[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.

[BurningFrog]

Sure, if the government replaces your livelihood, it becomes much less of an issue.

Of course, such measures can only work for a while until things start breaking down. We can do without barbers for quite a while, but the more professions are offline, the worse the accumulated effect is.

[52-6F-62]

I don't think these measures were ever intended to be in effect in perpetuity. They're widely understood to be a stop-gap. It seems like a good strategy to me because it appears to be working. It's not perfect, but it's definitely helping. It's even making me believe in good government. Not perfect, but good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace,_order,_and_good_governm...