@roxy1 wrote:

Don't tell me some 80 year old parents are my responsibility.

Everyone's 80-year old parents are your responsibility. Sorry...but it's true, even if you don't like it. It's called social responsibility, and it trumps personal responsibility.

Your attitude is precisely why we are where we are; Not only leading the world in cases...but on a trajectory to blow every other country out of the water in terms or per-capita percentages of those infected.

Thanks for your contribution...

No, Steve, the attitudes and behaviors of people for decades prior to today have made a large contribution to some of the COVID-19 deaths.

Please consider the sociological view in which there is a long-standing organized and systematic effort to eliminate black males. There is support for this opinion in the world's history and published scholarship. (Anyone who is interested or merely sufficiently bored by staying at home might search for information and discussion of the issue.) Fast forward to the stats today: the people most likely to die in inner cities, crowded and dirty environments, under a dirty skies or without real cures for underlying conditions are old and black.

The dirty air of Northern Italy (where many deaths occurred) and many US cities has been accumulating for decades. I was not even alive when the first factories and other smog-makers began. Nonetheless, I know that my little stay-at-home efforts will have no effect on such long-standing issues as dirty air and old housing. I am at home, but this has no impact upon the lives of people who live in crowded conditions in other cities.

I have the entire world's population in my heart, and some of them a little more closely because they have no control of their circumstances. But I know in this crowded heart of mine that by staying at home more than I am going out, I am not really helping the people who have the strongest risks for complication and death.

Science and technology are helping, and our staying at home will not help very much. At most, it will help a little and simultaneously cause cascades of financial and other issues for many people... which some of them can alleviate by performing some work and earning some money.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2020 05:08PM by Shop-et-al.

I went grocery shopping yesterday and I don't feel bad about it. I am under a "Stay-at-Home" order until, at least, May 4 (Washington State) and grocery shopping is one of a small handful of things permitted for me to do outside the home as the governor does recognize that we do need to eat if we are going to survive the coronavirus. I feel fully justified and not at all guilty about making the (legal) excursion down through the produce section.

I didn't, but I would have been perfectly comfortable conducting a mystery shop as a part of my trip. I was in the store anyhow. I legitimately had to ask for help finding something - they had moved the raisins. I had to pay attention to the signage for social distancing, etc. I would further venture that, had a done this visit as a shop, it would not have further put anybody at risk than my grocery visit itself. For this reason, I have no issue with MSC's offering such mystery shops right now, especially if part of the shop is to verify that safety and social distancing protocols are being followed. After all, if such protocols are not being properly met, the grocery itself is putting the public in danger.

At the same time, I do have a problem with the idea of putting together a route of such shops. (And, yes, I am a usually route shopper.) Right now, for the sake of the health of my community - from immediately local to national, we all need to practice social distancing precautions. I should not be making needless visits to the grocery - or anywhere else. We all need to work together to defeat COVID-19. So, while the MSC is absolutely justified in advertising grocery shops, it must be up to shoppers to perform them in such a way that s/he does not unnecessarily contribute to the spread of the coronavirus.

What about other shops? I would suggest that, if the business is "not essential," it should not be open at all and, therefore, should not be shopped. Some communities have a fairly liberal view of "essential," which I do not intend to address here. I'll pick on gas stations. Part of preventing the spread of COVID-19 is maintaining cleanliness and sanitation - which are a part of every gas station shop I have ever done. So, I would argue that gas station mystery shops serve an important purpose right now.... As it became clear that we really needed to stay at home and not mingle in the community, I filled both of my family's cars with gas. As we are not going anywhere, we are hardly using any gas - at our current pace, we'll next need to fill a gas tank in about October. In other words, I have zero business going to a gas station right now, so it would be irresponsible for me to shop one. My next door neighbor is a hospital physician and, therefore an essential worker. She used to take the bus to work, but now drives and is using more gas than normal. She does not mystery shop, but I would have no problem with her doing a gas station shop or audit as a part of filling her tank. I would object to her running a route of shops. My son works at grocery store currently. If he wanted to shop a periodic gas station, I would not object, either. I would object to him making a special trip to a gas station for the purpose of a mystery shop.

