[alchemyromcom]

Losing your livelihood can kill you, however. If you are a small business owner, for example, and it's illegal to operate that business, your life is also in danger and your situation deserves empathy. Empathy is not finite resource. We can extend it to all people in bad situations, not just people we prefer.

[CameronNemo]

Which is why the federal government passed a never-before-seen stimulus package that included forgivable small business loans and expanded unemployment income.

There is no equivalent safety net for people who are victims of positional asphyxia.

[sethammons]

I know several small businesses that are closed forever despite that bill. Many reasons why, I’m sure; however, the most cited one I’ve heard is that the monies had too many strings tied to uncertain outcomes whereby the business owner could end up still out there f business but also with debt that they wont be able to service.

[thethethethe]

> If you are a small business owner, for example, and it's illegal to operate that business, your life is also in danger and your situation deserves empathy

This is a false dichotomy. Sure, these people (and their workers) deserve empathy and support, but that doesn’t mean they should be allowed to reopen. You can support business owners via financial aid or other measures while their business is closed.

[glofish]

no, this is not about empathy but personal autonomy and sovereignity and autocracy. Why not allow someone to do something if they are willing to take the risk, why treat them as criminals?

If you believe that you get infected at a store, don't go to the store ... case closed. On what basis is the state "protecting" someone that does not want to be protected? On what basis is someone considered a criminal when a crime could only potentially be committed?

what if the person is immune to the disease, already had the disease, or does not mind getting infected?

[thethethethe]

> Why not allow someone to do something if they are willing to take the risk, why treat them as criminals?

Because we live in a society and our actions affect others. When you take this argument to an extreme it becomes pretty obvious that it is fallacious. For example, do you think it is okay for someone to actively burn their garbage, venting toxic smoke into their neighborhood because they are “willing to take the risk” of developing health complications?

> If you believe that you get infected at a store, don't go to the store

It would really nice if this worked but it strikes me as a grand oversimplification of how society operates and diseases spread.

> what if the person is immune to the disease, already had the disease, or does not mind getting infected?

These people still risk infecting others and perpetuating the pandemic, which is why you shouldn’t do it, even if you aren’t afraid for yourself.

[dageshi]

Presumably said people would be willing to forfeit medical treatment and quietly die at home if they did catch it?

[caseysoftware]

I've been considering this line of reasoning for a while: if opening your business disqualifies you from medical treatment, what else does?

Being obese? Smoking? After all, both of those are the direct result of your choices and less dependent on other people than getting a virus.

Most people say "Oh, that would never happen!" but if we have a time where rationing healthcare becomes the norm or even just vital, it will just as it did in Italy a few months back.

[mindslight]

Much of that purported "willing" is driven by an involuntary need to service debt. Without acknowledging this, it's disingenuous to talk about the shutdowns in terms of autonomy. I'd wager that the shutdowns actually allowed more people to act with their desires than they prevented. For example had the shutdowns not occurred, how many companies that are pure WFH right now would have just continued telling everyone to come into the office?

[DennisAleynikov]

you could make the same case for the current wave of protests

'you should support blm and adjacent causes from home through donating without putting more people and lives at risk'

[nr2x]

What exactly do you mean by "people we prefer"? I am unclear on the meaning and motive of your language.

[bsder]

> Losing your livelihood can kill you, however.

Why is "Reopen all the things!" the only solution, though?

Part of the reason why people got angry is because none of the people involved around the cosplaytriots wanted to consider any other options, and there are many.

1) The fact that losing your job costs you your healthcare is a political problem. The government can decide to extend healthcare by fiat, expand access, or several other choices.

2) The fact that people weren't getting paid unemployment that they filed for is a problem.

3) If you really believed in choice, give people $2,000 per month unconditionally but allow them to choose whether they wish to go back to work. Now we can see the free market in action.

Instead, the only thing on the cosplaytriot protest agenda was "Stay home and die or get back to work and possibly die". That's not exactly a protest sentiment that's going to get much grass roots support.

Putting a gun to people's heads is going to make them angry.