6 ms·

>> I know a lot of you are married so let me put this out here: I (and most young people) will not put their romantic life on pause cause of a virus. Most peop

by kjakm 6y ago

>> I know a lot of you are married so let me put this out here: I (and most young people) will not put their romantic life on pause cause of a virus. Most people I know have put their dating lives on hold. Not all of course, but most. It’s like any of the rules people have been asked to follow during the past year: most people have followed them, it’s only a selfish minority that have not. Edit: My point is not to excuse shitty behaviour by pretending everyone else is doing it. Consider the world doesn't revolve around you and that occasionally people need to work together for the greater good, each making a variety of sacrifices.

actuator 6y ago
Although I agree with the sentiment, it is harsh to say this. I am in my 20s as well and can see where he is coming from. I have not gone out on dates this past year and it feels bad. 20s are the prime dating years, it feels like a year was taken out where I aged but my life hasn't moved. To make things worse, the whole staying at your home thing has made the desire of having a relationship even more strong as the alone periods do hit you hard. Though to put things in perspective, a lot of people had it way worse than just their dating life/travel being disrupted.
- kjakm 6y ago
  I understand - I'm also in my 20's. It sucks. A lot. But we're not the only people having to sacrifice and hopefully things get back to normal soon! It's tough but I don't think anyone will regret doing the right thing and hopefully we'll appreciate life a bit more afterwards.
  - actuator 6y ago
    Yeah, I agree. I think we are going to see changes in dating attitudes after this. At least in my circle of friends and extended circle, I have seen the desire for serious relationships go stronger in this period. Also, the appreciation for family for those who were able to live with them.
  - ndiscussion 6y ago
    Imagine sacrificing the lives of our youth for 1% of boomers. Morally intolerable if you ask me, but obviously, we all have our biases.
    - soledades 6y ago
      I guess if you had everyone rate the relative worth of each year of their lives and the effect of lockdown on that value, the maximizing strategy would be probably be no lockdown. The thing is though that those later years of people’s life are often worth very much to those around them. For instance, what about a four year old whose primary caretaker is their grandmother? Four is a precious year with an outsize effect on the trajectory of someone’s life. The calculations are not so simple then.
    - philsnow 6y ago
      It really looks like you're comparing the lives of human beings to young people having fun. What's the exchange rate? Should we remove the laws about driving while intoxicated? That's just another form of reckless endangerment that leads to loss of life.
      - jdminhbg 6y ago
        > It really looks like you're comparing the lives of human beings to young people having fun. What's the exchange rate? It's the Quality-Adjusted Life Year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year
        philsnow 6y ago
        yikes, that's chilling. > The method of ranking interventions on grounds of their cost per QALY gained ratio (or ICER) is controversial because it implies a quasi-utilitarian calculus to determine who will or will not receive treatment.
        jdminhbg 6y ago
- philsnow 6y ago
  > 20s are the prime dating years, it feels like a year was taken out where I aged but my life hasn't moved. So yeah there are people who are choosing to go on dates, gather, party, etc. Those people are very visible. I get it, there can be FOMO. Why should you sacrifice when they're having fun? Does it help to consider that there are lots of people (dare I say a majority) your age who are making the same sacrifice you are? If/when things return to the old normal, you'll have some sense of solidarity and shared maturity with them. Selflessness is a good quality in a potential spouse. (Of course, unlike the "I voted" sticker, there's no "I stayed home" sticker, so in two years you're not going to be able to tell who did what now.) > To make things worse, the whole staying at your home thing has made the desire of having a relationship even more strong as the alone periods do hit you hard. I get this. My wife passed away 9 months before the pandemic hit full swing and I'm lonely af. I don't get to see adult friends really at all anymore. > Though to put things in perspective, a lot of people had it way worse than just their dating life/travel being disrupted. Exactly this. Every time you choose not to go to a party or whatever, you could be averting the death of a family member (yours or a friend's, or friend-of-friend's, etc).
  - scarmig 6y ago
    The issue as I see it is that a kind of social contract has been broken. The government executing a real quarantine for two months would be totally reasonable: everyone would have been back to relative normality long ago. But few governments committed to that: moreover, the most vociferous opponents of real lockdowns weren't the young, but the relatively old. And so we've pretty much burned a year of life for everyone. I know many, many people for whom 2020 has been the worst year of their life, in large part due to the lockdown. The people who have suffered least are the people who are basically at home anyway; professionals established enough in their careers to thrive during WFH; the already coupled; and those with kids. Although inconvenienced, they can still progress with their lives. But for many singles in their 20s or 30s, this has been a lost year. And that's very costly: particularly if you want to raise a family, losing a year or more of dating and socialization from your late 20s or 30s is incredibly damaging to those chances.
    - 6y ago
usize 6y ago
> it’s only a selfish minority that have not. It's rather entitled and judgey to imply that people who still have some human contact are bad. Assuming the worst of people basically.
jnwatson 6y ago
I've agreed with most of the societal restrictions so far, but, imposing celebacy on a large subset of the population is a step too far. It is completely and absolutely unrealistic. Trying to suppress life's prime imperative is always a losing battle.
timr 6y ago
> it’s only a selfish minority that have not. If there's one ugly thing about the Covid situation that I hope our society reflects on with great remorse in the future, it is this justification for moralizing the private behavior of others. Covid seems to have unleashed the self-righteous scolds of the world in a way that I haven't seen in my lifetime. If two consenting adults weigh their own personal risks and choose to go on a date, it isn't your business to judge their behavior. Catching a virus is not a moral act. Obviously, people who interact with high-risk individuals should take special precautions. But if I am a healthy young person, live by myself and want to date someone else who is in the same situation, you can take your judgments and go pound sand.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 6y ago
  Please make your points without flamewar rhetoric. Your comment would be just fine without that ending. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- jedberg 6y ago
  > If two consenting adults weigh their own personal risks and choose to go on a date, it isn't your business to judge their behavior. That's fine if it was just a risk to them. But it's not, unless they decide to live together and never leave the house after their first date, or quarantine for 14 days after every date.
  - timr 6y ago
    > That's fine if it was just a risk to them. But it's not, unless they decide to live together and never leave the house after their first date, or quarantine for 14 days after every date. The "miniscule risk to others" argument can be extended to literally any intrusion on personal liberty, and is exactly why I hope society looks back on this trend with horror and regret. How far do you take this logic? Do I have to quarantine myself for 14 days after going to the park? Home Depot? A restaurant? If not, why not? I can catch Covid every time I leave my home. Must I lock myself indoors forever, or is it just for things that other people don't approve of?
semistrict 6y ago
From the levels of spread in southern CA it's clear most people are not abiding by the stay-at-home order.
shoguning 6y ago
It's not selfish to be out and about if you are young and healthy. The recovery rate for 20-30 YO is 99.99%+, and if you are healthy it's likely higher[1]. It's on the same order of risk as driving. Many young people die driving every year, yet we still do it plenty, with reasonable precautions. If you take reasonable precautions, are young and healthy, it is a risk worth taking to many. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0/figures/2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0/figures/2
- MereInterest 6y ago
  From your statistic, I would conclude that it is not self-destructive for young people to be out and about. Whether it is selfish is another matter entirely. Taking an action that is beneficial to oneself, but harmful to others, is typically described as selfish. Edit: To be fair, the same argument can be made in reverse as well, that it is selfish for older people to insist on universal lockdowns, which primarily benefit themselves. To that, I would argue (1) that death is not the only negative result from covid-19, and (2) that the relative magnitudes of benefits and harms need to be compared.
- tedsanders 6y ago
  We also outlaw speeding because speeding increases the odds that you kill someone else. Catching COVID, even if you recover, increases the odds that you kill someone else through a chain of infections. Remember that R is above 1 in most locations in the world right now. Tens of thousands of people are dying a day right now because not everyone is taking the precautions they have been asked to take. In countries with high compliance, death rates are very low. Mass death is not inevitable. Note that the OP said it was selfish to be out and about, not against self interest. So your statistic is irrelevant to the point made. Selfish means you're benefiting yourself while harming others. That's exactly what happens if you catch COVID, pass it on, and then recover. You're fine. Others may not be.
  - shoguning 6y ago
    > We also outlaw speeding because speeding increases the odds that you kill someone else. We could go further and outlaw cars that don't have speed governors. That would save lives. Lower speed limits would save more lives as well. Now we have a balance between freedom and safety. > Tens of thousands of people are dying a day right now because not everyone is taking the precautions they have been asked to take. That was true during the flu season of 2018 as well. The excess deaths from COVID are higher, but not orders of magnitude higher (more like 3x) [1]. The response is off the charts, economically and culturally devastating. Not the right balance. https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tomp 6y ago
> most people have followed them, it’s only a selfish minority that have not. Most people who have followed the rules are people who believed fake propaganda. Now even the staunchest supporters of lockdowns, e.g. NYC and Chicago mayors, are coming out against them.
closeparen 6y ago
I'm a nonessential worker with no dependents. It would be a slight boon to the receptionist and the Instacart delivery worker, and not much else, if I were to die in my sleep tonight. In the past I would have taken this very seriously. But now I'm feeling something like, "come here and kill me yourself." Selfish? Absolutely. But I don't think this is an entirely terrible development. At some point people have to care about their own well-being.

