Obviously you wouldn't quit your job if it pays a lot higher than the new unemployment payouts, and/or if you can easily work from home...and nobody but you is claiming that it's a character flaw to choose not to risk your life working if you have the safety net to avoid doing so.
This is a really bizarre, immature reaction to a discussion of the incentives trade-off at play here.
I'm not addressing the extremely wise decision that a government make it financially possible for people not to spread disease. Nor disputing that the vast majority of people are willing to do this under these extreme circumstance.
I'm addressing the assumption, wrapped in theories about incentives, that everyone (strangely except any persons expounding the theory) is eager to quit work for "welfare" at the first opportunity. And, by extension, that this is why there must never be a social safety net that can keep anyone alive. Because, according to this demonstrably false theory, society would collapse.
People do not quit their jobs to receive handouts exactly because of their principles and because they are not the cynical robots that theoreticians make them out to be. Corporations may maximize wealth regardless of harm to society or others but the vast majority of natural persons don't.
> I'm addressing the assumption, wrapped in theories about incentives, that everyone (strangely except any persons expounding the theory) is eager to quit work for "welfare" at the first opportunity
Again, the GP comment didn't say or imply anything like this. You're just accusing random commenters of irrelevant thoughtcrime based on trying to fit into every square peg into the round hole of the same vacuous political gamesmanship that dominates most conversations that touch on the economy. Paying attention to incentives doesn't at all imply that you think it's a moral failing for someone to follow incentives. In fact, I'd imagine that it's quite the opposite: people who get hysterical at the sight of rational, apolitical discussion are infinitely more likely to weight descriptions of incentives with moral dimensions that they don't have or need.
This is what it looks like when people are actually interested in trying to understand the economic situation, without immediately having to snap into us-vs-them political gamesmanship. HN isn't perfect, but it's at least better than that; Go to /r/politics or something if that's what you're interested in.
If the top comment is a genuine question with neutral tone then so is the similarly phrased "When will Republicans start mass arrests of journalist?" I don't explicitly state a value judgement and I can follow up with "you can't blame them for acting in their self interest". Yet claiming it is a neutral question would obviously be mistaken.
Likewise the claim that "following incentives is excusable" includes, among other hidden assumptions, that it is actually happening and that there is actually an incentive. It is obfuscation in both cases. It certainly does not make the question an economic one.
I don't see anything above accusing anyone of thoughtcrime. I assume this is a shibboleth used to dismiss political opponents, end conversation and instruct fellow travelers what opinion to have on the mater. At any rate, I'd be more concerned about thought police from a leader who purges anyone who disagrees with him[1] than a random internet voice.
