Thread by @Mutant187

@kpanyc I get what you’re saying. But shutting the world down for months (or more) would have very different impacts on those who are paid by the hour, the week, the month, the semester, or the year. Some jobs can be done from home; some can’t. Some people have savings and homes...

@kpanyc and others are living from paycheck to paycheck. We don’t have the social safety net to rescue those who would fall into dire need. (We should; but we don’t.) Will we have to do triage? Play “Lifeboat”?

@kpanyc The best solutions are to cancel unnecessary gatherings; reduce workdays (w/FEWER PEOPLE PRESENT AT ANY ONE TIME); increase the standard amount of “personal space” between people (“Don’t Stand So Close To Me”);
and MOST IMPORTANT:
DO MORE THINGS ONLINE! (We HAVE the technology.)

@kpanyc Again, there aren’t enough resources available to alleviate the massive poverty a complete shutdown would cause.
BUT SURELY, the public and/or private means exist to (FINALLY) GET EVERY HOME ONLINE.
Meaning both connectivity and devices, mostly or entirely subsidized.
(By ads?😐)

@kpanyc We need public and/or private subsidies for DEVICES—AND CONNECTIVITY—NOW!
(Even Newt Gingrich has advocated free laptops.)
It’s time to end the #DigitalDivide—so MOST of us, rather than just the privileged few, can work and/or study at home.

Oh—and also: #UniversalHealthCare

@kpanyc Which would be cheaper for business and the public to underwrite—the longterm fallout from massive economic, educational, and public health collapse, or the “screens-and-connectivity-in-every-home” the tech industry has long touted?

Maybe #ObamaPhones were ahead of their time.

@kpanyc @threadreaderapp unroll