re: Shutting the world down hurts those who can least afford for it to be shut down

As a small business owner I'd be happy with #1. I want to keep my people paid and safe. If I can't do work, I can't create receivables and at some point I can't pay my people.

Thank you LStU

This is essentially what I was saying.

quote:

---

The federal food deliveries to homes seems extreme.

We have/had a strong economy and there is likely a 6mo backlog of work for professional services like attorneys, accountants, engineers, architects... Many of these services will continue, with most working remotely.

I agree with your last statement that derogatory credit marks will now be placed for non-payment during this time. Likely no fees or interest for non-payment of mortgages, student loans, etc. as well.

Some industries will have grants, most will have tax credits, and many could be forced to take no-interest loan or close. It will be a difficult time and keeping this to a shorter duration will be key.

---

Personally, I don’t know anybody who’s not thinking about it. The problem is that many of the people in this category are the ones who stand to suffer the most either way. The working poor and those of similar SES tend to be less healthy, more stressed, and have fewer time or resources to devote to their own healthcare even without a novel pandemic. They also have comparatively higher rates of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc., and are more likely to smoke. Couple that with the fact that most don’t have the means to stay home anytime they’re sick and you have a recipe for disaster. If they acquire the virus and are subject to some type of quarantine they risk forfeiting critical income or losing their jobs. If they get infected and don’t seek treatment or stay home, they risk making themselves sicker and passing the virus on to countless others.

I’m not saying that the current situation isn’t potentially catastrophic for them. It is, and I’m as cognizant of the depth and magnitude of that problem as somebody who hasn’t been directly affected yet can be. On the other hand, the unfortunate reality is that these folks are always living on the brink of disaster, and even with low case fatality rates overall they would be exceptionally vulnerable to some kind of dire consequences in an uncontrolled outbreak. It’s not like we’d really be doing them too much of a favor if all we ended up doing was deferring the cost, plus interest, to a slightly later date, when as a group they’d still pay the greatest price and the rest of us would still be affected by crippled infrastructure and an overloaded healthcare system.

I think what we’ve done in this situation is choose the devil we know. It’s human nature, but it doesn’t mean we might not decide in retrospect that it was the wrong choice. At least with the national emergency declaration, maybe we can hope (emphasis on hope) that it will offer enough of a safety net to hourly workers and their employers to get everybody through the worst of the threat.

Yeah that’s the sad part

quote:

---

Yes. You're using a news article about the death of 146 people in an Italian city to justify shutting down the world's largest economy

---

Now who is misrepresenting.....


I did nothing of the sort.

It was posted to an individual who said it was “just the sniffles”

I honestly think the closures are overdone.

But don’t downplay the virus to make it easier to rationalize it.

Because you are hung up on “it’s just one city,” how about this broad bullet: coronavirus increased the overall daily death rate in 2 developed European countries by more than 20% against the average.


“Sniffles”

quote:

---

quote:
Wear a mask, wash your hands, use hand sanitizer, be careful, and keep living.


So what Italy tried to do initially?



Sounds like a great plan

---

I don't think Italians actually did the first 4 he listed. They just went with their version of #5.