Corona / Wuhan virus

[slant]

@Vendrah @Milktoast Bandit @MoonFlier @Skarekrow

I want to take a minute to clarify my thoughts and intentions here.

I understand this is a sensitive issue and that there is a lot of suffering going on. Especially health care workers and many involved in this thread are in health care or have loved ones in health care. I empathize and in no means take the gravity of your job lightly, nor your life. I understand the concerns. They are real and valid .

I feel I have been unfairly characterized in this thread as cold, unfeeling, caring more about money than people. I have had people attacking my character in this thread. I hope the I have not attacked anyone else, and if I had please bring it up so that I can address it. I'm not upset with anyone for doing this because I understand emotions are high and this being a matter of life and death, of course people are going to feel strongly and thus behave that way.

My main concern has always been that the strategies being employed can only be sustained for a period of time. I do agree that the quarantine is a good idea.

The place where we differ, I think, is how long it can be sustained.

I largely feel nobody really has enough information on either side to make a case with absolute certainly. At this point we are all doing our best to sift through various conflicting data, E which is not always as accurate as we would like it to be, to find solutions.

There are problems that are going to happen the longer we stay in quarantine and I feel they aren't being legitimately addressed. If we can find solutions to these problems it might be possible to continue quarantine for somewhat longer.

Everyone knows that the quarantine has to end at some point we just disagree with when.

One of my thoughts has been that we revert to a similar system that we had during world war 2; it's very fitting since many outlets have been calling this the war against coronavirus.

Potentially the government could take the unemployed population, particularly the young and healthy, test them and then take those who have antibodies developed against coronavirus and assign them jobs. If everyone we have in the work force has already had coronavirus it greatly reduces the risk of these people falling ill and being unable to work, or infecting their co-workers. We could also go the route where only people who haven't had it get to work, but I feel that more people will come down with it and It could risk too many people being out of the work force and essential businesses failing.

Okay so- this pool of healthy young people who can work- we assign them jobs, just like the women in factories during world war 2, in order to sustain things. We can have people deliver food and that's their job exclusively. With standardized precautions. We can have unemployed people plugged into agriculture work and factory work. My boyfriend works at a factory and they do not have enough people working and he is working 60+ hours. We need more people in the essential jobs. We need to plug in the holes with the unemployed we currently have.

If we were able to do that, we may be able to stay in quarantine slightly longer. Enough people would have jobs that the economy would be going to a degree. We also could brainstorm creative ways to keep businesses that had to be shut down like bars and entertainment industry and coffee shops open in a more limited capacity.

But a system has to be devised and put in place to avoid long term problems. The economy shutting down is real and we have to address that in quarantine plans which we are currently not.

I hope this clarifies my position.

 

[Sandie33]

https://www.physiciansweekly.com/mortality-rate-of-covid-19-patients-on-ventilators/

Once you get out on a ventilator that's as good as a death sentence. We are keeping people alive who are already going to die.

The lives we are "saving" are not the most extreme cases. It's the people who were very likely going to survive anyway, people with stronger immune systems.

I disagree. There have been many in NY put on a ventilator and survived that otherwise would not have survived had they not been put on the ventilator.

 

[ReasonEnduring]

The economy isn't some abstract concept.

If the food chain breaks down more people will die. That's what I'm talking about. That's what can happen if an economy stops.

Indeed. The general population don't understand economics which is another reason why I think there needs to be more education so people can make more informed decisions.

Its not a case of magically adding numbers here and there.

There is a system, a formula.

Last time that system broke down in the West it was the fall of the Western Roman Empire and we had several hundred years of Dark Ages.

A LOT more people died then.

Its not a small matter.

 

[ReasonEnduring]

Our supply chain is just fine.
Have you ever seen a supermarket in the middle of Russia?
We have 50 types of bread, 50 types of salad dressing, etc. etc.
The economy isn't stopping, we are just fine.
People here in the US have no concept of what no food is like.
Another month or two to stop the upward trend isn't going to kill anyone.

It is now. Doesn't mean it will continue to be.

The US is a net food producer so food will be there, especially in States like California.

But what happens whent he machines who produce the food break down?

The US imports a lot of metal work from China and other countries. Electronics too. Getting specific parts in a crisis is difficult.

Machines break down and can't be replaced. Food goes unharvested and spoils. Possibly it draws pests and we see a rise in pestilance nation wide.

