I just had this conversation with a small bar where I buy meals from. Small containers would probably walk away. The solution is a huge container that’s glued to a chain or wire.
When I went to Lowes the other day they had a giant container of hand sanitizer. I’d guess it was 2 gallons in size.
As for small businesses, they seem to be on the news as the hardest hit. Their fear is loss of money and loss of trained employees.
I understand the economy will not get back to where it was. But I think we need to give the businesses the opportunity to decide for themselves what makes sense.
The virus has shown to be not as horrific as was first feared. We’ve done a great job learning to social distance and we’ll need to stay vigilant. But not to this extreme.
Again, though, that is a side argument to why I started this thread. There are those calling for the continued lockdown until… I’m not sure when. There isn’t going to come a point where we can definitively say it is now better to be open.
We need to sacrifice jobs to be safe, some say. Okay, how about those who are calling for continued lockdown sacrifice a little?
You might be in the wrong thread. This thread is about people who support the “lockdown” who have jobs and paychecks and whether or not they should forego their pay. It’s really about whether people who listen to doctors and not poorly-informed politicians should put their money where their mouth is.
So let me get this straight.
If someone doesn’t think that businesses should return as though things are normal, you think people who oppose that idea ought to give up their paycheck.
But if business returns to normal with no plan for dealing with the disease and people get sick… nobody is responsible for that?
That doesn’t add up at all.
Do you think a global depression is safe?
It is fine to say you are standing with the doctors on what to do. I can’t argue that there aren’t legitimate, credentialed people saying to continue the lockdown. If asked “what about all the unemployed?” the answer is generally, “unfortunate, but we need to protect people. Lives are more important.” If you believe that, then put your money where your support is. Give up your money.
I don’t want to get snarky here, so please take this the way it is intended. I said, specifically, businesses need to put in reasonable precautions to protect employees. I didn’t say “with no plan for dealing with the disease.”
And yes, a business is not responsible for trying to contain a highly contagious disease.
I keep asking advocates for keeping the lockdown what “flattening the curve” means and no one answers. My understanding is that it means the same number of people will end up infected. I’ve seen that several places. I can provide cites if you’d like. What does it mean to you? Because if it means the number infected is unchanged, why should a business be held responsible when the employee is going to be getting this one way or another?
Well I have been looking at the numbers put out by the Colorado health department, and that doesn’t look like a particularly flat curve to me. But maybe it could be a lot worse. My understanding is that our convention center has been turned into a hospital for virus patients and also that it is currently empty.
So my thoughts on reopening stuff is that we should do it now. According to some experts this virus is expected to recede somewhat in warmer months as other flu viruses do, and hey, here we are, getting warmer.
On the other hand, it may not calm down in warmer months, and if that is the case then it still seems better to reopen now, so if there are new cases we can deal with them now and not in the fall, when the other flu viruses appear and also need attention.
At least here in Denver it looks like restaurants are unlikely to reopen soon, because restaurant owners believe they would get about half the business they normally would at this time of year and that wouldn’t be enough. The businesses that have stayed open seem to have measures in place, at least for their customers, and hopefully for their employees.
While it can help a bit, that is a request that works better when everyone is involved, as in: paying taxes so as to support the ones in an unfortunate position. There is already one tool, as in supporting politicians that do understand how inadequate the taxation has been in the USA coming from Republicans in power.
That information is really available out there and easy to find.
IMHO then a business can get into trouble by opening before employees or customers have masks, for example, and then the curve in the city they are located goes higher; and the hospitals are swamped and then more people usual die than if the business had protected their workers and customers. BTW since I do know that contact tracings are planned to be used in many locations in the USA, there then will be evidence of where the spike in cases originated, pointing at the ones that were negligent.
But what I’m trying to understand is why you think that a bunch of average Americans who place health as their first priority should give up their paychecks; but those who hold the economy as their first priority should risk nothing. Where’s the fairness in that? If you want to go down this road, shouldn’t the saw cut both ways?
That is not a snarky response, but I disagree that urging businesses to take some precautions is a plan. The Federal government response to this has been a directionless disaster, and I don’t see they have a plan to get things in order soon with testing and tracing or any other actual strategy. Trump wants unemployment to go down for his own re-election purposes, which to him is clearly more important than anything. So I call that “no plan for dealing with the disease.”
There has been a ton of discussion of this on this board. I’m pretty sure you can find it.
I don’t think anyone should give up a paycheck or that businesses should be held liable (absent gross negligence, like maybe some of those meatpacking plants). But since you proposed that some people should essentially pay financial penalties due to economic hardship, I’m countering that it would also be fair to have people be liable for spreading the disease. I’m not sure why you see that as unfair, seems like sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Besides, if you want businesses to take precautions (in the absence of Federal leadership IMHO) then it doesn’t seem crazy to hold at risk something so they can be penalized for NOT doing a good job.
