[cerebellum42]

And why do you think this should be strictly a "government bill"? I think it's a lot more nuanced than that. One perspective would be to say this is a cost all of society needs to pay as a whole (in which case everyone simply pays it in taxes at the end) or you could say "we just require your business to behave in such a way that it doesn't end up killing people, you pay the cost for it". These are the extremes of course, but we need to figure out where we fall on that spectrum.

[tinus_hn]

Because the government is the party deciding on the restrictions. If the government has to pay the price there’s a chance they’ll keep that part of the equation in mind.

If they can just brush it off by having others foot the bill, they’ll simply make the choice which minimizes the impact that can be directly attributed to them. Which definitely is not always the right choice.

It’s just so much easier to chant for safety whatever the costs if you don’t have to pay the bill.

[cerebellum42]

Just to be clear, I think it's within the responsibility of the government to pay for much of the hardship incurred by lockdowns to help get society and the economy as a whole through it halfway intact; but I do not think that applies to _everything_.

Two examples: If a Business is closed due to lockdown - there should be government assistance to compensate. Buying masks for employees and changing interior layouts to allow for safer interactions, to comply with new regulations - cost of doing business.

This alone:

>Because the government is the party deciding on the restrictions.

is not a valid reason to me. We don't (or at least I don't) expect the government to pay for every impact of new environmental legislation either even though they ultimately pass the legislation.