[2006alum]

Not sure I'd jump to saying there are X number of "lives ruined" for every COVID-19 death. Losing a job sucks. Does not mean their lives are ruined. Deaths on the other hand are irreversible. I think you can use better language here.

JAF, didn't you hear? "There are more important things than living."
[tweet]https://twitter.com/JoshuaPotash/status/1252652590740967425?s=20[/tweet]

---

OK, let's start with my firm.  We have a committee to return to work, I serve on it, along with about 20 of my peers from various staffing functions.  Our head of security heads up the committee, as he should.  We are planning for anything from a 10% to 40% dip this quarter (annualized), with a "V"-shaped rebound to revenue normalcy in Q3, starting July 1.  We're reaching out to clients regularly in anticipation of the explosive economic rebound that everyone on this board swears will happen.  I run sales and marketing, so it better happen.  If we have the "Nike swoosh" recovery or the "W" shaped recovery, then there will be more layoffs, throughout America.  I saw a 60 million unemployed prediction.  It isn't far-fetched or worst-case in my opinion.

As for what I propose, I proposed it two weeks ago.  Summarized in a sentence, it isn't any different than anyone advocates on this board: I advocate using every measure of caution without going overboard.  But we all have different definitions of overboard.  We need to go back to work, or there won't be an America to return to. Frankly, it's probably already too late.

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=19370

Tomorrow's 4.5 million will mean 26.534 million unemployed in just six weeks.  That takes America to over 16% unemployed.  That's a little over 500 jobs lost, about 1,500 lives ruined for every COVID-19 death in America to date.

FWIW (maybe not much), I'm with you in thinking this is not going to be a V-shaped recovery and that everyone - the media, politicians, and some on this board - are discounting the amount of economic suffering that has already happened and will be exacerbated soon. To me, the best solution would be:

-monthly stimulus checks in the $1,200-2,000 range (adjusted within that range for cost of living of tax filing address for the most recent of 2018 or 2019 (which could be eased within 6 months as things start to rebound)
-massive stimulus funding to expand medicaid to take on any recently unemployed;
-12-18-month grants to states and localities to train and hire the unemployed as contact tracers, fever checkers at public transportation and high-density entry points; and
-funding to massive scaling up in testing, as well as free forehead thermometers for every person and business in the country.

Furthermore (and I realize this would/could never happen), I'd like any aid to be conditioned on renters reporting what portion, if any, of their monthly rent they're paying, landlords reporting what percentage of their monthly rents they're taking in compared to "business as usual," and all recipients reporting their employment status as compared to this time last year. 

It is my strong belief that the reason why Wall Street is being prioritized over Main Street is that it is very easy to ascertain what volume of corporate debt will default and by what date, and to respond accordingly. Our aggregated data for renters, landlords, and the un- and under-employed is based on imperfect surveys that are often weeks behind real time. When you have limited resources and well-resourced constituencies, you respond to the need you can quantify (and hear on the other end of the phone) over the one you can't quantify easily and will never hear from directly. This is where a 50-state unemployment system and a 50-state landlord/tenant scheme makes it very hard to quantify the need and scale of potential federal intervention.

For the same reason, I'd like to see every national newspaper/news site run a daily photo spread of lines for food banks, unemployment queues, etc. I truly think both our leaders and our media elites are largely overlooking the pain felt on the ground. 

All of that being said, however, I am still of the belief that simply saying we need to "re-open" the economy will do very little until we have the pieces in place to make that sustainable. And I do think this virus is very, very bad. I've said this once but I'll say it again, using 8.4 million as the denominator for the population of NYC is a fiction, because probably close to 20-30% of full-time NYC residents left the city 3-4 weeks ago. (My informal survey among friends and colleagues is running close to 50/50.) And even if they caught it before they left the city, they would be dying outside NYC, and therefore not being counted in NYC's numbers. My guess is that the true denominator is closer to 6 million, which would suggest NYC's IFR is even worse than some are estimating. Privacy be damned, we could just ask Google and Apple for the data, and I'm sure they could provide the aggregated, anonymized numbers of GPS pings in NYC vs. this time last year. I'd be shocked if it's not at least 30% lower.

