[phakding]

I don't see the link here. Yes there are 22 million laid off. But given a choice between being alive and being jobless, I think people would choose being jobless. The people protesting are not the same people lining up at food banks.

I have seen wapo video of Michigan protest. People there were angry because they want to get their hair done or buy paint and fertilizer. They want others to go to work to they can stay home.

[pacala]

The disease does not affect age groups equally. From what I've seen, most victims are in the 60+ age groups. From NYC fatality report [0]:

    0-9: 1 0%
    10-19: 6 0.1%
    20-29: 56 0.4%
    30-39: 227 1.6%
    40-49: 535 3.7%
    50-59: 1410 9.8%
    60-69: 2863 20.0%
    70-79: 3811 26.6%
    80-89: 1753 25.4%
    90+: 12.2%

Think of people having a "vitality score" that decreases with age, and of disease as a stressor that kills people with the "vitality score" under a certain threshold. That's how the yearly flu works, by culling people under the threshold. We attribute the death to "the flu", but we could easily also call it "death by old age".

Most working age people will be just fine. Except they are jobless. Terrible times.

[0] https://covid19tracker.health.ny.gov/views/NYS-COVID19-Track...

[Press2forEN]

The choice between being alive and being jobless is a false dichotomy.

[phakding]

May be for healthy, but not for the people with certain underlying conditions like diabetes, high BP, obesity etc. Also even if you are not vulnerable to the disease, you could be spreading this to the others who are even without showing symptoms.

Look at Sweden. They decided to let the people at risk stay home while others go out and about their business. Didn't work out too well for them.

[BurningFrog]

> But given a choice between being alive and being jobless,

Read literally, this says everyone who returns to work will die. For the future, I recommend more nuance in your writing.

Losing your livelihood does carry a substantial risk of increased death.

[52-6F-62]

Is that so universally true?

I'm thankful right now that I live in Canada where every week—sometimes multiple times a week—measures are added or adjusted in order to prevent anyone from falling through the cracks. Some businesses have faltered or are closing permanently, but many others are receiving substantial support.

We're currently beating the projections in Ontario, and while this is not an easy time, every action necessary is being taken to at least try and prevent as many deaths by this thing as possible.

I think things would look different if the United States had taken different measures to support people during this crisis.

The barber in this narrative should receive enough aid to get by, and enough support for their business for it to persist until it can reopen—and the people who just want their hair done should just have to wait.

[cpwright]

The "choice between being alive and being jobless" is a matter of probabilities, which people are not great at. If you are not elderly, you likely have a higher chance of being unemployed than dying of COVID-19. So the choice is not between being alive and being jobless, it is an abstract unknown person getting sick and dying vs. you personally losing your income.

[stri8ed]

> But given a choice between being alive and being jobless

To be fair that is not the actual choice on offer. Its more like being jobless, vs accepting a certain (in some cases low) probability of dying.

[maxerickson]

It's not just a personal calculation though. People that are infected spread the disease and consume medical resources. Those things both impact the rest of society.

[sethammons]

> But given a choice between being alive and being jobless, I think people would choose being jobless.

That is not the choice. The choice is between some uncertain chance of death plus a chance to spread the infection and a certain lack of income.

[ShorsHammer]

> But given a choice between being alive and being jobless

Is that actually the choice being made here?