To quarantine, or not to quarantine?

[fOx]

Georgia has begun to open up its economy, while california promises 3 more months of quarantine. 3 months that will probably turn into 6, or more. So whose right? What should one do?

Open it up. Open it all up. What's going to happen? I'll get sick? My family will get sick? I work 8 hours a day, every day, anyway, as an "essential" retail worker. I work for peanuts. I work for peanuts because, while I'm allowed to operate as an essential worker, I don't get paid like one. And I certainly don't get treated like one. What difference does it make to me if the state is opened or closed? I get exposed just the same, while wealthy middle aged soccar moms get paid six figures to sit at home and tell everyone the importance of social distancing on twitter. The hammer of the corona viras comes down hardest on working class people. I say lift the restrictions. Seize the wealth of the corporate class, and use it to energize a monthly stimulus checks. End private property, and cancel all mortgages and rent. End landlords and private property. Let the government redistribute wealth as necessary.

For those who believe in the quarantine, how long do you think it should last? How long is it even sustainable? It may be two years before we get a workable vaccine. If we're optimistic. Then there's mass production. I don't think that this is sustainable for such a long period of time. From a practicality stand point, how long is this feasible when working class people have to provide for families?

 

[Hawki]

Can I suggest that essential workers, especially in healthcare, deserve higher wages, while also suggesting that abolishing private property is a bad idea? Like, if I take out a mortgage for a house today, and tomorrow, the government abandons mortgages, well, great for me, but what about the bank? Not that I'm inclined to sympathize with banks, but at the end of the day, money was leant to me, and now, I don't have to pay it back. And even if the government is compensating for it, then do I own the property?

As for how long quarantine should last, I've no idea, it's going to vary by country. I can say that in Oz, the infection rate has plummeted, we've had less than 100 deaths, and right now, the government is planning to wind back the lockdown in three stages. During the lockdown period, I've been given a jobkeeper allowance from one council I work for, while the other council has found alternative work to match my hours. Overall, it's been a bludge. Obviously that can't be sustained, but on the other hand, I can't say when quarantine "should" end, aside from listening to the people who've provided advice. Overall, they've done a good job. On the other hand, people lost their jobs before the jobkeeper allowance was rolled out, so for them, I'm assuming the answer is sooner, the better.

So, TL, DR, I can't say. I'm not in a position to say economically or medically.

 

[Sneed's SeednFeed]

Can I suggest that essential workers, especially in healthcare, deserve higher wages, while also suggesting that abolishing private property is a bad idea?

Adam Smith was keen on the fact that landlords are parasites. Admittedly he wanted to tax private property into high hell:

Contrary to popular and academic belief, Adam Smith did not accept inequality as a necessary trade-off for a more prosperous economy

The assumption that Adam Smith accepted inequality as the necessary trade-off for a more prosperous economy is wrong, writes Deborah Boucoyannis. In reality, Smith’s system precluded steep inequali…

blogs.lse.ac.uk

Important to bear in mind that private property =/= personal property. You use the house you live in. You don't use the houses you own for rent other than to leech money off of others just because a piece of paper says you 'own' a piece of land that you don't live in.

 

[Hawki]

Adam Smith was keen on the fact that landlords are parasites. Admittedly he wanted to tax private property into high hell:

Contrary to popular and academic belief, Adam Smith did not accept inequality as a necessary trade-off for a more prosperous economy

The assumption that Adam Smith accepted inequality as the necessary trade-off for a more prosperous economy is wrong, writes Deborah Boucoyannis. In reality, Smith’s system precluded steep inequali…

blogs.lse.ac.uk

Important to bear in mind that private property =/= personal property. You use the house you live in. You don't use the houses you own for rent other than to leech money off of others just because a piece of paper says you 'own' a piece of land that you don't live in.

I'm not a landlord, but that feels like an issue of semantics.

If I want to reside in a house, there's two key options (I know there's others, but again, semantics). Option one - I can buy a house. That would usually be done through a real-estate agent. Chances are I'll need to take out a home loan.

