3 ms·

I'm not sure it's fair to say that it's just social distancing, but you're absolutely right that economic effects have a potential to destroy this country. (wri

I'm not sure it's fair to say that it's just social distancing, but you're absolutely right that economic effects have a potential to destroy this country. (writing from the US) 52% of people under the age of 45 have been laid off, put on leave, or had hours reduced. Putting the people with young families, or who would have been looking to start families in dire straits is a great recipe for high crime and social unrest.

peterlk 7y ago
> 52% of people under the age of 45 have been laid off, put on leave, or had hours reduced Do you have a source for this? I'm not finding it with a quick google search
- Gollapalli 7y ago
  > In a new report, Data for Progress found that a staggering 52 percent of people under the age of 45 have lost a job, been put on leave, or had their hours reduced due to the pandemic, compared with 26 percent of people over the age of 45. Nearly half said that the cash payments the federal government is sending to lower- and middle-income individuals would cover just a week or two of expenses, compared with a third of older adults. This means skipped meals, scuppered start-ups, and lost homes. From: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/millennials-are-new-lost-generation/609832/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/millennial... Report cited in quote: http://filesforprogress.org/memos/the-staggering-economic-impact-coronavirus.pdf http://filesforprogress.org/memos/the-staggering-economic-im... (I haven't read this.)
djsumdog 7y ago
There was already a protest in Columbus, Ohio in the US over the shutdown. You can say it was irresponsible of them to gather and protest, but the fact remains that their concerns are legitimate to them. People do not know what is going to happen, our leaders are not doing anywhere nearly enough to address potential famine and no world leader I have heard to far is even beginning to talk about reconstruction. It's just more endless lockdown without clear metrics for what would even end it. Democratic leaders must use ideas are currency, and right now, they're not offering people any hope at all.
danaris 7y ago
Something like this can only "destroy the country" if the government lets it. We have the ability to keep essential workers safe with proper protective gear and guarantee both food and shelter to all for the duration—we just have to decide that we value human life and dignity more than money.
- sethammons 7y ago
  I don’t think we have demonstrated the ability to provide protective gear nor can we guarantee food and shelter. We couldn’t keep toilet paper on shelves and nobody could get proper masks.
  - danaris 7y ago
    Well, toilet paper is not "essential protective gear." That said, my point is mainly that if the government were responding effectively, we could have had production shifting to ensure proper supplies in January. That could have included toilet paper, too, though I suppose it's possible that even an effective government wouldn't have foreseen that particular oddity of the crisis. As it stands, our government is hamstrung by the fact that its chief executive cares exactly zero for the wellbeing of the country except inasmuch as it makes him feel like he'll have better chances of winning re-election.
    - sethammons 7y ago
      > if the government were responsible effectively I’m not sure I’ve ever seen any part of the government respond effectively to anything, to the point of it being an oxymoron. I also fail to believe that the president has much power over anything related. In a state of emergency, the president can get more powers. I am unaware of any that would help. He can imprison, disable services, turn off the Internet, sanction, all sticks and no carrots. I think our president is an ass, but I think it is silly to think “if but for him, our government wouldn’t be hamstrung.” Edit: clarification on my first post: I was not claiming toilet paper as protective or emergency supplies, but as an example that even trifling things can’t be secured. Let alone things that are actually important such as masks or food.

peterlk 7y ago

> 52% of people under the age of 45 have been laid off, put on leave, or had hours reduced Do you have a source for this? I'm not finding it with a quick google search

Gollapalli 7y ago
> In a new report, Data for Progress found that a staggering 52 percent of people under the age of 45 have lost a job, been put on leave, or had their hours reduced due to the pandemic, compared with 26 percent of people over the age of 45. Nearly half said that the cash payments the federal government is sending to lower- and middle-income individuals would cover just a week or two of expenses, compared with a third of older adults. This means skipped meals, scuppered start-ups, and lost homes. From: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/millennials-are-new-lost-generation/609832/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/millennial... Report cited in quote: http://filesforprogress.org/memos/the-staggering-economic-impact-coronavirus.pdf http://filesforprogress.org/memos/the-staggering-economic-im... (I haven't read this.)

djsumdog 7y ago

There was already a protest in Columbus, Ohio in the US over the shutdown. You can say it was irresponsible of them to gather and protest, but the fact remains that their concerns are legitimate to them. People do not know what is going to happen, our leaders are not doing anywhere nearly enough to address potential famine and no world leader I have heard to far is even beginning to talk about reconstruction. It's just more endless lockdown without clear metrics for what would even end it. Democratic leaders must use ideas are currency, and right now, they're not offering people any hope at all.

danaris 7y ago

Something like this can only "destroy the country" if the government lets it. We have the ability to keep essential workers safe with proper protective gear and guarantee both food and shelter to all for the duration—we just have to decide that we value human life and dignity more than money.

sethammons 7y ago
I don’t think we have demonstrated the ability to provide protective gear nor can we guarantee food and shelter. We couldn’t keep toilet paper on shelves and nobody could get proper masks.
- danaris 7y ago
  Well, toilet paper is not "essential protective gear." That said, my point is mainly that if the government were responding effectively, we could have had production shifting to ensure proper supplies in January. That could have included toilet paper, too, though I suppose it's possible that even an effective government wouldn't have foreseen that particular oddity of the crisis. As it stands, our government is hamstrung by the fact that its chief executive cares exactly zero for the wellbeing of the country except inasmuch as it makes him feel like he'll have better chances of winning re-election.
  - sethammons 7y ago
    > if the government were responsible effectively I’m not sure I’ve ever seen any part of the government respond effectively to anything, to the point of it being an oxymoron. I also fail to believe that the president has much power over anything related. In a state of emergency, the president can get more powers. I am unaware of any that would help. He can imprison, disable services, turn off the Internet, sanction, all sticks and no carrots. I think our president is an ass, but I think it is silly to think “if but for him, our government wouldn’t be hamstrung.” Edit: clarification on my first post: I was not claiming toilet paper as protective or emergency supplies, but as an example that even trifling things can’t be secured. Let alone things that are actually important such as masks or food.