[2006alum]

Not sure I'd jump to saying there are X number of "lives ruined" for every COVID-19 death. Losing a job sucks. Does not mean their lives are ruined. Deaths on the other hand are irreversible. I think you can use better language here.

JAF, didn't you hear? "There are more important things than living."
[tweet]https://twitter.com/JoshuaPotash/status/1252652590740967425?s=20[/tweet]

---

OK, let's start with my firm.  We have a committee to return to work, I serve on it, along with about 20 of my peers from various staffing functions.  Our head of security heads up the committee, as he should.  We are planning for anything from a 10% to 40% dip this quarter (annualized), with a "V"-shaped rebound to revenue normalcy in Q3, starting July 1.  We're reaching out to clients regularly in anticipation of the explosive economic rebound that everyone on this board swears will happen.  I run sales and marketing, so it better happen.  If we have the "Nike swoosh" recovery or the "W" shaped recovery, then there will be more layoffs, throughout America.  I saw a 60 million unemployed prediction.  It isn't far-fetched or worst-case in my opinion.

As for what I propose, I proposed it two weeks ago.  Summarized in a sentence, it isn't any different than anyone advocates on this board: I advocate using every measure of caution without going overboard.  But we all have different definitions of overboard.  We need to go back to work, or there won't be an America to return to. Frankly, it's probably already too late.

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=19370

Tomorrow's 4.5 million will mean 26.534 million unemployed in just six weeks.  That takes America to over 16% unemployed.  That's a little over 500 jobs lost, about 1,500 lives ruined for every COVID-19 death in America to date.

FWIW (maybe not much), I'm with you in thinking this is not going to be a V-shaped recovery and that everyone - the media, politicians, and some on this board - are discounting the amount of economic suffering that has already happened and will be exacerbated soon. To me, the best solution would be:

-monthly stimulus checks in the $1,200-2,000 range (adjusted within that range for cost of living of tax filing address for the most recent of 2018 or 2019 (which could be eased within 6 months as things start to rebound)
-massive stimulus funding to expand medicaid to take on any recently unemployed;
-12-18-month grants to states and localities to train and hire the unemployed as contact tracers, fever checkers at public transportation and high-density entry points; and
-funding to massive scaling up in testing, as well as free forehead thermometers for every person and business in the country.

Furthermore (and I realize this would/could never happen), I'd like any aid to be conditioned on renters reporting what portion, if any, of their monthly rent they're paying, landlords reporting what percentage of their monthly rents they're taking in compared to "business as usual," and all recipients reporting their employment status as compared to this time last year. 

It is my strong belief that the reason why Wall Street is being prioritized over Main Street is that it is very easy to ascertain what volume of corporate debt will default and by what date, and to respond accordingly. Our aggregated data for renters, landlords, and the un- and under-employed is based on imperfect surveys that are often weeks behind real time. When you have limited resources and well-resourced constituencies, you respond to the need you can quantify (and hear on the other end of the phone) over the one you can't quantify easily and will never hear from directly. This is where a 50-state unemployment system and a 50-state landlord/tenant scheme makes it very hard to quantify the need and scale of potential federal intervention.

For the same reason, I'd like to see every national newspaper/news site run a daily photo spread of lines for food banks, unemployment queues, etc. I truly think both our leaders and our media elites are largely overlooking the pain felt on the ground. 

All of that being said, however, I am still of the belief that simply saying we need to "re-open" the economy will do very little until we have the pieces in place to make that sustainable. And I do think this virus is very, very bad. I've said this once but I'll say it again, using 8.4 million as the denominator for the population of NYC is a fiction, because probably close to 20-30% of full-time NYC residents left the city 3-4 weeks ago. (My informal survey among friends and colleagues is running close to 50/50.) And even if they caught it before they left the city, they would be dying outside NYC, and therefore not being counted in NYC's numbers. My guess is that the true denominator is closer to 6 million, which would suggest NYC's IFR is even worse than some are estimating. Privacy be damned, we could just ask Google and Apple for the data, and I'm sure they could provide the aggregated, anonymized numbers of GPS pings in NYC vs. this time last year. I'd be shocked if it's not at least 30% lower.

[82lsju]

behind a paywall at the WSJ on rehiring min wage employees from a person who owns several restaurants in Portland OR

We started making the calls last week, just as our furloughed employees began receiving weekly Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation checks of $600 under the Cares Act. When we asked our employees to come back, almost all said, “No thanks.” If they return to work, they’ll have to take a pay cut.