Option two is to rent a house, paying said rent to the landlord.

What makes the landlord a parasite, and not the real-estate agent or bank? Or, if all of them are "parasites," then what's the alternative aside from government housing? And does that make motel/hotel/hostel owners "parasites?" If I go hitchhiking, and someone agrees to let me use their house to crash for a small fee, are they parasites?

 

[Sneed's SeednFeed]

I'm not a landlord, but that feels like an issue of semantics.

If I want to reside in a house, there's two key options (I know there's others, but again, semantics). Option one - I can buy a house. That would usually be done through a real-estate agent. Chances are I'll need to take out a home loan.

Option two is to rent a house, paying said rent to the landlord.

What makes the landlord a parasite, and not the real-estate agent or bank? Or, if all of them are "parasites," then what's the alternative aside from government housing? And does that make motel/hotel/hostel owners "parasites?" If I go hitchhiking, and someone agrees to let me use their house to crash for a small fee, are they parasites?

It's not a question of semantics, Smith is pretty clear what he means by landlords and renting. Banks can function as they are whils real estate companies are primarily interested in managing properties and selling them, they're an accessory to landlordship. And again, see above - taxation is how he wanted to do it. His arguments for why they are parasites are also clearly laid out.

 

[lil devils x]

Although I think this should be in current Events rather than Off Topic, I do not think it is an " either or" situation here in the first place. I think that we necessarily will have to change how things are done in order to adapt to our ever changing world, the same way our ancestors were forced to do so. Causing unnecessary deaths should always be condemned. Putting people in danger against their will should be condemned. Knowing the real threat we are now facing, we should expect more from our governments in order to protect the people while moving to be able to do more to keep things running. The obvious solution here is using what we already know how to do as a stopgap to buy time while we figure out alternatives. First, as I have been stating repeatedly, we need the US federal government to utilize the defense production act to produce PPE for the general public on a mass scale. Second, we need to utilize the National Guard, Fema and recruit voluntary efforts at the state and local level to distribute it to the general public. We need to utilize our public broadcasting system to train the general public in the proper usage and disposal of PPE gear so they will be able to use it more efficiently. We need to change the way many businesses operate in order to better protect the workers and their customers, retrofitting as needed to provide safer environments.

We need to take the proper steps so that we can safely do more sooner, WHILE we are working towards better solutions instead of allowing ignorance and greed to fuel the sacrificing of the vulnerable against their will to their economic gods in the hopes they return to a good economy. The reality is ignoring the deaths of the people's loved ones and opening up without actually doing anything to protect the people does not make people feel safe enough to go shopping. When more people start falling ill that failed to heed the warnings again and the deaths start piling up, digging more mass graves and tossing those lost in while going on about daily business isn't going to go unnoticed. It does MORE long term harm to the economy to ignore the problem rather than make the efforts to protect the people in the first place.

It is not a matter of having " people who want to stay home and people who want to go out" Everyone wants to be able to go out, everyone is sick of being at home. Everyone is worried about the economy and being able to survive both financially and illness. It is just a matter of how much one values life, their life, the lives of their friends, family and neighbors. Instead, I see it as we have those saying that we need to have more protections provided to the general public before this is safe to do and those pushing to allow people to die to get what they want because they cannot be bothered with protecting the people first.

In the end, the world will be forever changed either way. Personally, I hope that change is for the better and more people are still alive to be able to see it happen, including myself and my loved ones, even though I have a very low probability of survival if I become ill. My hope is that enough people force the good changes to happen in order to protect the people by refusing to accept being considered "disposable" rather than having the people turn a blind eye and allow their governments to cause many more unnecessary deaths and prolonged suffering by denying the people with what they need to survive. It certainly would be nice if I am still here to see it happens when it does, but if our government refuses to give the people what they need and instead are driven by personal greed and an attempt to profit from this, I along with many others who are at risk, likely will not survive this at all.

