Yes. Your are not dispensed from evidence when everything suggest a simpler explanation (Occam's razor)
> the real issue is that the workers were forced to take the risk
Who forced them? They are free to quit. But by not working they will not get money
> "It had promised they could remain home if they felt uncomfortable returning to the line. The Post reported in late June and July that workers concerned about covid exposure received termination notices after they did not return to work
Yes, this is not a charity - and if people abuse the provision and stay at home all the time, they are no longer workers, so they are terminated.
The journalist just wanted to turn that into a poor vs rich, deforming evidence as needed. I wonder what are your intention by supporting that.
I was ready to give you benefit of doubt and assume good intention, then I checked your comment history.
In short order, you are:
- attacking AirBNB ("A handful of landlords got richer, turists could travel cheaper (not necessarily a good thing overall), but an entire class of citizens got kicked out of the city as now no landlord wants to regularly rent their flat")
- attacking people making money with their free software ("Following the recent events, wait until multinational corporation x comes, repackages your software as a managed solution, hosted on their infrastructure and resells it through their channels"),
- posting needlessly political comments about reducing waste ("I have an even better way to reduce waste: Let's raise food prices so that no one can afford to eat! No consumption, no waste")
So I think you too are out for blood. Maybe you should be reported for repetitively breaking the rules?