The starting wage for a line cook in one of our restaurants is $15 an hour. These cooks receive at least $1 an hour in tips, so at a minimum they make $16 an hour, or $640 before taxes for a 40-hour week. The overwhelming majority of our laid-off cooks qualified for Oregon unemployment compensation of 1.25% of their annual gross wages weekly, or $416 in our example. The extra $224 a week provides a strong incentive to return to work.
 
But as of this week, that same employee receives $1,016 a week, or $376 more than he made as a full time employee. Why on earth would he want to come back to work?

...
We plan to open our dining rooms on Aug. 1, once the government stops paying people $15 an hour, on top of standard unemployment compensation, to stay home.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/our-restaur...1587504885

[82lsju]

behind a paywall at the WSJ on rehiring min wage employees from a person who owns several restaurants in Portland OR

We started making the calls last week, just as our furloughed employees began receiving weekly Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation checks of $600 under the Cares Act. When we asked our employees to come back, almost all said, “No thanks.” If they return to work, they’ll have to take a pay cut.

The starting wage for a line cook in one of our restaurants is $15 an hour. These cooks receive at least $1 an hour in tips, so at a minimum they make $16 an hour, or $640 before taxes for a 40-hour week. The overwhelming majority of our laid-off cooks qualified for Oregon unemployment compensation of 1.25% of their annual gross wages weekly, or $416 in our example. The extra $224 a week provides a strong incentive to return to work.
 
But as of this week, that same employee receives $1,016 a week, or $376 more than he made as a full time employee. Why on earth would he want to come back to work?

...
We plan to open our dining rooms on Aug. 1, once the government stops paying people $15 an hour, on top of standard unemployment compensation, to stay home.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/our-restaur...1587504885

[2006alum]

Thanks for sharing - was going to post this CNBC story that isn't paywalled and profiles an employer in WA with a similar problem.

I'm torn about this because on the one hand, it's totally insane to make unemployment benefits better than salaried employment, and is totally counterproductive -- in a normal economy and public health backdrop. On the other hand, most of the businesses for whom this applies (restaurants, spas, nail salons) are the ones that are hardest to re-open in a socially distanced fashion, so maybe slowing down reopening of those businesses, and providing those workers with temporary relief, isn't the worst idea. But we taxpayers are sure going to pay for that privilege.

That said, I do think there's going to be a lot of employee resentment when they have to go back to work for less than they were receiving on unemployment.

[2006alum]

Thanks for sharing - was going to post this CNBC story that isn't paywalled and profiles an employer in WA with a similar problem.

I'm torn about this because on the one hand, it's totally insane to make unemployment benefits better than salaried employment, and is totally counterproductive -- in a normal economy and public health backdrop. On the other hand, most of the businesses for whom this applies (restaurants, spas, nail salons) are the ones that are hardest to re-open in a socially distanced fashion, so maybe slowing down reopening of those businesses, and providing those workers with temporary relief, isn't the worst idea. But we taxpayers are sure going to pay for that privilege.

That said, I do think there's going to be a lot of employee resentment when they have to go back to work for less than they were receiving on unemployment.

[JustAnotherFan]

They deserve hazard pay if they are going to go back to work. It would be immoral to pay them less. Sorry.

[JustAnotherFan]

They deserve hazard pay if they are going to go back to work. It would be immoral to pay them less. Sorry.

[stupac2]

They deserve hazard pay if they are going to go back to work. It would be immoral to pay them less. Sorry.

Depends on how hazardous the job is. I would think that being a restaurant cook is relatively safe, but then again it's not a job I've ever done so that might be wrong.

[stupac2]

They deserve hazard pay if they are going to go back to work. It would be immoral to pay them less. Sorry.

Depends on how hazardous the job is. I would think that being a restaurant cook is relatively safe, but then again it's not a job I've ever done so that might be wrong.

[2006alum]

They deserve hazard pay if they are going to go back to work. It would be immoral to pay them less. Sorry.

Depends on how hazardous the job is. I would think that being a restaurant cook is relatively safe, but then again it's not a job I've ever done so that might be wrong.