 

[Hawki]

It's not a question of semantics, Smith is pretty clear what he means by landlords and renting. Banks can function as they are whils real estate companies are primarily interested in managing properties and selling them, they're an accessory to landlordship. And again, see above - taxation is how he wanted to do it. His arguments for why they are parasites are also clearly laid out.

Why is Smith being brought into this? You're the one who brought him up. If you want to debate Smith's ideas, that's a separate issue. I could just as easily cite someone else saying something as my own argument.

I mean, reading the article, I actually agree with it, least in regards to progressive taxation, though I'd maintain that there'd always be some level of inequality in society. But landlords are only mentioned twice in the article.

 

[Sneed's SeednFeed]

Why is Smith being brought into this? You're the one who brought him up. If you want to debate Smith's ideas, that's a separate issue. I could just as easily cite someone else saying something as my own argument.

I mean, reading the article, I actually agree with it, least in regards to progressive taxation, though I'd maintain that there'd always be some level of inequality in society. But landlords are only mentioned twice in the article.

Smith as a granddady of capitalist economy theory as an argument against tolerating landlords the way we do now, as well as the real estate market.

 

[lil devils x]

Georgia has begun to open up its economy, while california promises 3 more months of quarantine. 3 months that will probably turn into 6, or more. So whose right? What should one do?

Open it up. Open it all up. What's going to happen? I'll get sick? My family will get sick? I work 8 hours a day, every day, anyway, as an "essential" retail worker. I work for peanuts. I work for peanuts because, while I'm allowed to operate as an essential worker, I don't get paid like one. And I certainly don't get treated like one. What difference does it make to me if the state is opened or closed? I get exposed just the same, while wealthy middle aged soccer moms get paid six figures to sit at home and tell everyone the importance of social distancing on twitter. The hammer of the corona virus comes down hardest on working class people. I say lift the restrictions. Seize the wealth of the corporate class, and use it to energize a monthly stimulus checks. End private property, and cancel all mortgages and rent. End landlords and private property. Let the government redistribute wealth as necessary.

For those who believe in the quarantine, how long do you think it should last? How long is it even sustainable? It may be two years before we get a workable vaccine. If we're optimistic. Then there's mass production. I don't think that this is sustainable for such a long period of time. From a practicality stand point, how long is this feasible when working class people have to provide for families?

That is less likely, not more likely with reopening without protections for the general public. While increasing taxes on the wealthy should be done regardless of the pandemic in order to counteract the devastating impact of wealth inequality in the US, the wealthy are further eroding the economic power of the working class by attempting to force them into dire situations as they consider the working class " disposable" . To them, no matter how many working class people die during this, they can just force more to do their bidding against their will by ensuring they cannot sustain themselves without doing so.

What we need to do now is enact UBI for all people making under $100k in the US immediately. Of course, that will not happen as long as Trump and GOP control the white house and Senate, but if we can flip both in November, this is the best chance we have ever had at doing so in our lifetimes and if we fail to do it now, we will instead be subjected to Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell's plans to force the people into such a suffering they are willing to risk their lives working for their buddies for slave wages.

SC Sen. Lindsey Graham says coronavirus relief 'incentivizing' workers to leave jobs

Sen. Graham of SC said state unemployment systems are being overrun in part because workers have been incentivized to leave jobs in COVID-19 outbreak

www.greenvilleonline.com

If we have democrats win both houses of congress and the white house come November, we will have the best chance we have ever had of getting the help we need enacted now. I remember when Pelosi was relentlessly ridiculed back when Obama was running for her basic income proposals. How she spoke about that artists would be able to pursue their art and musicians their music, and how republicans thought the idea was ludicrous, so she dropped it.

She is now trying to push for it again:

Pelosi says "guaranteed income" for Americans is worth considering for coronavirus recovery

The House speaker said Congress might have think of "different ways to put money in people's pockets"

www.cbsnews.com

If we can get this passed if the democrats are able to flip the necessary seats, we will then have the first steps in place needed to make this permanent. Once you have something in place and can show the benefits of it, it makes it much more difficult to take it away from those who depend on it than it is to deny them having it in the first place.

