3 ms·
Just playing devils advocate, but if only those at risk were supposed to quarantine, would those at risk but not financially secure lie to keep working, and wou
by willvarfar 6y ago
Just playing devils advocate, but if only those at risk were supposed to quarantine, would those at risk but not financially secure lie to keep working, and would those at risk lose their jobs? Basically, "you're at risk, so go home and be unemployed and sit there waiting for the world to move on without you and strip you of everything"? I'm not saying there's a right or wrong answer, I'm just wondering about how selective quarantining would have worked in practice.
- StillBored 6y agoWell, hopefully some solid unemployment funding would have been sufficient (or at least a good start). Not that I consider the current unemployment checks to be particularly helpful given how at least in austin they are 1/2 of the average wage. You would be talking a few percent of people staying home collecting unemployment (say 2-4%) which is about 1/3 of the current national unemployment. Yes, there probably would be a decline in restaurant/etc business because people were "social distancing" but nothing like stopping everything that wasn't a grocery store. But even then it would not be as bad. Overwhelmingly the older generation is the one at risk, and is already retired and staying home. It was the young 20 somethings working "service industry" that were all sent home. The ones with the lowest health risk, and the largest financial need. AKA, it would be a big recession, but nothing like what we are about to experience.