The larger issue is that unemployment insurance top-ups is not the way to do hazard pay. Physicians and nurses are easily the highest risk and they have gotten nothing. Grocery store clerks are probably next. Seems like those people deserve hazard pay the most.

[2006alum]

They deserve hazard pay if they are going to go back to work. It would be immoral to pay them less. Sorry.

Depends on how hazardous the job is. I would think that being a restaurant cook is relatively safe, but then again it's not a job I've ever done so that might be wrong.

The larger issue is that unemployment insurance top-ups is not the way to do hazard pay. Physicians and nurses are easily the highest risk and they have gotten nothing. Grocery store clerks are probably next. Seems like those people deserve hazard pay the most.

[BostonCard]

I wouldn't say physicians (or at least critical care physicians) have gotten nothing. I've seen locum offers to work in New York, and I think it's safe to say that they offer a fair bit of hazard pay compared to your typical critical care offer.

Probably more an issue of supply/demand than true hazard pay, though, but the per shift numbers I've seen are comfortably 50 - 75% more than I used to make moonlighting at Kaiser.

BC

[BostonCard]

I wouldn't say physicians (or at least critical care physicians) have gotten nothing. I've seen locum offers to work in New York, and I think it's safe to say that they offer a fair bit of hazard pay compared to your typical critical care offer.

Probably more an issue of supply/demand than true hazard pay, though, but the per shift numbers I've seen are comfortably 50 - 75% more than I used to make moonlighting at Kaiser.

BC

[magnus]

I wouldn't say physicians (or at least critical care physicians) have gotten nothing. I've seen locum offers to work in New York, and I think it's safe to say that they offer a fair bit of hazard pay compared to your typical critical care offer.

Probably more an issue of supply/demand than true hazard pay, though, but the per shift numbers I've seen are comfortably 50 - 75% more than I used to make moonlighting at Kaiser.

Maybe for those in outbreak areas.  In non outbreak areas where hospitals can't do anything but wait for Covid patients, some (many?) hospitals have made their physicians take temporary paycuts (even ER docs) and furloughed much of their staff.

[magnus]

I wouldn't say physicians (or at least critical care physicians) have gotten nothing. I've seen locum offers to work in New York, and I think it's safe to say that they offer a fair bit of hazard pay compared to your typical critical care offer.

Probably more an issue of supply/demand than true hazard pay, though, but the per shift numbers I've seen are comfortably 50 - 75% more than I used to make moonlighting at Kaiser.

Maybe for those in outbreak areas.  In non outbreak areas where hospitals can't do anything but wait for Covid patients, some (many?) hospitals have made their physicians take temporary paycuts (even ER docs) and furloughed much of their staff.

[Mick]

Tomorrow's 4.5 million will mean 26.534 million unemployed in just six weeks.  That takes America to over 16% unemployed.  That's a little over 500 jobs lost, about 1,500 lives ruined for every COVID-19 death in America to date.

Not sure I'd jump to saying there are X number of "lives ruined" for every COVID-19 death. Losing a job sucks. Does not mean their lives are ruined. Deaths on the other hand are irreversible. I think you can use better language here.

Excuse me.  26.534 million people who are now ushered into a vibrant, exciting new job market thanks to our COVID-19 policies, each with the freedom to grow and thrive in today's new economy.  Better?

I think I'll stick with "lives ruined."  And as a comorbidity nightmare, I'd rather die than live and know that I indirectly caused the next generation to suffer.

[Mick]

Tomorrow's 4.5 million will mean 26.534 million unemployed in just six weeks.  That takes America to over 16% unemployed.  That's a little over 500 jobs lost, about 1,500 lives ruined for every COVID-19 death in America to date.

Not sure I'd jump to saying there are X number of "lives ruined" for every COVID-19 death. Losing a job sucks. Does not mean their lives are ruined. Deaths on the other hand are irreversible. I think you can use better language here.

Excuse me.  26.534 million people who are now ushered into a vibrant, exciting new job market thanks to our COVID-19 policies, each with the freedom to grow and thrive in today's new economy.  Better?

I think I'll stick with "lives ruined."  And as a comorbidity nightmare, I'd rather die than live and know that I indirectly caused the next generation to suffer.

