(08-29-2020, 06:04 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Not posting this as a roadmap. I would want people to cooperate, but out of a sense of joint purpose, not out of fear of being thrown in jail.
Me too. I would also like people to not steal or drive while drunk out of a sense of joint purpose. Most people in fact do that. Unfortunately, there are always some who do not. That group of people needs the fear of being thrown in jail AND the opprobrium of their fellow citizens IMHO.
Quote:With regard to breadwinners getting put into quarantine, you would think we could pay people identified as contacts to stay at home and not infect others.
BC
As I read it, the guy in Korea had tested positive and lied/forgot about his contacts. Such actions are obviously problematic to containing the disease. If done willfully, it must be punished, IMHO. This is not criminalizing the disease. Getting COVID-19 is not the issue. Not cooperating with contact tracing is. I suspect that many people working in the "gig" economy don't want to admit to their contacts because they aren't paying taxes on the income/don't have appropriate licenses etc. This is probably true in both Korea and the USA. While county health probably isn't going to follow up on such violations anyway, people may chose to lie out of an abundance of caution. Providing an immediate disincentive to such activity that county health IS going to follow up on is needed to overcome that kind of reasoning.
As far as paying salary to people who have no sick leave, who test positive and must isolate, I think that is something that would receive wide public support. I also think providing a place where they could isolate if necessary would receive public support. Keeping somebody who tests positive out of circulation is such a "win" that making the case to do so is pretty easy.
Doing the same with contacts that need to quarantine is a bit harder sell, because the public needs to be convinced that paying people who are not sick (yet) pays off. If we knew what percentage of contacts actually do end up testing positive, and that number was publicly available, that might help with selling the idea, especially if that percentage is large. Another question is how many contacts per unit time are we talking about? Since nobody is releasing that number, how can the public know what kind of expenditure we are talking about here? Naturally, if the number of cases is small, and the number of contacts is small, the expense of doing such payments becomes much easier to sell. If you can argue that the high initial expense will be rapidly reduced by declining case counts, it is a much easier sell. OTOH, if that doesn't happen, the public will quickly say "no" to such payments, IMHO.
As pointed out by SMC Health, contacts (and "cases") that do not want anything to do with the government are also a real problem. They won't sign up to take the money if offered and will continue to work/live normally.