Two potentially worrisome U.S. pandemic scenarios I haven't seen discussed
The first involves the ability of Trump to "open up" the economy without the agreement of various states to comply with his mandates. I assume that Trump lacks the legal ability to force a Governor to relax shelter in place orders or to open up "non essential" businesses. But can he (with the help of congressional Republicans) in essence "starve us out" of our homes into the work place? I am not up to speed enough on standard unemployment insurance regulations, let alone "enhanced" unemployment benefits, to speculate knowledgeably about this. I know that there is both a State and Federal role in the provision of unemployment benefits,, and I know that ALL States will be highly strapped for cash this year with their own tax revenues plummeting.
To the extent that any additional federal legislation will be needed in order to provide continued financial support to individuals, either through extended and/or enhanced unemployment benefits or through direct cash grants, that gives Trump potential leverage to force States to force workers back to work even under unsafe conditions. What made me think of this is that a nephew of mine works at a large postal sorting facility on Long Island. He already knows of two of his co-workers who have died from Covid-19. He obtained a medical statement from his doctor that enabled him to stay off the job for the month of April (I am not privy to what condition was cited in that statement that provided the basis of his medical leave). But here's the point. My nephew is now on unpaid medical leave. He has no income. I assume he does not qualify for unemployment insurance but perhaps I'm mistaken.
Either way it made me think. Unemployment insurance is based on the premise that work is not available. When unemployment insurance is not available, people must somehow work in order to survive. When unemployment insurance runs out people will need to work in order to survive. If unemployment benefits are in the future denied to the self employed or gig workers, people will have to abandon staying at home and venture out to work in order to survive. If States can't fund their medicaid programs because their budgets go bust, people will have to work in order to obtain or
afford medical care. So will people be forced back into the workplace under unsafe conditions by denying them any other means of survival?
The second, in some ways inverted scenario that occurred to me is this. Will people in the relatively near future be discriminated against regarding employment opportunities if they can not provide evidence that they have personally developed anti-bodies to Covid-19? While Covid testing is only available to 1% to 2% of the public, I doubt if many professions would require proof of personal anti-bodies in order to work with the public. Perhaps first responders would be screened in that way. But could employers in the retail sector, or in large office complexes for example, require the provision of anti-body certification from potential hires? If so, might young potential employees be tempted to seek out exposure to Covid-19 on the assumption that it would not seriously sicken them due to their age, so that they could emerge from a minor bout with better job opportunities? A little far fetched, granted, but we will be entering uncharted waters whenever we attempt to reengage in wide spread commerce during a highly contagious pandemic of a disease for which there is no real treatment.
= new reply since forum marked as read