That's not to talk about those who become unemployed. What if they feel deperate and riot? Seize food trucks? Burn factories? That tends to happen when people are stressed and don't have jobs.

Plus even if we reopen tomorrow, we have a massive DEBT to repay. The money created by the government today, both for billionaires and the average person didn't come from NOWHERE.

They BORROWED from the FUTURE.

We are settling or KIDS with DEBT, AGAIN. And that isn't fair either.

The money being spent isn't being used to grow the economy so the debt burden in the future qill be WAY higher. And the Chinese debt collectors will come eventually. They've already started in Africa, seizing ports and land from African Nations who default on loans.

And if US fails to pay debts no one will ever deal with the US again because they are unrealiable.

Its why the UK took until 2017 to repay all its WW1 debts. Its a big deal to default. Go ask Argentina or Zimbabwe.

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

Machines break down and can't be replaced. Food goes unharvested and spoils

That's why we have illegal immIgrants!

....

..... Didn't you say you needed a job, NEET?

*Jokes. Only jokes​

 

[slant]

I disagree. There have been many in NY put on a ventilator and survived that otherwise would not have survived had they not been put on the ventilator.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...-panacea-for-critically-ill-covid-19-patients

The largest study so far to look at mortality among coronavirus patients on ventilators was done by the Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre in London. It found that among 98 ventilated patients in the U.K., just 33 were discharged alive.

These are real statistics. You can have a different opinion, but back it up.

 

[Vendrah]

Im back and I found the other forum post. Post is from last week of march.

Well, despite all things I generally support I am still relatively fiscally conservative, since bankrupting the system will not help anyone. Plus it seems that my government is smart enough to give money on the basis of how much workers you keep. So the money will mostly go to minimal wages as it seems.


So the story goes something like this:

From what I gathered here the plan is to impose very strong lock-down so that all cases get localizes and cured if possible (what shouldn't take too long). Therefore even if the world is strongly hit we should be able to have our country operational and perhaps even make some gains. For that reason getting in and out of the country isn't really possible for individuals. Also for the traveling outside of your city/town you need a permit that confirms that this is justified, everything but most essential is closed down (like food production/distribution, public safety, drug stores etc), all public gatherings from sports, culture or religion are forbidden. Loans, mortgages, rents and similar are or will be frozen. Here the private sector isn't that big so the government can pay minimum wage for some time, especially since the public debt isn't in the red (and good chunk is essential and therefore it will work anyway). The catch is that if the country is basically in complete hibernation that also means that the costs as well will be low since you are killing both income and the costs. Therefore expenses will be reduced to food and similar basic stuff, which you can place on a credit card if you are broke. Plus the government has to cover all of my medical bills if there are any, however since we are all mostly at home there wouldn't be any for the most. In genuinely capitalistic country this isn't really possible but being able to just freeze everything can be gold when shit really hits. In a way I am blessed to be in the country that was legally built in a way to keep in mind that eventually there will be another major crisis (since the country was forged in even deeper crisis than what we currently have).




Plus if you think that your current situation is bad just wait that some wild cards hit on the top of all this. My city the other day got rocked by strongest earthquake in 140 years, it wasn't ultra powerful but it really did damage plenty of infrastructure (parliament building is out). Plus on the top of that the snow is falling for the last 3 days. Therefore I don't even want to think what would have happened in the case that we don't have deeply developed "welfare culture and welfare system" in this situation. This would really be the end since no one is really accepting refugees at this point. Therefore for me all this talk about money, poverty or whatever is BS if it doesn't lead to physical survival. Since at the end of the day all money is monopoly money in these digital days. Through my life I went through 3 different currencies and 4th is on the way, even if I am living in the same city entire life. Therefore for me once you survive the apocalypse it is easy to restart everything, especially if infrastructure stands and people are ok. In a way this is a lot like the story of 3 pigs, which are trying to resist the wolf through building houses. While in the end only the robust/complex system protected from serious crisis, from which America was spared for the most part. Therefore I am unapologetic into the face of very pro-market liberal people, since they are likely to be those whose houses will not hold when wolf finally shows up.




Plus this is just so that it doesn't look as if I am making stuff up. Corona, plus earthquake, plus economy, plus the loss of parliament, plus windy snowstorm for day ... and we still hold things together (only 2 people died thus far, teen in earthquake and one old guy from still unclear medical reasons)
[VIDEOS]
The survival is fundamentally the question of will and competence, not money.


