3 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoBut 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.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoI think they have abstract resources, which are imprecisely but meaningfully summarized into their budget. Monetary policy can solve a lot of problems, but it can't substitute for producing goods and services. Masks are going to be a part of our lives for a while, most likely for the next year or two. If you expect a full reopening to mean no masks, you should recalibrate your expectations.