NO way I will go broke. I am working from home and getting my paychecks on time but I can understand what most of the people would be feeling right now. If you go broke, you are dying every day anyway so it is better to go out there and try. It is a very tricky situation right now. I hope that day never comes when people start to go broke.
Yes, I had that as a cite and there are others. I’ve been on board with saying that is the meaning of flattening the curve for a while. I’d just like to make sure myself and whoever I’m discussing with are agreed that is the case. The implications of that understanding are important. One of those implications is that for the vast majority of people it isn’t a matter of whether you get sick, it is when. Given that, I don’t see the point in holding a business responsible if someone just happens to get infected there. But if someone thinks flattening the curve means fewer people will get sick, then I can see why they’d think businesses might need to be held responsible.
I said before businesses need to take due precautions. They don’t need to setup a high level containment zone, but some care must be taken. And if they do, I don’t see why they should be held liable. If 1 customer comes in and spreads it all around the store, that may not be the stores fault. May not. I’m sure we can both come up with situations where it still will be, but as long as the store is making reasonable attempts to keep the place sanitized, I think they shouldn’t be liable.
I didn’t know universal healthcare would pay my mortgage, SIGN ME UP!
People who are putting health as their first priority are calling for it at a tremendous expense. Trillions. Plus millions of jobs. There are those of us who think the unknowns were sufficient that we were willing to go along with it because the worst case scenario was indescribably bad. But we’ve learned since then, and some of us feel we can loosen up quite a bit and still not be even half as bad as what was predicted. For those who are STILL claiming health as the overriding concern, at one point will that change for them? What are they willing to sacrifice to keep health as the top concern? It has been asked of millions of Americans to give up their job and all that entails for other’s health. We over corrected, though. And if you still want to keep that over correction, what are you willing to give up to maintain it?
I hope that makes sense.
I don’t want the economy back because of Trump. Hell, I’m advocating for it to open despite the fact I think it will help him. I hate having to make that choice. But the last thing I want is for millions of people to be suffering needlessly. We locked down, put the brakes on this spread, and now we have more information. NY wasn’t overrun, and neither was anywhere else. We are getting better at social distancing. As I said, there is a 0.025% infection rate in my county. It is time to open up. Those that are advocating for continued lockdowns in the name of safety need to start sacrificing themselves given the present situation.
I already know what answers I’ve found. It is that the total number won’t change. But it helps if the person I’m discussing with agrees. It is a big part of why I feel the way I do.
I don’t think people should have to give up a paycheck, unless they are going to still advocate for keeping things locked down. I think it is unfair for those that have nothing to sacrifice to continue to ask others to sacrifice.
As for the businesses, it comes down to what I said about flattening the curve. If you agree the same number of people are going to be infected, then the business isn’t really the cause of an employee getting sick. They are going to get it one way or another. The business has some responsibility for due care, but not completely responsibility to make sure no one ever gets sick there.
Besides, if you want businesses to take precautions (in the absence of Federal leadership IMHO) then it doesn’t seem crazy to hold at risk something so they can be penalized for NOT doing a good job.
[/QUOTE]
That day is already here. 26 million Americans filed for unemployment in the last several weeks.
If you are unwilling to go broke, or give up a good part of your paycheck, are you willing to let the economy open up again so those that have lost their jobs can go try to find one, if any are to be found, or do you think we should still maintain full lockdown?
Are you willing to take personal responsibility for a resurgence, or even an escalation, of Covid-19 if it happens?
Are you willing to take responsibility for the regular flu?
This IS NOT “the regular flu”, and continually downplaying it as such is dangerous.
Personal responsibility in what way?
If you publicly promote the opening up of society in general(and business in particular) and a resurgence causes more people to get sick and possibly die, how would you react?
You seem to be saying we’re hypocrites if we call for extreme social distancing but don’t give up our paychecks. What would the corollary be, if you’re calling for reopening the economy but don’t give up your health?
Your talk about things are a lot less bad than predicted completely misses the why of that: they’re a lot less bad than predicted because of social distancing. Folks who enacted these measures saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Your implication that we should stop following these measures means that you’re asking for hundreds of thousands of lives to be risked, for exactly the same reason they were at risk before.
Your accusation of hypocrisy is incredibly broad, and applies to every situation in which someone calls for a social safety net that costs anyone money. It doesn’t make sense.
If someone is calling for restaurant workers to be fired, AND IS ALSO NOT CALLING FOR INCREASED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS, then you might have a point. But I haven’t seen anyone making such a call.
I’m under the impression that the number of people that are going to get infected is the same no matter what we do, barring a vaccine in the very near future. Give that, the only change is how many get sick at any given time. The lockdowns happened to keep from overwhelming healthcare systems. We had to take severe precautions because we didn’t know just how bad this would get. In short, people are going to die no matter what we do. If you disagree with that, we’ll need to start there. But if you agree flattening the curve is about protecting medical systems from being overrun and not about changing the number infected, we can go from there.