Should we still be mystery shopping? I would suggest that, on a very limited basis, yes. So long as the shops are being conducted a a normal part of our *essential* errands and do not increase our exposure to the public and, therefore, spread of COVID-19, they are absolutely fine. However, the moment we are making special trips for shops, we become a part of the problem. I would further venture that, if conducting shops does not, in any way, increase our risk of spreading the coronavirus, it is good to do them. While this virus is primarily a major health issue for our nation, it is also causing major economic damage - both to individuals and businesses. The more business than can be conducted within the restrictions of various social distancing practices (not just orders - many are not strict enough), the better. This includes mystery shopping.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

Science and technology are helping, and our staying at home will not help very much. At most, it will help a little and simultaneously cause cascades of financial and other issues for many people... which some of them can alleviate by performing some work and earning some money.

Actually, Science tells us that staying at home is the one thing that will completely take care of the virus until we have immunity and/or a cure. Viruses spread when people have contact with one another. Keeping us at home prevents that contact - and therefore the spread...

Yes, it is true that more crowded and unsanitary living conditions contribute to the spread. In densely populated areas, each trip out puts a person into contact with more people, thus increasing the rate at which a virus can spread. Unsanitary living conditions leads to the virus being left on surfaces longer as surfaces are not properly disinfected. However, this is a secondary mode of transmission for COVID-19 and the lack of sanitation in a home, for instance, tends to lead to other illnesses first. None of this is to say that folks in more rural areas with clean homes and neighborhoods are safe. Once one person has it in a community (or travels through the community), the virus has a foothold and can spread. It might spread more slowly in less densely populated area, but it still will spread. The danger in these areas is that people are less likely to recognize it for what it is when it does present itself - and therefore let it infect more people before preventative measures are put into place.

It is very true that economic ruin for individuals, communities and our nation are problems that come about from shutting down businesses, etc. and that such ruin can lead to increased health maladies.

First do no harm. Technically, only doctors are 'supposed' to abide by this. But since science and technology are intertwined with medical actions, this question is timely. Is it truly ethical and/or humane to force all humans into conditions which necessarily create a different set of problems? Is it acceptable to command everyone to incur harm because some are experiencing harmful and devastating health outcomes, from one disease?

As this pertains to COVID-19, it might not be such a good thing to try to stamp out one disease which does not kill all who contract it at the expense of aspects of well-being which stand many people in good stead against the current COVID-19 problem and keeps them strong for whatever will surely arise in future.


Does this weaken or strengthen the far-flung and disparate herd?

OMG

@MsJudi: The strong-arm approach is a humanistic one. A few people have decided what all shall do and will enforce that by any means they deem necessary. Considering all of history and the known methods of governance, what are some pros and cons of a situation in which a few persons at the top of the food chain deciding for all what can and shall be? Your responses will necessarily include the holistic view of humans and information from multiple eras and places. Rough drafts are due on... May 5. This is not a team project, and you must work alone.

Oh, wait. That was just a flashback to the olden days, in which students had to figure things out for themselves...

Found the shoppers who can’t do simple math.

I keep seeing this new argument: “Isolation for the at-risk, and freedom for everyone else! Save the economy!”

No. Stop. Do the math.

Let’s say you isolate the 20% of Americans who have pre-existing conditions, and let the other 80% out to do normal activities.

Cool. 260 million Americans: out of quarantine. 70-odd million stay home.

With a 2-14 day asymptomatic transmission rate and a R0 of 3, everyone gets COVID19 by Christmas. That’s the math. 99% will survive.

So... we’re cool, right? Only 1% die?

The problem is this: 1% of 260,000,000 is 2.6 million. And that 1% fatality rate is with top-level care, ICU beds open and available, hospitals fully staffed, vents at the ready.