As for you being forced to risk your life during a pandemic, I am sure you would appreciate proper gear to protect yourself and additional hazard pay than people thanking you. We should be requiring our government to provide you with both at a minimum. We should be making that mandatory while we fight for you to receive basic income on top of that. The people who lose out from UBI are the wealthy who would lose their cheap slave wages labor because they would be forced to pay more and improve their working conditions of their businesses in order to attract people willing to put themselves through that to earn extra income. There will still be people willing to do so in order to obtain extra luxuries, but at least then they will not be doing so just to survive, keep a roof over their heads and feed their children.

People will always still be willing to do physical labor and work hard to obtain a top of the line PC , a new car and nice boat so I do not see they will have a lack of labor, they will just be forced to provide better working conditions to get it and not be able to force people into starvation if they refuse.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You can't quarantine until there's a treatment or vaccine because that's going to take far too long for it to be feasible economically at all. It's not about a lives vs money scenario. Keeping everything shutdown cost lives too, it's a lives vs lives scenario and figuring out which is more costly. The virus doesn't have a very high fatality rate at all, it's going to be well under 1% when it's all said and done. This isn't ebola, we aren't sending people out to die by the masses by going to work, healthy people have an extremely low chance of dying. That's not to say we just carry-on like normal either. There needs to be a plan to keep the spread low enough that it doesn't overwhelm healthcare facilities. The whole "flatten the curve" isn't about stopping you from getting it, it's adjusting WHEN you get it.

It doesn't matter when you open back up as long as there's a solid plan, which I haven't seen anything even close to that in the US. Where's the testing and contact tracing at? The plan is just to open up in phases with places that have low human density and slowly move from there? That's like a plan a 5 year old would come up with. What's the plan for high-risk people? There has to be something in place for them to be able to quarantine without fear of losing their job (if they still have one) and subsequently their health insurance (in the US). Having health care tied to employment is like the dumbest thing ever. With a solid plan in place, you could have opened up a month ago or never had to close up outside of mass gatherings. It's the complete failure at the top that is the main cause of the current situation.

 

[lil devils x]

You can't quarantine until there's a treatment or vaccine because that's going to take far too long for it to be feasible economically at all. It's not about a lives vs money scenario. Keeping everything shutdown cost lives too, it's a lives vs lives scenario and figuring out which is more costly. The virus doesn't have a very high fatality rate at all, it's going to be well under 1% when it's all said and done. This isn't ebola, we aren't sending people out to die by the masses by going to work, healthy people have an extremely low chance of dying. That's not to say we just carry-on like normal either. There needs to be a plan to keep the spread low enough that it doesn't overwhelm healthcare facilities. The whole "flatten the curve" isn't about stopping you from getting it, it's adjusting WHEN you get it.

It doesn't matter when you open back up as long as there's a solid plan, which I haven't seen anything even close to that in the US. Where's the testing and contact tracing at? The plan is just to open up in phases with places that have low human density and slowly move from there? That's like a plan a 5 year old would come up with. What's the plan for high-risk people? There has to be something in place for them to be able to quarantine without fear of losing their job (if they still have one) and subsequently their health insurance (in the US). Having health care tied to employment is like the dumbest thing ever. With a solid plan in place, you could have opened up a month ago or never had to close up outside of mass gatherings. It's the complete failure at the top that is the main cause of the current situation.

No, it is not a Lives vs Lives issue. It is about either protecting the people so we can do more faster or sacrificing people for greed. Simple as that.

If the government has not provided PPE to the general public, it has not taken the necessary measures to open more so they can protect both the people and the economy.
The government's claim that we cannot do both is provably false. All opening up too soon without providing PPE to the general public will do is ensure we have more deaths, more people will be sick longer and less consumer confidence because much of the population is not willing to risk their lives and the lives of their families and understand WHY even China has had their police, physicians and even street venders wearing hazmat.

