5 ms·

While pushing for safety is a good thing, ultimately essential workers are the same as non-essential workers, except with an option to work. This is except for

While pushing for safety is a good thing, ultimately essential workers are the same as non-essential workers, except with an option to work. This is except for anyone being forced to work (there are certainly a few categories here, like the military). So while I am sure some people feel they are being sacrificed, and there are some individual circumstances that don't make sense, most essential workers are better off than non essential workers and both parties know it. Anecdote: I work a lot with low income people and the vast majority want to be considered essential with the ability to earn. This is because they, like most people, are smart and are able to understand the risk and make decisions for themselves and their families. So while I think pushing for safety is good and important, and extreme cases should be addressed, I find it odd that the dominant narrative around essential workers right now is not how workers are clamoring to be considered essential. It is the story not being told.

whatshisface 6y ago
>This is because they, like most people, are smart and are able to understand the risk and make decisions for themselves and their families. Come on, nobody has done these calculations. Not even the experts. I bet less than 1% of the population could give you even a reasoned estimate of the risks to themselves or their families.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  I don’t think the OP meant a numeric calculation. it might be more a balancing of pros and cons. An example might be: PRos- I am young, healthy, and my work involves no human contact. If I don’t work I will lose my house Cons - I know there is a non-zero risk and I need to find a new caregiver for my elderly parents.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    That's not a balancing, that's an enumeration. You can't balance unless you have some idea of how big the sides are. I agree that there are a lot of people who enumerate and then think they have balanced, though.
    - sethammons 6y ago
      But you can def estimate how big the two sides are. 100%: I will lose my home if I don't pay for it x%: I or my family may get seriously ill or die. We don't know x exactly, but we do know some bounds. We know it is better than a coin flip. I've heard estimates of worst case being around 20% if hospitals get overwhelmed. However, we know that this affects young, healthy people far less than others. But let's say it is 20%. When you are poor, your risk tolerances change. I know people who would willingly take a 1 in 5 chance for death to get back to work. And likely, their chances are more like 1 in 1000. I know vastly more people who would take that chance.
      - whatshisface 6y ago
        1 in 5 chance of death for working one or two months earlier? I have a really hard time believing that, it would imply that for five or ten month's minimum wage, a rich person could find willing quarries for human game hunting or something like that. Sounds like a sci-fi plot in the making (and potentially an underestimation of the poor's value on their own lives.)
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      Enumeration of this kind will always be comparing apples and oranges. That said, it is fairly easy to get a ballpark for risk. If nobody in your city or county has contracted the virus, your short term risk is very low. If you don't contact anyone in your daily activities and practice basic hygiene, your risk is very low.
arkades 6y ago
> Anecdote: I work a lot with low income people and the vast majority want to be considered essential with the ability to earn. This is because they, like most people, are smart and are able to understand the risk and make decisions for themselves and their families. Absolute bullshit. We don't know the true prevalence. We don't know the true incidence rate. Without that, we don't know the true mortality. Epidemiologists and infectious disease docs can't give you a reasonable "understand(ing of) the risk ... for themselves and their families" right now, only the general bounds of best- and worst-case scenarios. Anyone else claiming to have that knowledge or understanding is deluding themselves and/or others. To point to people desperate to not end up homeless/jobless and say they're making a rational decision with understanding of risks involved is absolutely ludicrous.
- DuskStar 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure the worst-case scenario for a healthy person under 30 is around 0.1% IFR. Other estimates are better than that.
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    I would wager that under 30 it's probably a good bit lower than 0.1% IFR. This is the problem with trying to come up with an overall IFR for the disease. It makes a certain sense at a macro level, but for assessing your own exposure it doesn't mean a lot. People under 30 have a really low risk, people over 70 should probably weld their doors shut.
    - DuskStar 6y ago
      Oh, certainly! I meant that the worst case under-30 IFR - the one corresponding with something like 5% overall IFR - is around 0.1%. Something like 0.01% is easily within the bounds of possibility from what I understand. (For reference, the death rate for SCUBA divers is ~16/100,000/year - or 0.016%/year. Yes, SCUBA is risky, but it certainly puts things in perspective)
      - 6y ago
Pfhreak 6y ago
With the "option" to work is a spectacularly naive way to phrase it. Their "options" are to work (with potentially tremendous risk to themselves) or quit without unemployment - losing their health insurance and income simultaneously. That's hardly an option.
ardy42 6y ago
> While pushing for safety is a good thing, ultimately essential workers are the same as non-essential workers, except with an option to work. This is except for anyone being forced to work (there are certainly a few categories here, like the military). But getting that "option" may not lead to much of a real choice, since gaining it may mean losing better options. IIRC, nonessential workers who've become unemployed due to shutdowns qualify for unemployment, but workers whose employers have opened do not. Giving them the "option" to work just presents them with a choice between going back to a potentially unsafe workplace and having no income, while not provides it means they can stay safe with some income.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