I can’t imagine 2.6, maybe 3, maybe even 5 million bodies (2% fatality gets you there) in refrigerator trucks behind hospitals. It’s a mind-blowing number of formerly healthy adults and children, dead in months from an incurable disease. The USA won’t survive this kind of devastating disease.

Oh, and a lot of the dead bodies will be healthcare professionals and law enforcement: nurses, CNAs, doctors, cops, EMTs. The viral load from COVID19 is unexpectedly large, and it’s rapidly infecting first-line responders all over.

Finally: the recovered 99% aren’t going to be in such hot shape. There’s permanent lung damage showing up in the COVID19- recovered population. Lots of cardiac involvement; some recent papers are suggesting that heart muscle damage follows as a secondary event. And renal (kidney) damage from deoxygenation and/or dehydration is also displayed. Want to spend the rest of your life on a transplant list, hooked up to portable O2, getting dialysis?

No. Do the math. Stay the f*ck home, people.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2020 07:14PM by ColoKate63.

You are so wrong. What about the elderly that has no children? What about those who have no one to look out after them? So basically what you are saying is if your parents are safe you don't care what happens to other people's parents or those that have nobody.MY father is in one state and I'm in another. If everyone felt the way you did who would stay home in my father's town???? Society's elderly are everyone's responsibility. They still have wisdom to impart. This is a very narcissistic attitude!
I'm so glad those fundraising to help our frontliners, like the musicians and heart radio didn't feel the way you do.
Roxy1 (quote)
Don't tell me some 80 year old parents are my responsibility. If someone is worried about their elderly parents then it is up to them to deal with it accordingly. Keep them home, keep them safe, whatever. I'll take care of me and mine, you take care of you and yours. Then everyone is taken care of as we as individuals see fit (and, of course with respect to the rules in place).

The government is not your Daddy. Businesses are not your Daddy. The people in your city are not your Daddy. Stop expecting person and every entity to be responsible for eliminating every last bit of risk in your lives.[/quote]

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2020 08:56PM by F and L TeleComm.

Great post Steve. Always encouraging to see a Californian who cares about cost controls in healthcare. And I get it. Big thinkers like you seeing the whole picture while silly sheeples like me are focused on the small things. Like I said, I get it. If a little government control over balancing healthcare with finances is a good thing, then total control must be a totally good thing. We've seen so many great results when we've given the government the power it needs to make those quality decisions for us.
And I see where you're going with this (wink, wink). If they can drive down costs by locking us down, certainly a man like you is envisioning the future opportunities. Old folks? The terminally ill? Crackheads? I can almost see the glimmer in your eye as you calculate how many windmill farms can be built with the savings. Especially in a depressed economy.
There's a future for you in politics, Steve. By no means should you limit yourself to California. The whole continent of Europe is hungering for a man with your vision. And if none of that works out, you are more than welcome to come down here to Texas and be mayor of Austin.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2020 01:02AM by roxy1.

Is this wild hare even possible? Let's say that some business person has their business well insured and can collect from their policy when COVID-19 or something arises. Does such a person or business also incur significant tax deductions due to COVID-19 effects? Does this ever involve enough money to create a substantial tax refund? Does anyone have a vested interest in keeping businesses closed? Is this monetary interest strong enough to blot out other considerations?

[I thought of this during the early job, before caffeine, and after only four hours of sleep.]

ColoKate,
Your stirring post brings to mind when Churchill famously said..
"We have nothing to fear but socially irresponsible people trying to stay afloat, homicidal MSCs offering work and Costco being out of toilet paper."
SteveSoCal, ColoKate, Churchill. Tough times make great men.

F & L,
I love your passion. You're absolutely wrong, but I love your passion. If the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, then how is it fair that so many people are unemployed because of the much smaller at-risk groups? You guys take both sides of the argument to suit your narratives. Which is it? Should 20 and 30 year olds with no savings lose their jobs to benefit society or should 70 and 80 year olds be sheltered to benefit society?
And don't say the answer is that everyone should be sheltered in for the benefit of society. Total economic destruction is most certainly not beneficial to either individuals or society.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2020 02:36AM by roxy1.

