Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45
-Conversely, if you don’t have assets (“were poor”), then the only effect for you is that everything now costs significantly more than before; you’re clearly worse off.
|
Yeah, I think this is approximately what's happening. And in general if life gets a bit worst the richest are most able to cope on average. A government edict may cause famine or death for a poor day labourer in India ("walk hundreds of km home to your hut and stay there or be punished") but not even be noticeable to a rich person ("you should stay where you are but nobody will check").
I don't believe there is any specific billionaire agenda with lockdowns. I think people just support the policies based on what their motivations and costs are. And some have more influence than others. If you're a rich old Boomer stereotype on a large property the pandemic measures have little practical cost to you. Even the travel restrictions aren't such a big deal now (if you get covid, just wait in your villa for another week before flying back).
Meanwhile for the poor there was often no benefit even to the lockdowns. There was no lockdown of chicken plant workers. They just went to work and got covid. The poor old people are in packed homes or old folks' homes and they got covid too.
One cynical theory I heard was that because well-off people are now testing positive for omicron the shame will drop and "society will decide" to move on.