Why people keep ignoring that fact and behaving as though the US is not capable of doing what even China has been able to so is beyond me.

Maybe it is just the wealthy attempting to convince the working people that they should sacrifice themselves for " the greater good" when in reality it just erodes the working class's power further when they are too sick and "thins their herd" by killing them off as the wealthy consider the working class to be disposable and replaceable. People can't fight for their rights when they are too sick and weak to fight at all.

Contact tracing works in more rural areas, I am not seeing the point as much in populated regions as how do you do that when Walmart employees test positive in a city thousands, millions of people are who would need to be traced from there. We need to go with what we know how to do. We know PPE works. We Know now to make mass scale PPE and have the capability to do so already. The only reason we have not is Trump does not like the price tag and shot it down because he sees himself as " the negotiator" He has no problem making sure his white house staff have PPE provided to them to protect him now that it is in the white house though right? We have healthcare workers on the front lines who cannot get tests to save their lives and have been dying because of it, but Trump and his buddies can get one every day.

Trump makes one set of rules to protect himself and another set of rules to protect the people who put him there, because he is a coward, in his mind, the people should sacrifice themselves for his whims, as the people are disposable and unimportant to him and he should sacrifice himself for no one. IF he can provide his staff with masks to protect himself, he can provide them to the general public as well so they at least have a fighting chance here.

Most of those most vulnerable have no access to the PPE they need to be able to go to their doctors or to the Pharmacy to get their medications. They need to be wearing the PPE before they even leave their homes , but it is also the sick , the elderly who cannot afford the price mark ups, are not able to find somewhere to buy it at all. The sick and the elderly are being denied access to the protective equipment needed to save their lives right now and there is no plan even being made to provide them with it. We keep hearing that " those with preexisting conditions should make other arrangements" How exactly are they supposed to do that?

We have more grandparents living with their grandkids and adult children now more than ever due to decades of not paying workers enough to survive or have savings, so how can you have "healthy people return to work" and their children return to school when they can bring COVID-19 home and kill their family members with it? None of their proposals have made sense thus far.

5.6 million Gen Xers are now living with their parents or grandparents

The percentage of 33-55 year olds who live with their parents or grandparents is the highest it’s been in 50 years

www.marketwatch.com

Millions of millennials still live at home, analysis shows

A recent analysis found that 14 million adults between the ages of 23 to 37 are living with their parents, a sign that some millennials may have financial burdens.

www.foxbusiness.com

More U.S. Children Raised by Grandparents

Informing a Smarter World

www.prb.org

 

[stroopwafel]

Seize the wealth of the corporate class, and use it to energize a monthly stimulus checks. End private property, and cancel all mortgages and rent. End landlords and private property. Let the government redistribute wealth as necessary.

I can get behind private property, mortgage and rent but the rest is a touch on the extreme side. xD You need to have incentives for people to create businesses, wealth and employment opportunities. However not at the expense of the poor and not without competition or freedom of choice(of which neither are present with housing). Definitely also agree minimum wage should go way up since any society basically comes to a standstill without truckers, cleaners, shelf stockers etc while those that earn a fortune like corporate lawyers and hedgefund managers can be missed like a tooth ache. Every time there is a crisis it also shows how fake the divide is between big business and their government benefactors.

Anyways personally I'd think quarantine restrictions shouldn't be so strict for people at very low risk. Those under 60 without underlying health conditions have a very low complication or fatality rate. Not completely zero, but so low that they don't warrant these kind of heavy restrictions. People at risk(let alone high risk) should obviously have the choice to remain in quarantine and even have the government provide for them if need be. Also people at low risk should obviously be considerate with people at high risk. It seems like a smarter strategy for the long run, espescially since the arrival of a vaccine will still take a while.

But besides official regulations you don't know how the public itself will react. My impression is that about half of people are really scared of the virus and want even stricter quarantine measures while the other half is more cavalier about it. You ofcourse have to give both these groups their space, which is what a democracy is all about. I don't think it's realistic to expect infinite solidarity from people.