You know it's ignorant people like you that have fricking issues. yes, I said fricking. Look the CDC reports that In 2018, nearly 14 of every 100 U.S. adults aged 18 years or older (13.7%) currently* smoked cigarettes. This means an estimated 34.2 million adults in the United States currently smoke cigarettes.2 More than 16 million Americans live with a smoking-related disease. What your suggesting is that in excess of 34 million Americans die because you believe this will cause economic destruction, economic doomsday so to speak. I think you need to go back to economics class lady. Number one, many of those people are taxpayers. Those that aren't are certainly consumers buying things and spending money. The economic impact of the United States losing 25 million taxpayers would be far worse than a struggle of a few months off work. For the 2015 tax year, the IRS assessed income tax of $1.454 trillion on Americans, out of the 150.6 million tax returns received by the agency. A quick calculation shows that the average taxpayer owed $9,655 in income tax. [www.usatoday.com] One million taxpayers alone, that is worth a trillion dollars. Don't forget the professional people who paid and borrowed thousands of dollars to go to medical school. All of the dead medical personnel will not have to pay back any student loans they took out to pay for school. They won't be around to buy a new car every year or two. Shall I keep going??? What about the technicians who have advanced our communication industry in the last 30 years. How many of the dead will be scientists and future scientists? Sure the human race will survive but at what cost? Even more businesses will go out of business because there will be no one left to utilize the service or buy the product. How many insurance companies will go bankrupt?
If you're so invincible then YOU go back to work. I'm sure they will train you to drive an 18 wheeler. Good luck with your new career.
As for me, I prefer to take some time off. The economy normally recovers within about two years. Of course, that's doing it my way/Dr. F/and Dr. B and all the other so-called experts. And guess what? a lot more people live to take the vaccine when it gets approved by the FDA.

@roxy1 wrote:

F & L,
I love your passion. You're absolutely wrong, but I love your passion. If the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, then how is it fair that so many people are unemployed because of the much smaller at-risk groups? You guys take both sides of the argument to suit your narratives. Which is it? Should 20 and 30-year-olds with no savings lose their jobs to benefit society or should 70 and 80-year-olds be sheltered to benefit society?
And don't say the answer is that everyone should be sheltered in for the benefit of society. Total economic destruction is most certainly not beneficial to either individuals or society.

How cold-hearted do you have to be? There are 6268 dead New Yorkers. I've never even got to visit New York or New Orleans yet. There are 370 dead in Georgia. Let me ask you this do you know anyone with high blood pressure?? According to the statistics compiled in New York, the highest percentage of death are in people with high blood pressure. The second highest is people with diabetes. [covid19tracker.health.ny.gov]
Do you know or have you known anyone with diabetes? do they deserve to die because you aren't worried about yourself?? 103 million Americans have high blood pressure. [www.heart.org]
Ok, so what do you think the economic impact would be if just half of those people died? 50 million people?
Each one of those people that have died have family or friends, someone that is heart broken and missing them.
You know maybe it's because my life has been a little rougher than yours. I have been homeless several times. I have sleep in a vacant house. I've slept out on the streets (yes, cardboard on concrete with blankets and sleeping bags).I've slept in my van one time for about 3 weeks.
I haven't been homeless in a long time now (7 years). NO one gave me a stimulus check when I was homeless. No one gave me emergency unemployment. I think I can handle being off work a couple of months. So I have to put my plans on hold a couple of months. BUT I LIVE to complete them. I don't want anyone to die. But I really don't want anyone I know to die. I'm heartbroken just watching New York on TV. Anyone who can't feel empathy with whats going on in New York has sociopathic tendencies!

