3 ms·

No, my question is more along the lines of this: suppose there's a 1% chance of getting COVID-19 by going back to work (either at work or on transit, or whateve

No, my question is more along the lines of this: suppose there's a 1% chance of getting COVID-19 by going back to work (either at work or on transit, or whatever), and a 1% chance of dying from it [0]. The state, then, is subjecting these workers to a 10 in 100,000 chance of dying simply in order to support their families. 10 in 100,000 risk of death ranks with the 20th most deadly occupation in the US: https://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america-2018-7#20-operating-engineers-and-other-construction-equipment-operators-15 https://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-dangerous-jobs-in-a... This is not about "minimum workplace standards," this is about people who are now subjected to significantly more danger simply by going to work. Based on the list in the article, it would make anyone's job at least 10-200% more dangerous. So, again, how do you justify that? Keep in mind, these are not workers who signed up for the 21st most deadly occupation in the US. Please try to actually answer the question rather than weasel out of it. --- [0]: 1% cumulative chance of getting the disease in the next year. Also, 1% fatality rate is an approximation. Let's not quibble about the actual number. We've already lost far more than 10 in 100,000 Americans to this disease. The fact is, COVID-19 makes going to work vastly more dangerous than it was 5 months ago.

AmericanChopper 6y ago
Why would I want to make any attempt to justify the hypothetical scenarios that you invent? The scenario of people being denied unemployment for refusing to return to work is a hypothetical scenario that you invented. You have presented no evidence that this has occurred. The idea that CA EDD is not providing safe working environments is another hypothetical scenario that you invented and have provided no evidence for. Your hypothetical statistics are also frankly ridiculous. So far ~0.000813% of California's population have died of COVID-19, which is about the same amount of Californians who died in traffic fatalities in 2018. Does California need to justify not providing unemployment benefits to people who think travelling to work is too dangerous? Most people would think that's ridiculous. Your entire premise is that the standards used by the CA EDD are not sufficient, and that you speculate they're going to increase COVID fatalities by more than an order of magnitude. Yet you can not provide a single reason to justify any of this speculation.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  My premise is that the state has no right to force people to go back to jobs that are now 3x as dangerous as they were 5 months ago. Again, you seem to be saying the state has this right, and I would like you to justify that belief. Or, would you rather waste more words trying to weasel away from the question?
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    Well there you go making up statistics again. The state of California did not create COVID-19, and it’s not responsible for ensuring that you live your life free from the risk of personal harm. Aside from being an entirely impossible task, it has never been the role of government to reduce your risk of harm to zero. The role of government in this context is generally agreed to be setting minimum standards. The state of California decided those standards could not be met when the outbreak began, and required large numbers of people to remain at home. Those people were entitled to unemployment benefits. It has now decided that in some circumstances it is safe to return to work. If it is safe for you to return to work, according to the standards set by the CA EDD, and you have a place of work to return to, your choice is to return to a safe place of work, or sacrifice your entitlement to unemployment benefits. If you do not have a safe place of work to return to, you don’t have to make any decision at all. If you believe that people are being forced to return to unsafe working environments, then state your case. Because so far the only case you’ve put forward to support that theory is statistics that you literally just made up.
natch 6y ago
This is amazing thinking. I follow what you're saying but you seem to be pretending that there is no risk in simply living when not going to work. There is plenty of risk, whether people go to work or not. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you are saying there is more risk by working. Sure. There are risks from commuting as well. There is differential risk, additive, which means your risk is greater by working than by not working, absolutely. But, this is real life. This is the real world we live in. We need to deal with it at some point. There is even risks from being born, but we still encourage it.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  No, I am not pretending there is no risk in living. There is obviously a baseline level of risk in anything. With COVID-19 out of control, I am saying that the state has no right to force workers back to jobs that are now 3x as dangerous as they were 5 months ago. As for risk of being born, we should not encourage that, because the unborn cannot consent to being born, but thank you for playing.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    But COVID-19 is very much under control in the area. I'm just not sure what you mean when you talk about the state having a right. COVID-19 isn't expected to go away entirely for a long time, and California doesn't have enough money to give everyone paid leave for the next year. Workers can't be paid money that doesn't exist, even if they have a right to be paid.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      > But COVID-19 is very much under control in the area. Oh, so we've met criteria for a full reopening? I can stop wearing my mask? That's news to me. As for the state "having money," do you think they have literal vaults of cash that's in finite supply, or something? The federal government should be subsidizing the health of employees in this case, and they can do it by incrementing numbers in a computer. It's that simple.

