> You don't see the "It's good for you that I hide from the danger and you go out in it" and how incredibly messed up that is?

That would be messed up, but what is actually being said is “Given that you need to go out into the danger, its good for you that I don't go out and needlessly increase that danger.”

In fact, I've heard the exact argument made from the side of workers that have to go out into the danger—whether to deal with it directly because thet are in healthcare, or because they work in retail in essential sectors, or whatever—that out of respect for their safety, people who don't need to be out magnifying the danger shouldn't be.

What are you actually saying? That white colar workers cannot have certain benefits that come with the job because blue collar workers cannot have them?

Let's hope everyone can choose the job they want and have the benefits that come with it.

I know plenty of blue collar workers that would never want to work behind a desk, and also know plenty who started earning a lot of money at 18.

I find your "blue collar victims" mentality very strange.

Because only Sith think in absolutes. It's objectively positive because there are a lot fewer people out there to get infected and lowers the overall case load for health and other essential workers. Unfortunately it hurts other. There will always be winners and losers.

There are a number of blue-collar jobs that don't require close indoor proximity. That's almost the differentiating factor. A landscaper, welder, framer, forester aren't sitting in conference rooms breathing each other's exhalations for 8 hours a day.

And since most of those jobs aren't usually salaried, I think they'd all welcome being able to go to work and continue to earn.

Until we solve AGI (if we ever do), someone is still going to have to go out to do a wide range of jobs that just can't be done remotely.

The fewer people out and about, the less opportunities for the virus to spread.

Yes, it's messed up, but it's better than the alternative: Everyone going about their lives like normal and spreading it even more.

I honestly don't see any better alternative.

How are those related? I don't understand why you think that some people working from home means that others will be less able to, or that those who can WFH don't care about those who can't WFH.

Given that some people are not working from home, surely it's strictly better for them if the spread of the virus is reduced?