[mindslight]

You can only choose to self isolate if you have the means to give up income. Needing to come up with necessary expenses like food and utilities would be understandable, but the largest bill is rent which is a mostly product of our financial system rather than an intrinsic requirement of existence.

I could be in favor of lifting shutdown orders if there were a corresponding federal push to either halt such payments or reimburse people (federal is where the bulk of the money is distributed/printed). But without that, it's disingenuous to frame the situation as some kind of choice, when it's really the same unempathetic turning of the screws on the marginalized.

[forgotmylogin2]

People aren't going to be able to pay their bills regardless of whether they're locked down by mandate or by choice. However, if we allow the low-risk population to continue working, they will generate tax revenue that can be used to provide for the high-risk population. From that perspective, lifting the lockdown for low-risk persons is strictly better for the high-risk population than maintaining a blanket lockdown.

[mindslight]

The difference is that with a shutdown mandate, many people are in the same boat, which necessitates a solution. It's not uniform ("essential" and remote workers), but it's better than putting even more people in the position of having to choose their health or eventual homelessness. Especially say, to just work in nearly-empty movie theaters.

The tax revenue is a red herring. Print the money, as was quickly done for the corporate bond bailout. Or better yet, do the sustainable thing and just suspend rent payments and mortgage interest, so that the debt black hole actually unwinds a bit.