10 ms·

And this post is why I get so infuriated when I see all the blue-checkmarks on Twitter, calling people who want to go back to work "Selfish, stupid, idiot, etc"

by dudul 7y ago

And this post is why I get so infuriated when I see all the blue-checkmarks on Twitter, calling people who want to go back to work "Selfish, stupid, idiot, etc". People don't want lockdown to stop because they need to go to their hairdresser, or because they need to go hangout at the pub, or whatever idiotic reason these privilege a-holes put in their tweets. People want to get back to work, because they need money, to have a roof above their head. To feed their kids. Edit: Just to clarify because I see a lot of misunderstanding in the replies: I am not advocating to end the lockdown. I am criticizing the tone deaf, patronizing, rude, caricatural comments attacking people who want to end it to get their paycheck back.

sigmar 7y ago
The biggest contributor to this economic downturn is the pandemic. Demand and market valuations plummeted in February, long before any stay-at-home orders.
res0nat0r 7y ago
I understand their thinking because not working is causing a massive amount of collateral damage, but the virus doesn't care about any of that. If everyone goes back to normal too early, this all just starts over, and folks are forced to be inside even longer, there's just no way around it.
- Filligree 7y ago
  80-90% of people who catch this disease would survive without treatment. If America won't support people who might die of starvation when stuck at home, then the individually smartest response becomes to take their chance with the virus. I don't need to explain what a 10-20% death rate would do to society, however.
  - klmadfejno 7y ago
    > I don't need to explain what a 10-20% death rate would do to society, however. Not much if 80% of them are very old and sick.
    - cpursley 7y ago
      You're getting downvotes but it's true. There are other considerations that are completely being ignored by the ivory tower types. It's shocking to some, but jobs are how people afford to live their lives (buy food, pay rent, pay tax which funds government, etc). I'm more concerned about social and political unrest that often results from mass unemployment, people losing their homes, not enough to eat, etc than losing people to the virus (which still stucks). 22 million unemployed and growing is enough to swing elections in dark directions...
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - mrb 7y ago
      If 20% die but 8 out of 10 are very old and sick, then globally 4% die who are healthy or not very old. 4% of an (healthy not very old) population dying still means overall the economy would contract by 4% (because product/service demand is down 4%), which would still be the greatest recession in the last 8 decades. Your comment ("not much") is thus completely false.
      - klmadfejno 7y ago
        Sure, but the idea that this virus kills 20% of all people is stupid. You just made that number up. We don't have much we can do to treat this disease. Nobody believes it would ever go that high. If somehow it does, even more than 80% will be old and sick. 4% of a population dying also does not mean the economy contracts by 4%. You just... made that up too. Lastly, you've assumed that a 4% annualized economy contraction from one month in a quarter means that we'll see 4% by just keeping this going. That's... wrong. The negative impact of lockdowns will compound. I don't give a shit if the economy shrinks by 4%. It's absolutely fine if we have a bit of a shitty economic time. Prolonged wide scale poverty for millions of people is an entirely different beast.
        mrb 7y ago
        «kills 20% of all people is stupid. You just made that number up» I did not claim that. I just took this percentage from the hypothetical situation you used to build an argument (you yourself said if 10-20% die then it wouldn't mean much to the economy.) «4% of a population dying also does not mean the economy contracts by 4%.» Yes it does. Basic economics. With everything being equal, the size of an economy is linearly proportional to the number of persons. A population half the size of another one will buy half the number of cars, half the food, will spend half on entertainment, etc. So if 4% of average individuals die worldwide, consumption (thus the economy worldwide) is down 4%. Like I said, it's basic economics. «Lastly, you've assumed that a 4% annualized economy contraction from one month in a quarter means that we'll see 4% by just keeping this going» No I don't assume that. Read again what I wrote. I am only talking about the impact of a certain percentage dying, not about the impact of the lockdown.
  - JibJabDab 7y ago
    There's also some very concerning long-term effects for those who have recovered. There's a trend of seeing lung-scarring or other things that I'm sure will come up again int 10 or 15 years. Imagine that happening to a large portion of society.
    - bjustin 7y ago
      Even recovered people who feel fine can have chronic issues due to the virus. Young, healthy people may come away with serious lung issues without realizing it[1]. [1] https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1253437512401301505 https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1253437512401301505
  - sixothree 7y ago
    I'm sure it would have more than a 4.8% impact.
- umanwizard 7y ago