 

[Baffle]

Let the government redistribute wealth as necessary.

It already does; it just thinks 'necessary' is 'upwards'.

 

[Silvanus]

I'm of the opinion that the lockdown should surely be continuing for a few months longer at least, depending on the infection rate and the capacity of the health service. Thankfully, polls are showing a large majority of my countrymen feel the same.

Lockdown measures have been demonstrably successful in saving lives, driving down the infection rate, and flattening the curve so that the deaths that do occur are occurring over a longer time, which allows the health service to cope with it better. Lifting the lockdown would overwhelm the health service; it would be ruinous to the infection rate, and even the economic argument is specious because it would cause longer-lasting economic damage by devastating the health of the workforce. Lift the lockdown too early and you make the situation last even longer.

My country, the UK, on Sunday announced a few restrictions were loosening. People who cannot work from home (but who are nonessential workers) should be "encouraged" to return to work, and exercise outside is now unrestricted so long as households aren't mixing and social distancing is observed.

I'm fine with the second one, so long as the social distancing measures are enforced. But the returning to work thing is far too risky. The government said people should only return to work if the workplaces were fully safe and compliant... but provided no guidance on what to be compliant with. As a result, we're already seeing people getting pressured to return to work by workplaces that have not changed anything.

 

[lil devils x]

I'm of the opinion that the lockdown should surely be continuing for a few months longer at least, depending on the infection rate and the capacity of the health service. Thankfully, polls are showing a large majority of my countrymen feel the same.

Lockdown measures have been demonstrably successful in saving lives, driving down the infection rate, and flattening the curve so that the deaths that do occur are occurring over a longer time, which allows the health service to cope with it better. Lifting the lockdown would overwhelm the health service; it would be ruinous to the infection rate, and even the economic argument is specious because it would cause longer-lasting economic damage by devastating the health of the workforce. Lift the lockdown too early and you make the situation last even longer.

My country, the UK, on Sunday announced a few restrictions were loosening. People who cannot work from home (but who are nonessential workers) should be "encouraged" to return to work, and exercise outside is now unrestricted so long as households aren't mixing and social distancing is observed.

I'm fine with the second one, so long as the social distancing measures are enforced. But the returning to work thing is far too risky. The government said people should only return to work if the workplaces were fully safe and compliant... but provided no guidance on what to be compliant with. As a result, we're already seeing people getting pressured to return to work by workplaces that have not changed anything.

At least I hope they are not making government websites there for employers to "report" workers not coming in during the pandemic so they can strip them of their unemployment benefits to try and force them to risk their lives and the lives of their loved ones even if they have preexisting conditions as they are now doing in some US Republican states:
"COLUMBUS - As Ohio reopens some businesses, employees who don't return to work could lose unemployment benefits – even if they have a health condition that makes them more susceptible to the novel coronavirus or problems getting child care.

Ohio Department of Job and Family Services is asking employers to report workers who quit or refuse work – potentially cutting those former employees off from unemployment benefits. Those not eligible for unemployment in Ohio would also lose access to the additional $600 a week approved in the federal stimulus package."

Coronavirus in Ohio: State asks employers to report employees who don't return to work

As Ohio reopens some businesses, employees who don't return to work could lose unemployment benefits.

www.cincinnati.com

"Republicans in Congress are also seeking to expand liability protections for businesses to shield them from coronavirus-related lawsuits — a push that, if successful, could reduce the incentive for some employers to worry about workers’ health before reopening.

Public health experts and labor advocates fear the result is that opening the economy will drive Americans back to work in search of a paycheck but leave them vulnerable to catching the coronavirus and fueling a second wave of the disease. "

Unemployed workers face choice between safety and money as states reopen

Employees who refuse to return to work out of fears for their health will no longer be eligible for unemployment aid.

www.politico.com

So yes, on top of forcing employees back to work without protection, they are giving businesses no incentives to protect their employees by preventing employees and their families from being able to sue in the event of their deaths.

