Thread by @Raja_Sw

We're not "all in this together".
The PM hasn't lost his job, his livelihood, his home. He isn't standing in a queue in the hot sun for hours, just for a lunch packet.
Neither are any of us. Yet.
The migrants and poor are taking this bullet.
No, we're not "all in this together".

Govt, responsible to strictly screen & quarantine passengers, fails miserably in its duty.
Passengers, asked to self-quarantine, behave irresponsibly.
Govt chooses to completely lockdown the whole country, rendering lakhs of poor jobless/homeless.

What was their fault?

For migrants, construction is one of the biggest employers in metros.
Shut it down, and you hit many lakhs in the stomach.
Ask yourself, was it REALLY necessary to shut down construction?
How high-risk would it have been if construction were allowed to continue?
Am wondering.

Now, if we allow construction, we'd also need to allow construction materials, otherwise construction would stop.
Cement, paint, steel, plywood etc. Construction machinery too.
Ok, so how high-risk would it be if we allowed all these industries to operate?
Just wondering.

That's a lot more people employed. Not just in construction, but in manufacturing, transportation, distribution, retail.
How high-risk would this really be?
Sure, push aggressively for social distancing.
Close down canteens at work.
Better than closing down work, no?

I'm not at all advocating opening up high-risk areas. Places with congregation risk are high-risk.
All these need to be very carefully managed, or, in India, are probably better temporarily suspended.

All I ask for is a nuanced approach, not a sledgehammer approach.

Note that nowhere have I spoken about financial services, banks, stock market.
I see these as "derivatives".
If your basic economic activity is happening (manufacturing, transportation, trade, construction), these will do well. If not, they won't.
Or shouldn't.
Only logical, no?

Always found it strange that the stock market was booming while the economy was in the doldrums.
So either it was being artificially propped up (speculative activity?), or economy wasn't as much in doldrums as it seemed.
But even during boom, only a few stocks were carrying it.

(That's probably my first and last tweet on the stock markets. I've zero competence to comment on them - better leave it to the experts. There are plenty out there). :-)
Excuses if my one comment is itself rubbish. I really shouldn't talk abt stuff I know nothing about. :-)

To summarize, what I'm saying is, I think it was possible to have aggressive social distancing, without a "complete" lockdown.
Many will disagree w/ me - and that's ok.
Just my view, based on my perception of risk-benefit.

But then, ppl most affected are the invisibles, no?

If the captain of the Titanic had addressed everyone on board with "We're all in this together", it makes sense.

At that point, with the liner sinking, whether you were uber-rich, or a steward on deck, it made NO difference. All facing the same fate.

Yes, all in it together.

Why would you not allow small mobile store outlets (which dot the landscape across the country nowadays) to be open during lockdown?
Among other things, they do recharge for those customers who are uncomfortable dealing with IVRS/net. Many migrants amongst this lot.

Why not allow stationery shops to be open?
The one near my house also has photocopier machines, a computer/printer. He's my go-to guy for any printing/copying I need.
I now need to print sth urgently - but can't.
As long as social distancing is followed, why deny these guys?