[burger]

The total shut down that many/most here advocate will cost countless jobs and all that entails.  And that will occur in both affluent and less-affluent areas.  No one ever wants to talk about these costs/impacts/damages on lives.  Maybe that's because most/all here on this site will financially weather this storm.  But that is decidedly not the case for hundreds of thousands of folks in this state alone.

Another poster on other site said Britain has largely opted for modified shut down - not total shut down - for this reason (i.e., costs of total shutdown are too great).  Of course, private enterprise may make their own decisions and result in an effective total shutdown anyway.  That's very close to what we're seeing here.

I think we have collectively understimated the vast losses to our society that a total shutdown means.  We may not be able to come back from it, not fully. And there will be an extraordinarly number of collateral deaths.  Sure, the guy who lost his job because his company suspended operations and therefore he committed suicide -- that's a death that will happen solely because of an overreaction to the corona virus.  And that's where we're headed, folks.  Tens of millions of people losing their jobs.

The job losses are inevitable.  They will either happen by government order or when people start staying at home voluntarily.  But you can keep people financially solvent by sending everyone checks so they can cover food and medicine, etc.  That, plus either suspend all rents and mortgage payments or just suspend evictions and foreclosures.

If the Fed can spend $1.5 trillion to keep financial markets going, they can spend that to keep people from running out of money for food.

Meanwhile, the (very) modest emergency spending package that the House passed last week is now on hold in the senate pending a meeting of Republicans on Tuesday.  God forbid we expand government slightly.

[burger]

The total shut down that many/most here advocate will cost countless jobs and all that entails.  And that will occur in both affluent and less-affluent areas.  No one ever wants to talk about these costs/impacts/damages on lives.  Maybe that's because most/all here on this site will financially weather this storm.  But that is decidedly not the case for hundreds of thousands of folks in this state alone.

Another poster on other site said Britain has largely opted for modified shut down - not total shut down - for this reason (i.e., costs of total shutdown are too great).  Of course, private enterprise may make their own decisions and result in an effective total shutdown anyway.  That's very close to what we're seeing here.

I think we have collectively understimated the vast losses to our society that a total shutdown means.  We may not be able to come back from it, not fully. And there will be an extraordinarly number of collateral deaths.  Sure, the guy who lost his job because his company suspended operations and therefore he committed suicide -- that's a death that will happen solely because of an overreaction to the corona virus.  And that's where we're headed, folks.  Tens of millions of people losing their jobs.

The job losses are inevitable.  They will either happen by government order or when people start staying at home voluntarily.  But you can keep people financially solvent by sending everyone checks so they can cover food and medicine, etc.  That, plus either suspend all rents and mortgage payments or just suspend evictions and foreclosures.

If the Fed can spend $1.5 trillion to keep financial markets going, they can spend that to keep people from running out of money for food.

Meanwhile, the (very) modest emergency spending package that the House passed last week is now on hold in the senate pending a meeting of Republicans on Tuesday.  God forbid we expand government slightly.