  This is wrong. We are not forced to be inside because of the virus. It would have been totally possible to have this pandemic going on with zero lockdowns, which would have probably led to worse health effects, and less-bad economic effects. It's a pet peeve of mine when people claim that we must lock down or that the virus is forcing us to do this or that, as opposed to it being a political choice based on tradeoffs. In fact, I predict that after things open up, they will not shut back down, no matter how bad the second wave of the outbreak gets. People simply won't accept it.
  - res0nat0r 7y ago
    Sure, we can let a million folks in the USA die because we love our capitalism, but 80%+ of the USA disagrees with that false dichotomy.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      I don't think that's true. The mindset I've consistently seen is that people do agree with the dichotomy, and are just willing to sacrifice the economy because they don't think it's very important. How many times has the line been trotted out that we can't sacrifice human lives for the sake of the economy?
    - umanwizard 7y ago
      First of all, that number is clearly exaggerated. No current evidence supports the claim that a million people in the USA dying of covid is remotely plausible. Now to the substance of your argument: this has little to do with capitalism. If most people are not working for a long period of time, in any society, even a non-capitalist one, then that society will rapidly become dramatically materially poorer. We make choices to improve material conditions at possibly increased health risks all the time. Longevity is not the only metric for overall quality of life. I would happily accept some increased risk of my own death for the lockdown to be over. Correctly navigating the tradeoff requires figuring out how much increased risk of death is acceptable, not asserting that it’s zero.
      - 7y ago
- pc86 7y ago
  Not a single sane person is arguing going from isolation to business as usual overnight.
- klmadfejno 7y ago
  > If everyone goes back to normal too early, this all just starts over, and folks are forced to be inside even longer, there's just no way around it. This whole thing just starts over if we EVER go back to normal unless a vaccine is invented. Herd immunity is impossible to achieve during an effective lockdown. It's not like we're any closer to being able to safely resume activities than one month ago. A highly infectious disease with asymptomatic carriers cannot be eradicated. I hate people saying generic statements like "we have to stay inside until its safe" with no reason to believe its getting safer.
  - res0nat0r 7y ago
    This is true. People need to realize this is a 2 year minimum thing we're just in the beginning of dealing with. Anything else is fantasy.
  - lbeltrame 7y ago
    > This whole thing just starts over if we EVER go back to normal unless a vaccine is invented. We can get to normal faster if effective pharmacological treatments come out from the ongoing trials. If we can treat it, or at least prevent it from being severe, it is not a problem of public health anymore.
    - klmadfejno 7y ago
      Technically true, just as hopeless for any practical time scale. The economic problems of being on lockdown will compound over time. We cannot wait until we have treatments or a vaccine.
banannaise 7y ago
Most people who don't have money don't want to go back to work. They feel like the have to go back to work even though it's a terrible idea, because the rest of the country is refusing to support them while they can't.
the_snooze 7y ago
Yeah, those meatpackers really want to go back to their essential jobs right now.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
spaceribs 7y ago
blaming "Blue Checkmarks" for the fact that people are being victimized by capitalism during a pandemic makes me sick to my stomach. What a hopeless year this has been.
- dudul 7y ago
  People victimized by capitalism (and I totally agree that this is the current situation btw) don't need to be called names or selfish, or idiots, by people who are not victimized. I'm blaming privileged people for lecturing and gaslighting people who are not as privileged.
  - 3131s 7y ago
    I totally agree with you. It seems like no one is understanding your point... yes, it's an absolutely terrible idea for people to go back to work right now, but if it's literally between that and going hungry (because you know your government won't do shit to help you), then it's no surprise that some people will want to go back to work out of sheer necessity. In fact I'd be shocked if most of these Silicon Valley tools would come to any different conclusion if they were actually in the same boat.
- cpursley 7y ago
  > "victimized by capitalism during a pandemic " Care to explain? Last time I checked, it was governments (monopoly of force) who issued stay at home and quarantine orders. The US economy in not capitalist despite the popular belief; it's mixed. The current pain would not be as bad right now if it were not for the artificial asset bubbles that were created by Keynesians via cheap money in response to the last recession...
  - inscionent 7y ago
    > monopoly of force We The People
    - petrocrat 7y ago
RankingMember 7y ago
The essential motivation for people to want to feed their families/pay bills is completely logical, but it's important to keep in perspective that the virus doesn't care about any of these things. We don't need to look too far back in history to see that ending isolation in a pandemic too early can have huge consequences (much bigger than an economic slowdown/unemployment).