F&L,
It's a cold, cruel world but it doesn't stop just because bad things happen.
Last year in the United States, 38,800 people died in car accidents and 4.4 MILLION required medical attention.
Let those numbers sink into to your sweet little heart and then tell me...

1. Are you still driving? Are you filled with fear with when you drive?
2. Do you consider others who drive "socially irresponsible"? Do you look at them and think "that may be the one that kills me?"
3. Are employers "homicidal" because working requires driving?
4. Do you think the government should shut down every road so the risk of you being in an accident is totally eliminated?
5. Should every media outlet, every day, every update be running headlines and special sections all about car accidents? Should they be posting running tallies of total accidents, total fatalities, new accidents, and new fatalities?
6. Or do you just not realize the magnitude of that number because it is spread out over 12 months and the news isn't shoving it in your face?

Or maybe you choose to ignore those numbers because you know it is in your self-interest to continue driving.

"If you're so invincible then YOU go back to work."

I am working. But I haven't lost sight of the financial burden on others that hysterically fearful people like you have caused.

I'll run with the car accident comparison... Consider:

* Car accidents are cause of a great many deaths in this country - there is no argument here. However, most folks agree what we should pass laws to mitigate this - speed limits, traffic signals, seat belts, safety features in cars, etc. Sometimes these restrictions are rather inconvenient.... Mitigating a life-threatening disease with laws, ordinances and executive orders has the same rationale.
* Taking your figure: 4,400,000 people needed medical attention due to car accidents last year. Well, left unmitigated, expert virologists estimate that COVID-19 wold infect 50%-70% of the U.S. Population, 15%-20% of whom would need to be hospitalized. So: 327,000,000 x 60% x 15% = roughly 29,430,000 hospitalizations.
* Taking your figure: 38,000 folks died in car accidents last year. Mortality rates of COVID-19 are estimated to be between 1% and 3.4% of those infected. 327,000,000 x 1% = 3,270,000 deaths under the most conservative estimate. Of course, if roughly 30M people need to be hospitalized, hospitals will not have the capacity to serve them and we won't be anywhere near that 1% mortality rate.

Yes, there is a risk to every-day live. However, the potential amount of death from COVID-19 is on a magnitude that dwarfs the risks of everyday life. Moreover, the illness is serious enough that many folks who survive become extremely ill (including many who do not require hospitalization), which further hinders our society. It is clear that, just as we mitigate the risk of car accidents, as a matter of public policy, we need to mitigate the dangers of COVID-19. Yes, we need to stay home.

What really gets me about it is this: Had we taken it seriously at operated under "stay at home" orders for two weeks in early February, we would have been able to totally overcome the thing. Now, due to our societal arrogance, stubborness, and foolishness, many of us are under such orders for over a month.

As of today, there have been just shy of 15,000 deaths due to COVID-19 in the United States - the first of which was in the beginning of March - and we are not even at the worst of it yet. Moreover, that is despite the extreme measures being taken by most of the country.

You don't listen to yourself very well. 38000 in 12 months. 15,000 in one month. hmmm. So even at those very conservative numbers you'll have180000 deaths in 12 months. Keep talking. The more you talk the more you show your very narcissistic attitude. Even Trump doesn't sound as selfish as you do right now. I'm not even going to suggest that it has to touch you personally with one of your own friends and family. I think you would have to get very sick yourself before you understand. It's too bad. I feel sorry for you.

Something tells me that roxy1 doesn’t exactly possess a “math brain,” and we are all wasting our time trying to (as my grandpa would’ve said) “teach a dog to drive.”

Hitting “mute” on ya, roxy1. You’re a colossal waste of time and energy. Adios.

Goin' with something that my grandma said: We need to pity those people. Look at how they censure others without considering their own selves. So, I pity ColoKate63.


Now, what the the mathematical models which are in some ways useful and wonderful cannot do is this: They cannot factor in for each individual the effects of each individual's known and unknown risk factors and the buffers or mitigating agents that each individual life contains.