[ChicagoCard]

These responses remind me of the character in Bergman's classic The Seventh Seal, set during the Black Death, hollering at people: Doomed, you're all doomed.

[ChicagoCard]

These responses remind me of the character in Bergman's classic The Seventh Seal, set during the Black Death, hollering at people: Doomed, you're all doomed.

[stupac2]

And as a comorbidity nightmare, I'd rather die than live and know that I indirectly caused the next generation to suffer.

The entire point of the article posted in the OP is that this is a false choice. The various restrictions could be lifted immediately and we'd still be in basically the same place, except now there's a chance at a larger wave from the small percentage of the country (maybe 20% based on surveys) who would resume normal activities.

Is there some reason you don't believe this? You've repeatedly put forth this idea that it's lives vs the economy, when all available evidence says that's a false framing.

[stupac2]

And as a comorbidity nightmare, I'd rather die than live and know that I indirectly caused the next generation to suffer.

The entire point of the article posted in the OP is that this is a false choice. The various restrictions could be lifted immediately and we'd still be in basically the same place, except now there's a chance at a larger wave from the small percentage of the country (maybe 20% based on surveys) who would resume normal activities.

Is there some reason you don't believe this? You've repeatedly put forth this idea that it's lives vs the economy, when all available evidence says that's a false framing.

[JustAnotherFan]

Tomorrow's 4.5 million will mean 26.534 million unemployed in just six weeks.  That takes America to over 16% unemployed.  That's a little over 500 jobs lost, about 1,500 lives ruined for every COVID-19 death in America to date.

Not sure I'd jump to saying there are X number of "lives ruined" for every COVID-19 death. Losing a job sucks. Does not mean their lives are ruined. Deaths on the other hand are irreversible. I think you can use better language here.

Excuse me.  26.534 million people who are now ushered into a vibrant, exciting new job market thanks to our COVID-19 policies, each with the freedom to grow and thrive in today's new economy.  Better?

I think I'll stick with "lives ruined."  And as a comorbidity nightmare, I'd rather die than live and know that I indirectly caused the next generation to suffer.

The next generation is not suffering because our politicians don't have the political courage to let you die for the sake of the economy. The next generation is suffering because of decades of policies that have prioritized protecting wealth and capital for a tiny percentage at the expense of public welfare. All the stuff we are seeing now is simply an amplification of the ways the game has been rigged against young people.

[JustAnotherFan]

Tomorrow's 4.5 million will mean 26.534 million unemployed in just six weeks.  That takes America to over 16% unemployed.  That's a little over 500 jobs lost, about 1,500 lives ruined for every COVID-19 death in America to date.

Not sure I'd jump to saying there are X number of "lives ruined" for every COVID-19 death. Losing a job sucks. Does not mean their lives are ruined. Deaths on the other hand are irreversible. I think you can use better language here.

Excuse me.  26.534 million people who are now ushered into a vibrant, exciting new job market thanks to our COVID-19 policies, each with the freedom to grow and thrive in today's new economy.  Better?

I think I'll stick with "lives ruined."  And as a comorbidity nightmare, I'd rather die than live and know that I indirectly caused the next generation to suffer.

The next generation is not suffering because our politicians don't have the political courage to let you die for the sake of the economy. The next generation is suffering because of decades of policies that have prioritized protecting wealth and capital for a tiny percentage at the expense of public welfare. All the stuff we are seeing now is simply an amplification of the ways the game has been rigged against young people.

[BostonCard]

Here's an economist that suggests shutting down the economy for a year would cost $4 trillion, and still be worth it (economically speaking).

https://www.marketplace.org/shows/market...-benefits/

As an aside, all the jobs gained since the trough of the Great Recession have now been lost.

BC

[BostonCard]

Here's an economist that suggests shutting down the economy for a year would cost $4 trillion, and still be worth it (economically speaking).

https://www.marketplace.org/shows/market...-benefits/

As an aside, all the jobs gained since the trough of the Great Recession have now been lost.

BC

[Mick]

Here's an economist that suggests shutting down the economy for a year would cost $4 trillion, and still be worth it (economically speaking).

https://www.marketplace.org/shows/market...-benefits/

As an aside, all the jobs gained since the trough of the Great Recession have now been lost.