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  This is not the fault of the citizens. This is the fault of government who did not provide enough economic assistance, creating the desperation you're witnessing. This was unnecessary; other governments provided the support their citizens needed (the UK, for example). Either pay people a decent wage to stay home to flatten the curve, or accept the death rate resulting from people who need to eat and have shelter having to go to their jobs.
  - MyneOutside 7y ago
    This so much. The narrative seems to pitch an either/or situation, why not both or some of both
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  I am against ending the lockdown early as well and disagree in no uncertain terms with those who are trying to minimize the pandemic. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to start wondering whether the economic and political damage may ultimately outweigh the lives saved. If anyone thinks populism spawning extremists and getting them into public office was bad now, imagine the tsunami of public anger and populism that will occur caused by immense (even, dare I say it, pandemic) unemployment and poverty, which is where we're headed full steam. When things get tough, people shift into a "me first" mentality that is incompatible with the philosophies of many HNers.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    The economic damage at least was always going to happen. It's a direct consequence of the pandemic itself (and people's natural fear-based reactions to isolate themselves to reduce their risk). It's not like you can relax social distancing and have the economy do well, especially not when the death toll really starts ramping up and people fear for their lives every time they leave home. There isn't any choice available in which there isn't a bad recession.
balls187 7y ago
On the flip-side, putting all businesses in this situation means most of us are in the same situation; and every market/industry needs to work together to get out of this crisis. If no one can pay their mortgage, loan holders HAVE to make exceptions. That shared spirit of sacrifice isn't a reason to institute lock down orders, but my opinion is that it will allow us to lesson the economic damage long term.
- abduhl 7y ago
  Why do they have to make exceptions? Absent a government mandate there is no requirement and, unfortunately, the mortgage is secured by the underlying property. I fully expect, and you should too, foreclosures to skyrocket and people to be on the street. The banking sector is not in the business of shares sacrifice and the US government isn’t in the business of letting the banks collapse. This lockdown will kill people. Let’s not be blind to that fact out of some sense of moral righteousness or some hope of humanity being found by faceless corporations.
  - balls187 7y ago
    > I fully expect, and you should too, foreclosures to skyrocket and people to be on the street. Why, in the worlds wealthiest nation is that something I should expect?
    - derg 7y ago
      Because those who write the rules are going to use the massive number of foreclosures to buy up property dirt cheap like they did in '08 and beyond. It's a feature, not a bug. We're seeing one of the largest transfers of wealth from the poor to the wealthy ever and it's only getting worse. The cruelty is the point. Oh also don't forget the number of people who are, or will shortly be, underwater with their car payments too. That's another ticking time bomb.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
inscionent 7y ago
We can print more money right. Money isn't real. Death and this virus are. How about we just take care of those who need taking care of during this disaster. How about we put all national efforts to keep the lights on, providing safe housing and keeping the food supply chains intact. Instead we are worried about corporate quarterly profits and when the Ruby Tuesday can reopen, because somehow serving burgers for $3/hr plus tips is going to secure that person's financial situation.
- cpursley 7y ago
  What type of marble do you have in your ivory tower? Hopefully it's at least locally sourced.
- dudul 7y ago
  So taking care of those who need an income to keep their house is calling them "idiot, stupid MAGA, selfish, moron" on Twitter or in the media in general? Please read the comment you're replying to. I don't see anything contradicting the points you're making.
  - blueline 7y ago
    why should anyone try to "contradict" what amounts to you posting anecdotes about people being mean to you on twitter?
  - tom_ 7y ago
    A reply need not contradict the one it replies to.
- makomk 7y ago
  We can print more money, but we cannot print the things the money will buy. When the factories shut their doors and busineses small and large collapse and the food supply chain implodes, you can't eat money or shelter from the rain under money - and all that turning the printing presses up will do is to make it clear to everyone just how unreal money actually is. We know from other countries that's really hard to undo.
sixothree 7y ago
Think for a second the absolute nightmare the economy would be going through if we _hadn't_ locked down.
- mythrwy 7y ago
  We will never know the answer to that.
lleolin 7y ago
I guess I don't understand why more people aren't asking for a solution that allows them to sustain themselves and their families and also doesn't elevate the risk of spreading COVID-19. I don't get how "end the lockdown and let a bunch of people get sick" or "possibly starve homeless in the streets" became the only two possible options, and I don't get how anyone becomes a staunch advocate for either.