Some people with many and/or strong risk factors might have some mitigating factor that lessens or even neutralizes their risk. We do not know each person, so we do not know for whom the mandates will be helpful and for whom they will be harmful.

It is not just a numbers game.

@ColoKate63 wrote:

Something tells me that roxy1 doesn’t exactly possess a “math brain,” and we are all wasting our time trying to (as my grandpa would’ve said) “teach a dog to drive.”

Hitting “mute” on ya, roxy1. You’re a colossal waste of time and energy. Adios.

F&L,
You missed the point while also perfectly illustrating it...

Multiplying 15,000 x 12 months is exactly the type of irrational, inflammatory, uninformed, panic-induced type of thinking that has caused so much fear and such a misguided government reaction.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2020 04:33PM by roxy1.

Individual mitigating factors? hmmm. Ok, let's see. I'm 48 and I smoke cigarettes and have Asthma and COPD. My blood pressure is down, and I have a high immunity and rarely get sick (7 years). I don't drink alcohol, soda (very rarely or on occasion), I don't do drugs not even THC, I don't take narcotic pain meds, and I don't eat a lot of fried foods. So...I choose not to take a chance with my life or anyone whom I might come into contact with. I'm glad all the big stars are staying home, they agree with me. The frontliners in New York agree with me. I bet the Fusco family all agree with us too.
[www.wdrb.com]

I'd like to know what qualifies you to know more than the experts, Dr. F, Dr. B, and WHO, So what are your qualifications? What makes you "informed", Roxy1? Let me tell you a little about me, then you tell me if you still think you're better than us. In public schools, I was in GATE (Gifted and Talented Education) classes (equivalent to honors classes) I started my higher education by declaring a major of engineering at Montana State University. I have certifications in accounting from Tarrant County Junior College in Fort Worth Texas(all the way through including 10-key, spreadsheet software, and other basic office classes). I took two years of Sociology at Atlanta Metropolitan College (Associates Degree). I took a class in Social Science Statistics. My Social Science Statistics professor (whom I still associate on Facebook) is self-isolating/quarantining, following all governmental guidelines. I was always the smartest girl in my class with an IQ of 4 points from genius. I completed H & R Blocks income tax school. Ok, Your Turn. Tell us why you think you're more qualified and informed than the "experts"???

Again you prove my point...you "choose" to stay home.

But moving past all that...what about people like ceasesmith? You are so worried about yourself and you are so worried about death. Do you ever stop to worry about the people who desperately need money to survive? Ceasesmith said she "needs" her $35 check. That's how close to line she is. There are countless people out there who face personal economic ruin because of the risk that people in their age group might get what the CDC calls a mild virus. I'm not talking about at-risk groups or ceasesmith specifically. I'm talking about millions of young people with families now having no income, and millions of older people who will never recover what they lost in their retirement accounts.

The point of the traffic statistics was to show that people DIE. It happens. But you can't ruin everyone's lives trying save every single life. There is risk and risk assessment in everything from elevator safety up to military engagements. Data is parsed, then risk is identified, qualified and quantified. Then guidelines are established for the whole group, and specific guidelines are established for the higher risk groups. The goal is never to eliminate risk, it is to minimize the risk down to an acceptable level that is proportionate to the impact it will have on everyone.

It's nice that you can choose to stay home. It's nice that you won't have to tell young children that we're selling the house and moving in with relatives. It's nice that you won't have to think twice about how much food and what kind of food you serve those kids. It's nice that you won't have to deal with the inevitable marital problems that financial pressures cause. It's nice that you won't have to turn out the lights on your small business that you poured all your heart and money into.

It's funny how you paint me as the bad guy, when it is really you guys who ignore the much bigger problem while you fixate on death. But because of your financial well-being, you fail to empathize with the folks down where the rubber meets the road.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2020 05:15PM by roxy1.

The CDC predicted between 550,000 and 1,400,000 people would be infected by ebola. The actual total was less than 40,000.
Do they qualify as experts?