Just my 2 cents on the issue.

(from Typology Central Corona thread)

Thanks for explaining the issue in a calm, patient, friendly and rational way.

Your catch is something that people should be catching... It is just a matter of hibernation. Im sorry if I repeat a little bit but I want to do a highlight here. If the market were that super B, then hibernate shouldnt be an issue. The market, on its own will, should be able to hibernate until necessary without any crisis created after the hibernation is gone. However, most pro-market people seems to be really desperate, to the point of making whole nations sick in long term, just to save a system that seems to collapse just because things have to freeze for a while. In these days, we have good food preservatives (that same ones criticized so much in these last years), many things we already buy normally last months, and focused food on that matter can even last an year or two. Just keeping the essential services, hibernation is something that could be possible (without crashes after comeback) even for an year or two.

My pro-market people on my country are desperate and doing whatever they can for non-stopping. They want even jewerly and (think any non-essential store) opens because, you know, they say its just a flu. They will, as usual, ruin statistics to serve their purposes as their support (is not for nothing that sometimes I am criticized for using and backing stuff with statistics, even in gaming; is not for nothing that some people see statistics as useless, because with bad use it is, really). Im sorry to be this direct, but I think there is a lesson to be learned here: In the end, not even them believe in the market for real. They wouldnt be freaking out and pointing themselves several bad stuff that going to happen: Unemployment even if there is effectively more work to be done after the quarantine than in years (market failing to allocate and structure work), hunger/starving (market failing to properly distribute food; This links with too much Gini coefficient and bad income and wealth distribution), company´s bankrupting (the reduce of income by NOT being followed by reduces of cost as you pointed, even if that is just logical) and other stuff they eventually like to point out. Actually, even I had a more optimistic view of the market, since as @Maou I also believed that it will bounce back well, but pro-market people, specially the brazilian ones, actually disagrees.

Just to update, people in my place are already manipulating the numbers, since, from death rates, estimation shows that there are 5-15 times more case than officially reported (5 at best, 15 at worst) because the federal government is avoiding as much testing as they can for some time now.

Just to clarify that context, it was clear that the essential services, such as power, water, waste and supplies (perhaps I miss one or two) are supposed to be running on quarantine.

And just to completing and perhaps as an answer to @slant , as I said, our food can lasts very long, we can keep our supplies chains and power, water and waste, and we can just wait instead of putting everything back to normal and have hospitals (specially in 3rd world countries like mine =( ) full of people, unable to meet the demand, with people dying in their homes. And corporations are created and run by people as a whole, not by money. No people working = No corporation, thats one reason some of them are running mad. These corporations "own the jobs" as a matter of formality (which goes to my other complementary point below), and, of course, these people are literally using the system and the conventions to hostaging (making hostages) of people, so they can blackmail people into going back to work so they can return profiting, because, you know, why we should be happy with a billion if we can make two? If the market were that good then people could get rid of their bosses and work in the same pace with the same income, but that doesn't really happen (neoliberalism loves to pretend it always does).

And just to complete even more: Jobs, corporations, bank account, all of these are convention of systems, as capitalism being one of them. All these firers could fire and then re-hire again or just "freeze" the work if they wish, but employers prefers to threat people to force them to come back as fast as possible, that is a fact. What is very likely is that they are doing it because they suddenly stop having more money and are losing money (likely, in the same %, the same as the regular Joe that saved money before receiving Government assist, which in US seems to be being dedicated to big companies).

And I actually have skipped the unorganized tribe analogy (no central power). The unorganized tribe is one that needs people volunteering (not by command or by a central power) to fix and run "public" things, taking care of those in need by their own, making things fair in their own, having and being trustable in each other and etc... Using that point of view, people with billions or millions of dollars can simply reunite themselves and change people's bank account and giving enough resources so the ones on the "bottom" of money-line can have enough money to buy their stuff and pay essential services bill. If they did that, quarantine could be kept by some long time, but, of course, they wont do it and will use the "fallacy" of meritocracy as a justification (the raw market capitalism is not a meritocracy, I can explain that later just finding another post of mine if you want).

So, yeah, its market fault, and its people fault as well, there is not much I can do anyway. And thats my whole explained point.