by dudul 7y ago

sigmar 7y ago

The biggest contributor to this economic downturn is the pandemic. Demand and market valuations plummeted in February, long before any stay-at-home orders.

res0nat0r 7y ago

I understand their thinking because not working is causing a massive amount of collateral damage, but the virus doesn't care about any of that. If everyone goes back to normal too early, this all just starts over, and folks are forced to be inside even longer, there's just no way around it.

Filligree 7y ago
80-90% of people who catch this disease would survive without treatment. If America won't support people who might die of starvation when stuck at home, then the individually smartest response becomes to take their chance with the virus. I don't need to explain what a 10-20% death rate would do to society, however.
- klmadfejno 7y ago
  > I don't need to explain what a 10-20% death rate would do to society, however. Not much if 80% of them are very old and sick.
  - cpursley 7y ago
    You're getting downvotes but it's true. There are other considerations that are completely being ignored by the ivory tower types. It's shocking to some, but jobs are how people afford to live their lives (buy food, pay rent, pay tax which funds government, etc). I'm more concerned about social and political unrest that often results from mass unemployment, people losing their homes, not enough to eat, etc than losing people to the virus (which still stucks). 22 million unemployed and growing is enough to swing elections in dark directions...
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - mrb 7y ago
    If 20% die but 8 out of 10 are very old and sick, then globally 4% die who are healthy or not very old. 4% of an (healthy not very old) population dying still means overall the economy would contract by 4% (because product/service demand is down 4%), which would still be the greatest recession in the last 8 decades. Your comment ("not much") is thus completely false.
    - klmadfejno 7y ago
      Sure, but the idea that this virus kills 20% of all people is stupid. You just made that number up. We don't have much we can do to treat this disease. Nobody believes it would ever go that high. If somehow it does, even more than 80% will be old and sick. 4% of a population dying also does not mean the economy contracts by 4%. You just... made that up too. Lastly, you've assumed that a 4% annualized economy contraction from one month in a quarter means that we'll see 4% by just keeping this going. That's... wrong. The negative impact of lockdowns will compound. I don't give a shit if the economy shrinks by 4%. It's absolutely fine if we have a bit of a shitty economic time. Prolonged wide scale poverty for millions of people is an entirely different beast.
      - mrb 7y ago
        «kills 20% of all people is stupid. You just made that number up» I did not claim that. I just took this percentage from the hypothetical situation you used to build an argument (you yourself said if 10-20% die then it wouldn't mean much to the economy.) «4% of a population dying also does not mean the economy contracts by 4%.» Yes it does. Basic economics. With everything being equal, the size of an economy is linearly proportional to the number of persons. A population half the size of another one will buy half the number of cars, half the food, will spend half on entertainment, etc. So if 4% of average individuals die worldwide, consumption (thus the economy worldwide) is down 4%. Like I said, it's basic economics. «Lastly, you've assumed that a 4% annualized economy contraction from one month in a quarter means that we'll see 4% by just keeping this going» No I don't assume that. Read again what I wrote. I am only talking about the impact of a certain percentage dying, not about the impact of the lockdown.
- JibJabDab 7y ago
  There's also some very concerning long-term effects for those who have recovered. There's a trend of seeing lung-scarring or other things that I'm sure will come up again int 10 or 15 years. Imagine that happening to a large portion of society.
  - bjustin 7y ago
    Even recovered people who feel fine can have chronic issues due to the virus. Young, healthy people may come away with serious lung issues without realizing it[1]. [1] https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1253437512401301505 https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1253437512401301505
- sixothree 7y ago
  I'm sure it would have more than a 4.8% impact.
umanwizard 7y ago
This is wrong. We are not forced to be inside because of the virus. It would have been totally possible to have this pandemic going on with zero lockdowns, which would have probably led to worse health effects, and less-bad economic effects. It's a pet peeve of mine when people claim that we must lock down or that the virus is forcing us to do this or that, as opposed to it being a political choice based on tradeoffs. In fact, I predict that after things open up, they will not shut back down, no matter how bad the second wave of the outbreak gets. People simply won't accept it.
- res0nat0r 7y ago
  Sure, we can let a million folks in the USA die because we love our capitalism, but 80%+ of the USA disagrees with that false dichotomy.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    I don't think that's true. The mindset I've consistently seen is that people do agree with the dichotomy, and are just willing to sacrifice the economy because they don't think it's very important. How many times has the line been trotted out that we can't sacrifice human lives for the sake of the economy?
  - umanwizard 7y ago
    First of all, that number is clearly exaggerated. No current evidence supports the claim that a million people in the USA dying of covid is remotely plausible. Now to the substance of your argument: this has little to do with capitalism. If most people are not working for a long period of time, in any society, even a non-capitalist one, then that society will rapidly become dramatically materially poorer. We make choices to improve material conditions at possibly increased health risks all the time. Longevity is not the only metric for overall quality of life. I would happily accept some increased risk of my own death for the lockdown to be over. Correctly navigating the tradeoff requires figuring out how much increased risk of death is acceptable, not asserting that it’s zero.
    - 7y ago
pc86 7y ago
Not a single sane person is arguing going from isolation to business as usual overnight.
klmadfejno 7y ago
> If everyone goes back to normal too early, this all just starts over, and folks are forced to be inside even longer, there's just no way around it. This whole thing just starts over if we EVER go back to normal unless a vaccine is invented. Herd immunity is impossible to achieve during an effective lockdown. It's not like we're any closer to being able to safely resume activities than one month ago. A highly infectious disease with asymptomatic carriers cannot be eradicated. I hate people saying generic statements like "we have to stay inside until its safe" with no reason to believe its getting safer.
- res0nat0r 7y ago
  This is true. People need to realize this is a 2 year minimum thing we're just in the beginning of dealing with. Anything else is fantasy.
- lbeltrame 7y ago
  > This whole thing just starts over if we EVER go back to normal unless a vaccine is invented. We can get to normal faster if effective pharmacological treatments come out from the ongoing trials. If we can treat it, or at least prevent it from being severe, it is not a problem of public health anymore.
  - klmadfejno 7y ago
    Technically true, just as hopeless for any practical time scale. The economic problems of being on lockdown will compound over time. We cannot wait until we have treatments or a vaccine.