When most of those that are vulnerable in the US are forced to live with another family member in order to survive as it is, they are ensuring that they will not be able to protect themselves by forcing their household members into environments that will directly lead to exposing the vulnerable populations while simultaneous making sure they do not have access to PPE at all due to shortages combined with restricted sales and failure of the government to produce and to supply the public making it extremely difficult if not impossible for the vulnerable populations to be protected at all.

 

[tippy2k2]

The shitty thing is that we just don't really know.

Minnesota has had a very strict Shelter in Place order and has one of the lowest COVID rates in the US. BUT we also have a lot of businesses that have been absolutely hamstrung by these restrictions and likely many of the smaller ones won't recover.

Having people get COVID is bad. Having 15% of your population go on unemployment is also bad. If I thought people weren't dum as hell and willing to practice safe precautions (wear a mask, six feet apart, no touching unless absolutely necessary, etc) I'd be more for just opening everything up but go on any social media for Costco (who is requiring EVERYONE to wear masks) and it's filled with people screaming about their God Given Right to walk around and cough on everything...

To me, this is where having a competent government in place with safety nets SHOULD be stepping in to ease the burden but...you know...that's socialism or communism or whatever. So instead the poorer half of the country gets to gamble on life versus food while Fox's six figure soccer mom tries to sell you her natural oils that will cure your Covid, Cancer, stubbed toe, and broken back and preaches how "We're all in this together!!!".

 

[lil devils x]

while Fox's six figure soccer mom tries to sell you her natural oils that will cure your Covid, Cancer, stubbed toe, and broken back and preaches how "We're all in this together!!!".

Ugh those have got to be the worst. The snake oil salesmen wrapped in the guise of Gwyneth Paltrow telling people to do things that will directly result in harm. Whether it is our own president telling people that hydroxychloroquine is a miracle cure or maybe they should start injecting people with disinfectants or Gwyneth Paltrow herself telling people to put rocks into their vagina's, they are able to find an audience somewhere that believes this madness and does these things instead of going to the doctor. When irresponsible people promote things and even worse the media gives them a platform, people get hurt. People believing this will directly result in more deaths because they chose to follow these people's advice instead of get the help needed to save their lives.

Trump mum on hydroxychloroquine as early trials falter, but sick Americans still taking 'desperate measures' to fill prescriptions

Josie Pearce is preparing to finish her studies at Dartmouth College this spring, but the challenges of remote learning and virtual graduation are the least of her worries.

www.cnn.com

Goop Settles Lawsuit About Those Vaginal Eggs

Gwyneth Paltrow’s lifestyle brand agreed to pay $145,000 in response to claims of deceptive marketing.

www.thecut.com

If the government actually provided help to the struggling businesses, provided them with the PPE they needed to keep their employees safe, assisted with retrofitting and gave them real options here instead of just saying " we lifted the lockdown so you can open and told your employees they had to come back in or starve, so it's up to you now to figure out " even when they will have no customers to serve because the people are not accepting " fend for yourself" as an answer here, we would be able to keep people safe and help the economy recover, but that would require we have people making these decisions that know what they are doing here and understand cause and effect.

 

[Chimpzy]

They're partially opening things up in my country as well, so I'll be back at work in the office come monday. I'm still going to lay low for at least a couple more weeks, probably closer to a month, as well as take any due precautions as if quarantine was still in effect.

 

[Sneed's SeednFeed]

As for you being forced to risk your life during a pandemic, I am sure you would appreciate proper gear to protect yourself and additional hazard pay than people thanking you. We should be requiring our government to provide you with both at a minimum. We should be making that mandatory while we fight for you to receive basic income on top of that. The people who lose out from UBI are the wealthy who would lose their cheap slave wages labor because they would be forced to pay more and improve their working conditions of their businesses in order to attract people willing to put themselves through that to earn extra income. There will still be people willing to do so in order to obtain extra luxuries, but at least then they will not be doing so just to survive, keep a roof over their heads and feed their children.

