Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think you misunderstood the parent comment... the poor will be more negatively effected by the lockdown than by the coronavirus, in contrast to the rich. GP said and I quote, "at the expense of the rich", which, to me, implies that somehow the rich are conspiring to persist with the lockdown. The families reliant on dialy-wages have always had massive problems in terms of education, healthcare, food, and shelter,…
It sounds like you're taking the opportunity, a grammatical error in the op's comment, to be combative and argumentative. Now you're just being dismissive of the plight of others and using your command of the language to minimize the situation. The pandemic and quarantine haven't just aggravated an untenable situation, they're pushing it to the limits. The poor can't afford to not work, the rich can afford to remain…
I'm sorry it comes off like that. My intention was to point out that this situation isn't of advantage to anyone regardless of their social or economic standing. Sure, a lockdown is harsher on some people than the others, but life, in general, is harsher on some people more than on the others.
The pandemic is doing a great job at ringing the alarm bells. I hope it stirs the government and the policy makers into action and not use it instead for abhorrent religious and political mileage at the expense of steering away from building a support framework for all its citizens.
> ...using your command of the language to minimize the situation.
I'm not the one mentally replacing at the expense of with in contrast to.
> The pandemic and quarantine haven't just aggravated an untenable situation, they're pushing it to the limits.
You'd find that we are in agreement. I don't understand what part of my comment made you think I'm cold to their struggles.