BC

Haven't looked at your link yet.  i did see the article right below it, which wondered whether unemployment benefits would cover the cost of living.  It used, as an example, $521 in unemployment per week with $600 from the stimulus, and concluded: "The average nationwide is $370. Add that to the pandemic benefits and it totals $970, about the same as the average weekly pay of Americans nationwide."

It failed to point out, however, that the $600 stimulus payment is good for just four months. So the conclusion is incorrect, it's not enough to replace one's income.

https://www.marketplace.org/2020/04/23/c...-benefits/

[Mick]

Here's an economist that suggests shutting down the economy for a year would cost $4 trillion, and still be worth it (economically speaking).

https://www.marketplace.org/shows/market...-benefits/

As an aside, all the jobs gained since the trough of the Great Recession have now been lost.

BC

Haven't looked at your link yet.  i did see the article right below it, which wondered whether unemployment benefits would cover the cost of living.  It used, as an example, $521 in unemployment per week with $600 from the stimulus, and concluded: "The average nationwide is $370. Add that to the pandemic benefits and it totals $970, about the same as the average weekly pay of Americans nationwide."

It failed to point out, however, that the $600 stimulus payment is good for just four months. So the conclusion is incorrect, it's not enough to replace one's income.

https://www.marketplace.org/2020/04/23/c...-benefits/

[2006alum]

Here's an economist that suggests shutting down the economy for a year would cost $4 trillion, and still be worth it (economically speaking).

https://www.marketplace.org/shows/market...-benefits/

As an aside, all the jobs gained since the trough of the Great Recession have now been lost.

BC

Haven't looked at your link yet.  i did see the article right below it, which wondered whether unemployment benefits would cover the cost of living.  It used, as an example, $521 in unemployment per week with $600 from the stimulus, and concluded: "The average nationwide is $370. Add that to the pandemic benefits and it totals $970, about the same as the average weekly pay of Americans nationwide."

It failed to point out, however, that the $600 stimulus payment is good for just four months.  So the conclusion is incorrect, it's not enough to replace one's income.

https://www.marketplace.org/2020/04/23/c...-benefits/

So instead of responding to his post that would seem to refute your economy >>> lives framing, you responded to an absent straw man argument that no one here made?

[2006alum]

Here's an economist that suggests shutting down the economy for a year would cost $4 trillion, and still be worth it (economically speaking).

https://www.marketplace.org/shows/market...-benefits/

As an aside, all the jobs gained since the trough of the Great Recession have now been lost.

BC

Haven't looked at your link yet.  i did see the article right below it, which wondered whether unemployment benefits would cover the cost of living.  It used, as an example, $521 in unemployment per week with $600 from the stimulus, and concluded: "The average nationwide is $370. Add that to the pandemic benefits and it totals $970, about the same as the average weekly pay of Americans nationwide."

It failed to point out, however, that the $600 stimulus payment is good for just four months.  So the conclusion is incorrect, it's not enough to replace one's income.

https://www.marketplace.org/2020/04/23/c...-benefits/

So instead of responding to his post that would seem to refute your economy >>> lives framing, you responded to an absent straw man argument that no one here made?

[Mick]

Is there some reason you don't believe this? You've repeatedly put forth this idea that it's lives vs the economy, when all available evidence says that's a false framing.

I don't believe it because it is counterintuitive.  If people go back to work, the economy moves.  Currently, it's at a virtual standstill.

You say "all the evidence suggests that's a false framing."  Show me the evidence, then.

[Mick]

Is there some reason you don't believe this? You've repeatedly put forth this idea that it's lives vs the economy, when all available evidence says that's a false framing.

I don't believe it because it is counterintuitive.  If people go back to work, the economy moves.  Currently, it's at a virtual standstill.

You say "all the evidence suggests that's a false framing."  Show me the evidence, then.

[2006alum]

Is there some reason you don't believe this? You've repeatedly put forth this idea that it's lives vs the economy, when all available evidence says that's a false framing.

I don't believe it because it is counterintuitive.  If people go back to work, the economy moves.  Currently, it's at a virtual standstill.

You say "all the evidence suggests that's a false framing."  Show me the evidence, then.

BC did, just above. As you yourself acknowledged, rather than engage with the link he posted, you found some other windmill to attack instead.

