4 ms·

If they can't afford to self-isolate on their own, they also can't afford to self-isolate under government orders. Locking everyone else down doesn't help those

If they can't afford to self-isolate on their own, they also can't afford to self-isolate under government orders. Locking everyone else down doesn't help those who are at risk afford isolation, it actually makes it much more difficult because the government has less money to work with to support those who are at risk.

nrmitchi 6y ago
What you (Edit: not _you_ in particular, but what a country does by making self-isolation opt-in) are doing here is shifting the blame of who is responsible. If the government says that you must stay home for public health, then it is reasonable to expect that the government assists in covering costs associated with that. As soon as the government says "You can go to work if you feel it best, the choice is up to you" a non-trivial amount of people are going to be forced to go back to work, whether they feel like they should or not. Because "you're allowed to, staying home was your choice", these people will not be compensated for making the public-safety choice. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to be in a situation where the person who is making my lunch (or stocking grocery shelves, etc) should have stayed home, knows they should have stayed home, but couldn't afford to stay home because "it's not mandatory".
- GhostVII 6y ago
  Then the government should compensate those who are staying at home because they are at risk. If the choice is between locking everyone down and compensating everyone, and just compensating those who are at risk the second option is obviously cheaper. And regardless, I think the vast majority of those who are at risk were not working before the pandemic, so do not really need to be compensated. More than 60% of people who have died so far in Ontario are in long term care facilities. Over 85% of people who have died in Ontario are in their 70's or older (so likely retired). So the number of at-risk people we are talking about here is actually pretty small.
  - jtbayly 6y ago
    In which case, locking just them down would accomplish nothing, since they are already “locked down.”
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    Then the government should compensate those who are staying at home because they are at risk. Maybe, but it's wishful thinking, never going to happen. Think of the outcry against the $600 unemployment supplement where some people received more than they were making previously, not to mention arguments that it incentivized staying unemployed.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  Do you think governments have some kind of magical money well? Every cent they spend has to be paid by someone and if no one is earning how are they going to pay taxes? Besides obviously if everyone is in lockdown, how are you going to buy food in a closed store with empty shelves? Do you think the government can just write a law and bread appears? People actually have to do a lot of work to make it.
sdesol 6y ago
> If they can't afford to self-isolate on their own, they also can't afford to self-isolate under government orders. Well this is true now, now that CERB is over. But before, those that were eligible, received 2000 a month from the government. > government has less money to work with to support those who are at risk There are now talks about a serious wealth tax on the rich to help fund future covid efforts that will allow those that can't afford to self isolate, to be able to.

nrmitchi 6y ago

What you (Edit: not _you_ in particular, but what a country does by making self-isolation opt-in) are doing here is shifting the blame of who is responsible. If the government says that you must stay home for public health, then it is reasonable to expect that the government assists in covering costs associated with that. As soon as the government says "You can go to work if you feel it best, the choice is up to you" a non-trivial amount of people are going to be forced to go back to work, whether they feel like they should or not. Because "you're allowed to, staying home was your choice", these people will not be compensated for making the public-safety choice. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to be in a situation where the person who is making my lunch (or stocking grocery shelves, etc) should have stayed home, knows they should have stayed home, but couldn't afford to stay home because "it's not mandatory".

GhostVII 6y ago
Then the government should compensate those who are staying at home because they are at risk. If the choice is between locking everyone down and compensating everyone, and just compensating those who are at risk the second option is obviously cheaper. And regardless, I think the vast majority of those who are at risk were not working before the pandemic, so do not really need to be compensated. More than 60% of people who have died so far in Ontario are in long term care facilities. Over 85% of people who have died in Ontario are in their 70's or older (so likely retired). So the number of at-risk people we are talking about here is actually pretty small.
- jtbayly 6y ago
  In which case, locking just them down would accomplish nothing, since they are already “locked down.”
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Then the government should compensate those who are staying at home because they are at risk. Maybe, but it's wishful thinking, never going to happen. Think of the outcry against the $600 unemployment supplement where some people received more than they were making previously, not to mention arguments that it incentivized staying unemployed.
tinus_hn 6y ago
Do you think governments have some kind of magical money well? Every cent they spend has to be paid by someone and if no one is earning how are they going to pay taxes? Besides obviously if everyone is in lockdown, how are you going to buy food in a closed store with empty shelves? Do you think the government can just write a law and bread appears? People actually have to do a lot of work to make it.

sdesol 6y ago

> If they can't afford to self-isolate on their own, they also can't afford to self-isolate under government orders. Well this is true now, now that CERB is over. But before, those that were eligible, received 2000 a month from the government. > government has less money to work with to support those who are at risk There are now talks about a serious wealth tax on the rich to help fund future covid efforts that will allow those that can't afford to self isolate, to be able to.