I was surprised to find this downvoted, as it's a harsh fact of life for many people, but not the majority of people. I should have said "
For some people, being sick means...". The gist of the argument still applies: It is
incorrect to assume everyone can afford to take a month off work when they are sick.
I'm in a European juristiction - the UK. We have reasonable labour protections here. But they don't protect everyone.
If you are self-employed, then taking time off means going unpaid. It's that simple. Zero income. I have been in that position. Took a month off due to flu once (not the current flu). Lost 1 month income.
There is a government system called "Statutory Sick Pay" (SSP), but it is not paid to the self-employed, and if it did it would only start after a few weeks.
If you are a "casual" worker, then taking time off also means going unpaid because you don't have a contract of employment or regular hours to refer to. Sucks to be you, but it's harsh reality for many.
For salaried workers, the employer pays salary for a while. But it's time limited, depending on the employer. Some are more generous than others. The less generous will switch over to Statuory Sick Pay, which is not much money. It is rarely enough to cover rent or mortgage, for example, let alone food and bills.
A lot of people are self-employed, casual workers, or have household bills exceeding SSP. Taking a few weeks off due to sickness has a serious financial impact for those people, unfortunately, and it is wrong to assume everyone can afford to do so.