dichotomy. People in the US don't _have_ to die for lack of resources. The state helping the people to survive this crisis or not is a political choice.
- gwright 7y ago
  I'm not really worried about lack of raw resources and immediate needs. We'll figure that out via a mix of savings, private charity, and local/state/federal assistance. I'm assuming that we'll mitigate the virus via treatments, vaccines, or the brutal reality of acquired immunity. The more difficult political problem is how the financial pain is going to be distributed and how we reboot the economy. How assistance is distributed, taxes are adjusted, or fiscal measures are taken is going to be very complicated with opportunities to create winners and losers based on the policies. So far I'm not particularly impressed by Congress in this area.

lonelappde 7y ago

> losing health insurance, losing homes, not paying electrical bills, communication (internet / phone) bills, etc. None of this is true because non-essential bills have also been shut down.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
None of my expenses have changed. And as far as I know, it would be a problem if I lost my income as I would still need to pay rent/mortgage, taxes, groceries, utilities, health insurance.
cultus 7y ago
Boy that's news to me.
gwright 7y ago
I think what you are saying is that discretionary expenses have been greatly reduced. That is true, but I think you then make a very big leap to assuming the savings can easily offset the fixed expenses that you mention (insurance, rent/mortgage, utilities).

lbeltrame 7y ago

> I doubt it will continue for another 18 months until a vaccine is developed. If any of the 40+ trials going on for drugs is successful and makes COVID-19 clinically manageable, it would improve the situation earlier than just waiting out a vaccine (which, like the drugs, may not work at all).

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

markvdb 7y ago

You've rightly identified the question as a false dichotomy. People in the US don't _have_ to die for lack of resources. The state helping the people to survive this crisis or not is a political choice.

gwright 7y ago
I'm not really worried about lack of raw resources and immediate needs. We'll figure that out via a mix of savings, private charity, and local/state/federal assistance. I'm assuming that we'll mitigate the virus via treatments, vaccines, or the brutal reality of acquired immunity. The more difficult political problem is how the financial pain is going to be distributed and how we reboot the economy. How assistance is distributed, taxes are adjusted, or fiscal measures are taken is going to be very complicated with opportunities to create winners and losers based on the policies. So far I'm not particularly impressed by Congress in this area.