AmericanChopper 6y ago

Why would I want to make any attempt to justify the hypothetical scenarios that you invent? The scenario of people being denied unemployment for refusing to return to work is a hypothetical scenario that you invented. You have presented no evidence that this has occurred. The idea that CA EDD is not providing safe working environments is another hypothetical scenario that you invented and have provided no evidence for. Your hypothetical statistics are also frankly ridiculous. So far ~0.000813% of California's population have died of COVID-19, which is about the same amount of Californians who died in traffic fatalities in 2018. Does California need to justify not providing unemployment benefits to people who think travelling to work is too dangerous? Most people would think that's ridiculous. Your entire premise is that the standards used by the CA EDD are not sufficient, and that you speculate they're going to increase COVID fatalities by more than an order of magnitude. Yet you can not provide a single reason to justify any of this speculation.

pmiller2 6y ago
My premise is that the state has no right to force people to go back to jobs that are now 3x as dangerous as they were 5 months ago. Again, you seem to be saying the state has this right, and I would like you to justify that belief. Or, would you rather waste more words trying to weasel away from the question?
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  Well there you go making up statistics again. The state of California did not create COVID-19, and it’s not responsible for ensuring that you live your life free from the risk of personal harm. Aside from being an entirely impossible task, it has never been the role of government to reduce your risk of harm to zero. The role of government in this context is generally agreed to be setting minimum standards. The state of California decided those standards could not be met when the outbreak began, and required large numbers of people to remain at home. Those people were entitled to unemployment benefits. It has now decided that in some circumstances it is safe to return to work. If it is safe for you to return to work, according to the standards set by the CA EDD, and you have a place of work to return to, your choice is to return to a safe place of work, or sacrifice your entitlement to unemployment benefits. If you do not have a safe place of work to return to, you don’t have to make any decision at all. If you believe that people are being forced to return to unsafe working environments, then state your case. Because so far the only case you’ve put forward to support that theory is statistics that you literally just made up.

natch 6y ago

This is amazing thinking. I follow what you're saying but you seem to be pretending that there is no risk in simply living when not going to work. There is plenty of risk, whether people go to work or not. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you are saying there is more risk by working. Sure. There are risks from commuting as well. There is differential risk, additive, which means your risk is greater by working than by not working, absolutely. But, this is real life. This is the real world we live in. We need to deal with it at some point. There is even risks from being born, but we still encourage it.

pmiller2 6y ago
No, I am not pretending there is no risk in living. There is obviously a baseline level of risk in anything. With COVID-19 out of control, I am saying that the state has no right to force workers back to jobs that are now 3x as dangerous as they were 5 months ago. As for risk of being born, we should not encourage that, because the unborn cannot consent to being born, but thank you for playing.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  But COVID-19 is very much under control in the area. I'm just not sure what you mean when you talk about the state having a right. COVID-19 isn't expected to go away entirely for a long time, and California doesn't have enough money to give everyone paid leave for the next year. Workers can't be paid money that doesn't exist, even if they have a right to be paid.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    > But COVID-19 is very much under control in the area. Oh, so we've met criteria for a full reopening? I can stop wearing my mask? That's news to me. As for the state "having money," do you think they have literal vaults of cash that's in finite supply, or something? The federal government should be subsidizing the health of employees in this case, and they can do it by incrementing numbers in a computer. It's that simple.