People will always still be willing to do physical labor and work hard to obtain a top of the line PC , a new car and nice boat so I do not see they will have a lack of labor, they will just be forced to provide better working conditions to get it and not be able to force people into starvation if they refuse.

The one mass-scale experiment on UBI before the pandemic showed that it increased overall well-being and happiness, but did not increase productiveness. People really don't want to be forced to work, so either the nature of work has to change (i.e. manual labour has very little reward in it other than money, and if you're sufficient, you don't need it so why would the poorest break their backs for jobs no one wants to do? I don't think consumerism is that big for the most disenfranchised, a n) or capitalist culture has to change (beyond sufficiency and consumerism, what is there to do in such a space other than to create?). An efficient economy is one that balances, but nonetheless has unemployment to some degree in order to drive demand for jobs so that people may work, produce and get paid in order to live. It's a very base incentive that is very undesireable, but a systemic issue.

Heikki Hiilamo: "Disappointing results from the Finnish basic income experiment" | University of Helsinki

Heikki Hiilamo, Professor of Social Policy at the University of Helsinki, comments on the preliminary results of Finland's basic income experiment: Effects on the labour market were minimal, and survey results demonstrating that basic income recipients had better subjective well-being can be...

www.helsinki.fi

 

[lil devils x]

The one mass-scale experiment on UBI before the pandemic showed that it increased overall well-being and happiness, but did not increase productiveness. People really don't want to be forced to work, so either the nature of work has to change (i.e. manual labour has very little reward in it other than money, and if you're sufficient, you don't need it so why would the poorest break their backs for jobs no one wants to do? I don't think consumerism is that big for the most disenfranchised, a n) or capitalist culture has to change (beyond sufficiency and consumerism, what is there to do in such a space other than to create?). An efficient economy is one that balances, but nonetheless has unemployment to some degree in order to drive demand for jobs so that people may work, produce and get paid in order to live. It's a very base incentive that is very undesireable, but a systemic issue.

Heikki Hiilamo: "Disappointing results from the Finnish basic income experiment" | University of Helsinki

Heikki Hiilamo, Professor of Social Policy at the University of Helsinki, comments on the preliminary results of Finland's basic income experiment: Effects on the labour market were minimal, and survey results demonstrating that basic income recipients had better subjective well-being can be...

www.helsinki.fi

That is just it though, due to the advances that have been made in automation, there are going to be far less manual labor jobs to do at all.

Robots Are Displacing Manual Labor Jobs

At the Pacific Design and Manufacturing Show, robot makers acknowledged that robots will replace human workers.

www.designnews.com

When we got to the point of self repairing robots, we expect it to change everything:

Robot, heal thyself: scientists develop self-repairing machines

EU project creates robotic hands that can sense and fix damage without human intervention

www.theguardian.com

Chinese factory replaces 90% of human workers with robots. Production rises by 250%, defects drop by 80%

After a factory in Dongguan, China, replaced most of its workers with robots, it witnessed a spectacular rise in productivity.

www.zmescience.com

Automation threatens 800 million jobs, but technology could still save us, says report

New analysis says governments need to act now to help a labor force in flux

www.theverge.com

Man vs machine: automation starting to take a toll on China’s workforce

<!--/*--><![CDATA[/* ><!--*/ <!--td {border: 1px solid #ccc;}br {mso-data-placement:same-cell;}--> /*--><!]]>*/ Around 100 million workers in China’s manufacturing industry under threat as companies including iPhone manufacturer Foxconn are turning to robots.

www.scmp.com

UPS said automated facilities will help sort almost 80% of its packages this year

UPS said nearly 70% of its packages are going through automated facilities. That's up from 50% in 2017.

www.businessinsider.com

The reality is we will not have enough jobs available due to automation, so the jobs we do have available will be able to be split among more people working less hours. UBI will be necessary to be able to maintain civilization at all. We will not need people to be more productive per individual in the workforce, instead they will have more time to do what they want to do and less time having to do work they do not enjoy. The current pandemic is only making this happen faster.