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

Indeed. The general population don't understand economics which is another reason why I think there needs to be more education so people can make more informed decisions.

Its not a case of magically adding numbers here and there.

There is a system, a formula.

Last time that system broke down in the West it was the fall of the Western Roman Empire and we had several hundred years of Dark Ages.

A LOT more people died then.

Its not a small matter.

The writing is on the wall for all to see so to speak that there are loads of "educated" people who do want the West and in particular the US to crash and burn, just look at the students and teachers in almost all the western colleges/universities particularly in the countless SJW safe spaces. The sad part is that this time it was avoidable and it could have lasted a lot longer without the societal degradation and social division but nope identity politics trumps all.

 

[Peppermint]

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...-panacea-for-critically-ill-covid-19-patients


These are real statistics. You can have a different opinion, but back it up.

I don't really get your point.

33 survivals out of 98 people is better than 98 deaths.

Moreover you are quoting a study made in one hospital, one town, in one country, made on a single sample. You can hardly hold this up as a some kind of statistical truth.

Even if you found the same trend across the globe saving ~30% of people is still better than losing 100% of them.

 

[slant]

I don't really get your point.

33 survivals out of 98 people is better than 98 deaths.

Moreover you are quoting a study made in one hospital, one town, in one country, made on a single sample. You can hardly hold this up as a some kind of statistical truth.

Even if you found the same trend across the globe saving ~30% of people is still better than losing 100% of them.

If you read the article there's several studies which all suggest the same evidence

My point is that the majority of people who are sick enough to be put on ventilators will die anyway.

Decisions have to be made on data.

On what is best for the whole. Just like with gambling, if the odds that you were going to win were 30% that's a bet you're stupid to make.

The economic consequences of prolonged quarantine to save a small percentage of 3% of the population who are getting infected badly enough to die....

It's not justified. I get the bleeding heart thing, I really do. But the long term implications is loss of quality of life and lives on a massive scale. It is short term thinking.

 

[Peppermint]

If you read the article there's several studies which all suggest the same evidence

With those numbers in mind you don't believe saving 1/3 of patients with acute respiratory distress is better than letting them all die?

Is there a sounder alternative for providing oxygen to people who have respiratory distress?

If a better alternative doesn't exist, I think it's quite irresponsible of outlets to suggest people should be left for dead even with numbers being as they are.

 

[slant]

With those numbers in mind you don't believe saving 1/3 of patients with acute respiratory distress is better than letting them all die?

Is there a sounder alternative for providing oxygen to people who have respiratory distress?

If a better alternative doesn't exist, I think it's quite irresponsible of outlets to suggest people should be left for dead even with numbers being as they are.

I'm asking you to consider the economic ramifications as well in terms of how many people will lose their houses, their jobs, their healthcare, the suicides, the starvation and many other things associated with long term economic shut down. I'm saying

More people will lose in that. More people will die over a longer period of time and more people will be disenfranchised.

 

[slant]

The confusion here may be that people think I want people to die and am excited about it.

Rather, I am attempting cost-benefit analysis and I would really like to have a conversation about that.

Many of you are shutting down this conversation by saying: it doesn't matter what we have to do we have to save the most lives possible.

I agree.

The conversation I am attempting to have is a conversation about:

What are, realistically, the long term consequences of an economic shutdown? Many of you are saying we'll be fine. I love that optimistic thinking! Let's take a detour and realistically explore what could go wrong.

Simply consider it.

Why?

So that we can solve it .

If these problems that are possible prove to be too big to solve, if the fallout of our short term solution causes long term complications, we need to explore them, understand them, and accept them.

From what I've read about the Great depression and projections of how our economic situation is progressing, we may be headed for dire times if we choose to deal with the coronavirus this way. We need to consider the drawbacks. It's hard but we need to consider it.

 

[Peppermint]

I'm asking you to consider the economic ramifications as well in terms of how many people will lose their houses, their jobs, their healthcare, the suicides, the starvation and many other things associated with long term economic shut down. I'm saying

More people will lose in that. More people will die over a longer period of time and more people will be disenfranchised.

Providing intensive care to people is not synonymous with the lockdown though.

I understand the fear of being left destitute, although I fail to see how keeping people off life support will help the economy.

