@Mark116 As an American living in a country with a functional social safety net, that's led by a trained scientist rather than a deranged game show host, it's pretty painful to look back at where you guys are and see what an awful set of options you have ahead. As time goes by, it will be more and more the case that the precautions necessary to minimize infection risk are the luxury of the most privileged, and for everyone else the risk will be weighed against the more urgently terrifying possibility of losing one's job or home. It's a sickening irony that millions of people will be forced to go to work in high-risk circumstances just to be able to have access to the health care that may be required to survive a disease their work and/or commute will probably expose them to.
In short - I can understand why in-home hosts in this situation would choose to take their chances with the virus over deepening their financial despair. The problem is, the sum of people making that choice when the pandemic is still raging is precisely the reason you're going to have a vastly longer and deadlier period of crisis before anything resembling relief comes.
Also: regardless of how you feel about discrimination policies, if your risk-management strategy is based on a stranger self-reporting sensitive information about their health, you might as well be flipping a coin.