[2006alum]

Is there some reason you don't believe this? You've repeatedly put forth this idea that it's lives vs the economy, when all available evidence says that's a false framing.

I don't believe it because it is counterintuitive.  If people go back to work, the economy moves.  Currently, it's at a virtual standstill.

You say "all the evidence suggests that's a false framing."  Show me the evidence, then.

BC did, just above. As you yourself acknowledged, rather than engage with the link he posted, you found some other windmill to attack instead.

[oregontim]

At what point did we concede that the SiP is hurting the many to benefit the few? I'm over 65 and the idea that all those people are unemployed to save me creeps me out big time.

I'd like to think it's not just about the few especially susceptible demographics. I'd like to think that it's about public health overall, and avoiding a ranging pandemic that's killing people of all ages (even if at different percentages) and leaving many others with permanent lung impairment.

I think the national discussion got distorted at some point, with the "all this economic suffering is to save the grandparents" meme. Is that really accurate?

[oregontim]

At what point did we concede that the SiP is hurting the many to benefit the few? I'm over 65 and the idea that all those people are unemployed to save me creeps me out big time.

I'd like to think it's not just about the few especially susceptible demographics. I'd like to think that it's about public health overall, and avoiding a ranging pandemic that's killing people of all ages (even if at different percentages) and leaving many others with permanent lung impairment.

I think the national discussion got distorted at some point, with the "all this economic suffering is to save the grandparents" meme. Is that really accurate?

[2006alum]

At what point did we concede that the SiP is hurting the many to benefit the few? I'm over 65 and the idea that all those people are unemployed to save me creeps me out big time.

I'd like to think it's not just about the few especially susceptible demographics. I'd like to think that it's about public health overall, and avoiding a ranging pandemic that's killing people of all ages (even if at different percentages) and leaving many others with permanent lung impairment.

I think the national discussion got distorted at some point, with the "all this economic suffering is to save the grandparents" meme. Is that really accurate?

FWIW, I'm a (relatively) young person finishing up the first of two fixed-term jobs and who will be hurt by this economy when he needs to seek a new position in a year's time. I'm more than happy to face worse future employment prospects if it keeps you, my mom, my other elderly relatives, and millions of other Americans safe. But I also happen to think it keeps me, my friends, my employers, and my community safer, too. So it's not even a generational tradeoff.

So count me as at least one non-sociopath among the young folk.

[2006alum]

At what point did we concede that the SiP is hurting the many to benefit the few? I'm over 65 and the idea that all those people are unemployed to save me creeps me out big time.

I'd like to think it's not just about the few especially susceptible demographics. I'd like to think that it's about public health overall, and avoiding a ranging pandemic that's killing people of all ages (even if at different percentages) and leaving many others with permanent lung impairment.

I think the national discussion got distorted at some point, with the "all this economic suffering is to save the grandparents" meme. Is that really accurate?

FWIW, I'm a (relatively) young person finishing up the first of two fixed-term jobs and who will be hurt by this economy when he needs to seek a new position in a year's time. I'm more than happy to face worse future employment prospects if it keeps you, my mom, my other elderly relatives, and millions of other Americans safe. But I also happen to think it keeps me, my friends, my employers, and my community safer, too. So it's not even a generational tradeoff.

So count me as at least one non-sociopath among the young folk.

[Mick]

Is there some reason you don't believe this? You've repeatedly put forth this idea that it's lives vs the economy, when all available evidence says that's a false framing.

I don't believe it because it is counterintuitive.  If people go back to work, the economy moves.  Currently, it's at a virtual standstill.

You say "all the evidence suggests that's a false framing."  Show me the evidence, then.

BC did, just above. As you yourself acknowledged, rather than engage with the link he posted, you found some other windmill to attack instead.

i just figured out why you are selective about banning users....

[Mick]

Is there some reason you don't believe this? You've repeatedly put forth this idea that it's lives vs the economy, when all available evidence says that's a false framing.

I don't believe it because it is counterintuitive.  If people go back to work, the economy moves.  Currently, it's at a virtual standstill.

You say "all the evidence suggests that's a false framing."  Show me the evidence, then.

BC did, just above. As you yourself acknowledged, rather than engage with the link he posted, you found some other windmill to attack instead.

i just figured out why you are selective about banning users....