It seems obvious the economy is going to take a big hit with a lockdown or without it. Mass amounts of people dying is certainly not good for the economy, massive death tolls also equate to a great deal of people (children, teens and the elderly ) being left destitute when their breadwinners are dead.

 

[Sandie33]

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...-panacea-for-critically-ill-covid-19-patients


These are real statistics. You can have a different opinion, but back it up.

Why the strong words? I merely said I disagreed with the futility of using ventilators.
I don't believe I need to 'back it up'. My observations of being a resident allows my opinion in any context.

 

[Peppermint]

@slant

I don't believe you want people to die. Your argument for keeping people off respirators just doesn't make sense to me.


What would you do to prevent the fall out from large numbers of people dying?

 

[slant]

Providing intensive care to people is not synonymous with the lockdown though.

I understand the fear of being left destitute, although I fail to see how keeping people off life support will help the economy.

It seems obvious the economy is going to take a big hit with a lockdown or without it. Mass amounts of people dying is certainly not good for the economy, massive death tolls also equate to a great deal of people (children, teens and the elderly ) being left destitute when their breadwinners are dead.

I wasn't arguing against ventilators, it was part of a larger argument.

The point I was trying to make was that we are in quarantine under the false belief that doing so is going to have a tremendous effect on saving lives. There is a lot of panic around hospitals not having enough ventilators and I was trying to point out that ventilators aren't proving to be that effective at saving lives; meaning, even with our treatments, we are failing. Our best treatment methods aren't good enough to save the majority of the sickest people.

So:

If we are saving the lives of a small percentage of a small percentage of the population who are getting very sick,

And the economic ramifications of a long term shut down will cost the livelihood, health and security of the entire population,

Are we really doing what is best for the greater good? As a society are we really protecting everyone, or are making a decision which will result in long term greater devastation?

That's what I'm asking.

The majority of people here are coming back with responses like

"Lives are more important than money"

"You are cold without a heart"

"Who cares"

But if you research a great depression a lot of people really suffered. It does matter. I'm not concerned about money I'm concerned about the long term health of our entire society and I'm trying to ask:

At what point is reopening the economy necessary to mitigate this mass destruction that's going to result? We are already in a recession.

It is undeniable that at a certain point staying in this state will push the world into a great depression. I can't say for sure at what point. The great depression was a terrible time to live in. Horrific. Most people here including me were not alive to see it but I've been reading about that time frame and I do not think people understand the realities of what could happen if we stay in quarantine too long.

 

[ReasonEnduring]

The writing is on the wall for all to see so to speak that there are loads of "educated" people who do want the West and in particular the US to crash and burn, just look at the students and teachers in almost all the western colleges/universities particularly in the countless SJW safe spaces. The sad part is that this time it was avoidable and it could have lasted a lot longer without the societal degradation and social division but nope identity politics trumps all.

Like Trump supporters I don't think SJWs want people to die or the US to fall.

And those that do would regret it very quickly if it happened. A world where the US collapses is basically a new Dark Age and all social and technological progress resets to 0.

This is the problem with both sides painting a picture of the 'enemy' that is an exaggeration of all the worst aspects.

Everyone wants a better US. Everyone has different ideas about what that looks like.

Problem is no one is smart enough to count on ALL the factors to make their dream a reality and thus those dreams become just that, dreams.

Trump dreams. SJW dreams. Both unrealistic, both dangerous if pushed to the extreme.

Which is why everyone needs to come together and find a comproimise that isn't perfect or anything anyone completely wants, but is good enough for people to live with.

 

[ReasonEnduring]

But if you research a great depression a lot of people really suffered. It does matter. I'm not concerned about money I'm concerned about the long term health of our entire society and I'm trying to ask:

At what point is reopening the economy necessary to mitigate this mass destruction that's going to result? We are already in a recession.

It is undeniable that at a certain point staying in this state will push the world into a great depression. I can't say for sure at what point. The great depression was a terrible time to live in. Horrific. Most people here including me were not alive to see it but I've been reading about that time frame and I do not think people understand the realities of what could happen if we stay in quarantine too long.

Very very true.

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

@Vendrah @Milktoast Bandit @MoonFlier @Skarekrow

I want to take a minute to clarify my thoughts and intentions here.

I understand this is a sensitive issue and that there is a lot of suffering going on. Especially health care workers and many involved in this thread are in health care or have loved ones in health care. I empathize and in no means take the gravity of your job lightly, nor your life. I understand the concerns. They are real and valid .