You forget that I've been there. (I"ve been homeless remember?). I've been kicked out on my ear. I had a landlord one time THROW all of my stuff out because I wasn't there and my rent was PAID! I've had to go to churches to get food/baby formula for my family. I've had a church lady leave me standing outside in the rain with a baby in my arms while she went back in to get some baby formula.I've lost a whole house full of furniture in storage, including a brand new washer, dryer, and dining room set AND my mother's ASHES! I've had hard times. I bought my first tax lien last September and was supposed to foreclose in September. I'm supposed to MAKING the legal fees right now to pay for the foreclosure and I can't. I can deal with any "hard" time arising from being off of work. If I'm dead nothing happens, I lose everything and my kids get NOTHING-NO INHERITANCE. They don't even get the house I'm buying! There is NOTHING being unemployed can do to me that I can't handle and overcome. Do I take more cautions when I drive? Of course, I do. I don't ignore the risk. I drive a Toyota Camry with like 13 or 17 airbags, I wear my seat belt, I try to remember not to get mad at idiot drivers. Yes, I still drive but the risk of dying there is less than the risk of dying of COVID-19 right now!

We need money too. My disability check is 872 which is less than the average for Social Security. (But slightly more than SSI). It does not cover all of my bills. We had some great routes scheduled for the end of March which would have really helped catch things up when BAM everything got canceled. I cut off my XM satellite radio because we are laid off and no one is even riding in the car, since it was up for renewal. I had to buy extra groceries, etc and cat litter because of COVID. I normally buy 1-2 weeks worth depending on when the next payday is. I'm 2 or 3 payments behind on our Progressive lease on our refrigerator. Our refrigerator didn't work and only the freezer worked for the last 3 YEARS! I finally broke down and bought one in December, not knowing that this would happen. We don't even have a stove in our house! (FYI my house is only about 800 square feet and sig other and I are on top of each other space-wise!) (and ONE bathroom). I haven't paid anything at all on the light bill for two months (the second month is just coming due now-so one month behind). I'm focusing on keeping our credit intact since they can't cut our lights off. We make less than 40k together including my disability. I don't own my home that I live in I rent and he can evict me if he felt like it (he won't but that's beside the point). I don't get food stamps because I am self-employed, I'd rather do what I can to supplement my income. Things are not perfect, we are not rich. I can't go dig holes in my garden because of my physical condition and my knees are shot so that's not something I can do on my own (I have to pay someone). I'm just as low income as anyone else you're talking about.
But again I ask what can I do if I'm DEAD? And yes I know things aren't perfect but I did pay 1000 last year for the little rent house. How can I become middle class If I don't sacrifice to make it happen? If I get some rent houses up and running then I can make more money without working and eventually buying a stove will be nothing like buying a 20 dollar end table! So again, none of this can or will happen if I'm dead.
And as for SARS, MERS, AND Ebola, they were nowhere near as contagious as the COVID 19 strain.

I love that there work opportunities are available and that interested shoppers can wear their protective gear and blend in with others who are working and visiting locations and doing the COVID-19 version of the Easter Parade. (what.) At the same time, I wonder how easy it would be to blend in if there were only one employee and one shopper? I also wonder if any mystery shoppers might be questioned while en route (in some places) for being suspected of violating stay at home or shelter in place orders? I am fine with explaining a time-sensitive merchandising gig because time is of the essence as this relates to price accuracy which is mandated by law. This makes the overt work essential for places that are currently open and featuring the given products/services. Wearing the protective gear ameliorates many concerns. But what would an undercover shopper say if asked to explain their actions?

This issue can be debated, rationalized and argued and word-smithed to death.
For me, it comes down to a simple idea.
To place so little value on human life and human health in an endeavor (in person mystery shopping) that has little to no redeeming social value, often for very little compensation...well, I am pretty put off by that and won't be a part of it.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2020 12:37PM by BarefootBliss.