banannaise 7y ago

Most people who don't have money don't want to go back to work. They feel like the have to go back to work even though it's a terrible idea, because the rest of the country is refusing to support them while they can't.

the_snooze 7y ago

Yeah, those meatpackers really want to go back to their essential jobs right now.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

spaceribs 7y ago

blaming "Blue Checkmarks" for the fact that people are being victimized by capitalism during a pandemic makes me sick to my stomach. What a hopeless year this has been.

dudul 7y ago
People victimized by capitalism (and I totally agree that this is the current situation btw) don't need to be called names or selfish, or idiots, by people who are not victimized. I'm blaming privileged people for lecturing and gaslighting people who are not as privileged.
- 3131s 7y ago
  I totally agree with you. It seems like no one is understanding your point... yes, it's an absolutely terrible idea for people to go back to work right now, but if it's literally between that and going hungry (because you know your government won't do shit to help you), then it's no surprise that some people will want to go back to work out of sheer necessity. In fact I'd be shocked if most of these Silicon Valley tools would come to any different conclusion if they were actually in the same boat.
cpursley 7y ago
> "victimized by capitalism during a pandemic " Care to explain? Last time I checked, it was governments (monopoly of force) who issued stay at home and quarantine orders. The US economy in not capitalist despite the popular belief; it's mixed. The current pain would not be as bad right now if it were not for the artificial asset bubbles that were created by Keynesians via cheap money in response to the last recession...
- inscionent 7y ago
  > monopoly of force We The People
  - petrocrat 7y ago

RankingMember 7y ago

The essential motivation for people to want to feed their families/pay bills is completely logical, but it's important to keep in perspective that the virus doesn't care about any of these things. We don't need to look too far back in history to see that ending isolation in a pandemic too early can have huge consequences (much bigger than an economic slowdown/unemployment).