I feel I have been unfairly characterized in this thread as cold, unfeeling, caring more about money than people. I have had people attacking my character in this thread. I hope the I have not attacked anyone else, and if I had please bring it up so that I can address it. I'm not upset with anyone for doing this because I understand emotions are high and this being a matter of life and death, of course people are going to feel strongly and thus behave that way.

My main concern has always been that the strategies being employed can only be sustained for a period of time. I do agree that the quarantine is a good idea.

The place where we differ, I think, is how long it can be sustained.

I largely feel nobody really has enough information on either side to make a case with absolute certainly. At this point we are all doing our best to sift through various conflicting data, E which is not always as accurate as we would like it to be, to find solutions.

There are problems that are going to happen the longer we stay in quarantine and I feel they aren't being legitimately addressed. If we can find solutions to these problems it might be possible to continue quarantine for somewhat longer.

Everyone knows that the quarantine has to end at some point we just disagree with when.

One of my thoughts has been that we revert to a similar system that we had during world war 2; it's very fitting since many outlets have been calling this the war against coronavirus.

Potentially the government could take the unemployed population, particularly the young and healthy, test them and then take those who have antibodies developed against coronavirus and assign them jobs. If everyone we have in the work force has already had coronavirus it greatly reduces the risk of these people falling ill and being unable to work, or infecting their co-workers. We could also go the route where only people who haven't had it get to work, but I feel that more people will come down with it and It could risk too many people being out of the work force and essential businesses failing.

Okay so- this pool of healthy young people who can work- we assign them jobs, just like the women in factories during world war 2, in order to sustain things. We can have people deliver food and that's their job exclusively. With standardized precautions. We can have unemployed people plugged into agriculture work and factory work. My boyfriend works at a factory and they do not have enough people working and he is working 60+ hours. We need more people in the essential jobs. We need to plug in the holes with the unemployed we currently have.

If we were able to do that, we may be able to stay in quarantine slightly longer. Enough people would have jobs that the economy would be going to a degree. We also could brainstorm creative ways to keep businesses that had to be shut down like bars and entertainment industry and coffee shops open in a more limited capacity.

But a system has to be devised and put in place to avoid long term problems. The economy shutting down is real and we have to address that in quarantine plans which we are currently not.

I hope this clarifies my position.

I didn't classify you in any negative light. I think what you're proposing is reasonable. You're not asking to lift the quarantine completely. You're concerned about the problems that will arise with a prolonged shutdown. Nothing wrong with that. My personal opinion is that a quarantine wouldn't be much of a problem if the US gov't actually had the backs of the population, with healthcare and more funds going to the poor and middle class instead of corporations. Corporations will be fine. Millionaires, and billionaires will be fine. But the people that can barely put food on the table or don't have insurance will be screwed. Sure anyone could argue that corporations employ people so they need to stay afloat. The problem is, the people at the top of said corporations have all the cash. That's a problem that has been in the making for decades as minimum wage has only risen a few cents in the same period of time. What is happening is that the people that actually make the economy function are being taken advantage of, ripped off, and left to die while CEO's sit on a pile of cash and grow and protect that pile by buying politicians. What this crisis should be opening eyes to is that our gov't and the billionaires do not give a single fuck about the working class. It's all about beating financial projections and getting more money. If we want the economy to function, we need healthy people. We need people to try not to get sick. If we're stupid and protest the quarantine, back by the president's calls for LIBERATION, people will get sick. Healthcare workers will get sick and no one will be there to take care of the sick and dying people. It's already happening. Then what happens to the economy? If our gov't would step up and actually do the right thing right now (by providing healthcare and funds to people that actually need it) we wouldn't have people protesting on the streets, 'begging' to go back to work, willing to risk theirs and others health and life. It sure is a tricky situation, but younger people are dying than was originally believed. (3 people in their 20's 2 males, 1 female have already died from covid in my exes hospital) 18-60-ish yr olds make the vast majority of the workforce that our economy relies on. There are already large swaths of people that are considered essential workers that keep the gears greased. Healthcare workers, grocery stores, gas stations, auto repair shops, construction, truck drivers, whatever food factories are called, the list is long of people that are still working. I'm one of them and every day I drive through insane traffic because lots of people are still working. The economy is still functioning. I gotta poop.