whatshisface 6y ago

>This is because they, like most people, are smart and are able to understand the risk and make decisions for themselves and their families. Come on, nobody has done these calculations. Not even the experts. I bet less than 1% of the population could give you even a reasoned estimate of the risks to themselves or their families.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
I don’t think the OP meant a numeric calculation. it might be more a balancing of pros and cons. An example might be: PRos- I am young, healthy, and my work involves no human contact. If I don’t work I will lose my house Cons - I know there is a non-zero risk and I need to find a new caregiver for my elderly parents.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  That's not a balancing, that's an enumeration. You can't balance unless you have some idea of how big the sides are. I agree that there are a lot of people who enumerate and then think they have balanced, though.
  - sethammons 6y ago
    But you can def estimate how big the two sides are. 100%: I will lose my home if I don't pay for it x%: I or my family may get seriously ill or die. We don't know x exactly, but we do know some bounds. We know it is better than a coin flip. I've heard estimates of worst case being around 20% if hospitals get overwhelmed. However, we know that this affects young, healthy people far less than others. But let's say it is 20%. When you are poor, your risk tolerances change. I know people who would willingly take a 1 in 5 chance for death to get back to work. And likely, their chances are more like 1 in 1000. I know vastly more people who would take that chance.
    - whatshisface 6y ago
      1 in 5 chance of death for working one or two months earlier? I have a really hard time believing that, it would imply that for five or ten month's minimum wage, a rich person could find willing quarries for human game hunting or something like that. Sounds like a sci-fi plot in the making (and potentially an underestimation of the poor's value on their own lives.)
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    Enumeration of this kind will always be comparing apples and oranges. That said, it is fairly easy to get a ballpark for risk. If nobody in your city or county has contracted the virus, your short term risk is very low. If you don't contact anyone in your daily activities and practice basic hygiene, your risk is very low.

arkades 6y ago

> Anecdote: I work a lot with low income people and the vast majority want to be considered essential with the ability to earn. This is because they, like most people, are smart and are able to understand the risk and make decisions for themselves and their families. Absolute bullshit. We don't know the true prevalence. We don't know the true incidence rate. Without that, we don't know the true mortality. Epidemiologists and infectious disease docs can't give you a reasonable "understand(ing of) the risk ... for themselves and their families" right now, only the general bounds of best- and worst-case scenarios. Anyone else claiming to have that knowledge or understanding is deluding themselves and/or others. To point to people desperate to not end up homeless/jobless and say they're making a rational decision with understanding of risks involved is absolutely ludicrous.

DuskStar 6y ago
I'm pretty sure the worst-case scenario for a healthy person under 30 is around 0.1% IFR. Other estimates are better than that.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  I would wager that under 30 it's probably a good bit lower than 0.1% IFR. This is the problem with trying to come up with an overall IFR for the disease. It makes a certain sense at a macro level, but for assessing your own exposure it doesn't mean a lot. People under 30 have a really low risk, people over 70 should probably weld their doors shut.
  - DuskStar 6y ago
    Oh, certainly! I meant that the worst case under-30 IFR - the one corresponding with something like 5% overall IFR - is around 0.1%. Something like 0.01% is easily within the bounds of possibility from what I understand. (For reference, the death rate for SCUBA divers is ~16/100,000/year - or 0.016%/year. Yes, SCUBA is risky, but it certainly puts things in perspective)
    - 6y ago

Pfhreak 6y ago

With the "option" to work is a spectacularly naive way to phrase it. Their "options" are to work (with potentially tremendous risk to themselves) or quit without unemployment - losing their health insurance and income simultaneously. That's hardly an option.

ardy42 6y ago

> While pushing for safety is a good thing, ultimately essential workers are the same as non-essential workers, except with an option to work. This is except for anyone being forced to work (there are certainly a few categories here, like the military). But getting that "option" may not lead to much of a real choice, since gaining it may mean losing better options. IIRC, nonessential workers who've become unemployed due to shutdowns qualify for unemployment, but workers whose employers have opened do not. Giving them the "option" to work just presents them with a choice between going back to a potentially unsafe workplace and having no income, while not provides it means they can stay safe with some income.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]