toomuchtodo 7y ago
This is not the fault of the citizens. This is the fault of government who did not provide enough economic assistance, creating the desperation you're witnessing. This was unnecessary; other governments provided the support their citizens needed (the UK, for example). Either pay people a decent wage to stay home to flatten the curve, or accept the death rate resulting from people who need to eat and have shelter having to go to their jobs.
- MyneOutside 7y ago
  This so much. The narrative seems to pitch an either/or situation, why not both or some of both
ThrowawayR2 7y ago
I am against ending the lockdown early as well and disagree in no uncertain terms with those who are trying to minimize the pandemic. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to start wondering whether the economic and political damage may ultimately outweigh the lives saved. If anyone thinks populism spawning extremists and getting them into public office was bad now, imagine the tsunami of public anger and populism that will occur caused by immense (even, dare I say it, pandemic) unemployment and poverty, which is where we're headed full steam. When things get tough, people shift into a "me first" mentality that is incompatible with the philosophies of many HNers.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  The economic damage at least was always going to happen. It's a direct consequence of the pandemic itself (and people's natural fear-based reactions to isolate themselves to reduce their risk). It's not like you can relax social distancing and have the economy do well, especially not when the death toll really starts ramping up and people fear for their lives every time they leave home. There isn't any choice available in which there isn't a bad recession.

balls187 7y ago

On the flip-side, putting all businesses in this situation means most of us are in the same situation; and every market/industry needs to work together to get out of this crisis. If no one can pay their mortgage, loan holders HAVE to make exceptions. That shared spirit of sacrifice isn't a reason to institute lock down orders, but my opinion is that it will allow us to lesson the economic damage long term.

abduhl 7y ago
Why do they have to make exceptions? Absent a government mandate there is no requirement and, unfortunately, the mortgage is secured by the underlying property. I fully expect, and you should too, foreclosures to skyrocket and people to be on the street. The banking sector is not in the business of shares sacrifice and the US government isn’t in the business of letting the banks collapse. This lockdown will kill people. Let’s not be blind to that fact out of some sense of moral righteousness or some hope of humanity being found by faceless corporations.
- balls187 7y ago
  > I fully expect, and you should too, foreclosures to skyrocket and people to be on the street. Why, in the worlds wealthiest nation is that something I should expect?
  - derg 7y ago
    Because those who write the rules are going to use the massive number of foreclosures to buy up property dirt cheap like they did in '08 and beyond. It's a feature, not a bug. We're seeing one of the largest transfers of wealth from the poor to the wealthy ever and it's only getting worse. The cruelty is the point. Oh also don't forget the number of people who are, or will shortly be, underwater with their car payments too. That's another ticking time bomb.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

inscionent 7y ago

We can print more money right. Money isn't real. Death and this virus are. How about we just take care of those who need taking care of during this disaster. How about we put all national efforts to keep the lights on, providing safe housing and keeping the food supply chains intact. Instead we are worried about corporate quarterly profits and when the Ruby Tuesday can reopen, because somehow serving burgers for $3/hr plus tips is going to secure that person's financial situation.

cpursley 7y ago
What type of marble do you have in your ivory tower? Hopefully it's at least locally sourced.
dudul 7y ago
So taking care of those who need an income to keep their house is calling them "idiot, stupid MAGA, selfish, moron" on Twitter or in the media in general? Please read the comment you're replying to. I don't see anything contradicting the points you're making.
- blueline 7y ago
  why should anyone try to "contradict" what amounts to you posting anecdotes about people being mean to you on twitter?
- tom_ 7y ago
  A reply need not contradict the one it replies to.
makomk 7y ago
We can print more money, but we cannot print the things the money will buy. When the factories shut their doors and busineses small and large collapse and the food supply chain implodes, you can't eat money or shelter from the rain under money - and all that turning the printing presses up will do is to make it clear to everyone just how unreal money actually is. We know from other countries that's really hard to undo.

sixothree 7y ago

Think for a second the absolute nightmare the economy would be going through if we _hadn't_ locked down.

mythrwy 7y ago
We will never know the answer to that.

lleolin 7y ago

I guess I don't understand why more people aren't asking for a solution that allows them to sustain themselves and their families and also doesn't elevate the risk of spreading COVID-19. I don't get how "end the lockdown and let a bunch of people get sick" or "possibly starve homeless in the streets" became the only two possible options, and I don't get how anyone becomes a staunch advocate for either.