by kjakm 6y ago

actuator 6y ago

Although I agree with the sentiment, it is harsh to say this. I am in my 20s as well and can see where he is coming from. I have not gone out on dates this past year and it feels bad. 20s are the prime dating years, it feels like a year was taken out where I aged but my life hasn't moved. To make things worse, the whole staying at your home thing has made the desire of having a relationship even more strong as the alone periods do hit you hard. Though to put things in perspective, a lot of people had it way worse than just their dating life/travel being disrupted.

kjakm 6y ago
I understand - I'm also in my 20's. It sucks. A lot. But we're not the only people having to sacrifice and hopefully things get back to normal soon! It's tough but I don't think anyone will regret doing the right thing and hopefully we'll appreciate life a bit more afterwards.
- actuator 6y ago
  Yeah, I agree. I think we are going to see changes in dating attitudes after this. At least in my circle of friends and extended circle, I have seen the desire for serious relationships go stronger in this period. Also, the appreciation for family for those who were able to live with them.
- ndiscussion 6y ago
  Imagine sacrificing the lives of our youth for 1% of boomers. Morally intolerable if you ask me, but obviously, we all have our biases.
  - soledades 6y ago
    I guess if you had everyone rate the relative worth of each year of their lives and the effect of lockdown on that value, the maximizing strategy would be probably be no lockdown. The thing is though that those later years of people’s life are often worth very much to those around them. For instance, what about a four year old whose primary caretaker is their grandmother? Four is a precious year with an outsize effect on the trajectory of someone’s life. The calculations are not so simple then.
  - philsnow 6y ago
    It really looks like you're comparing the lives of human beings to young people having fun. What's the exchange rate? Should we remove the laws about driving while intoxicated? That's just another form of reckless endangerment that leads to loss of life.
    - jdminhbg 6y ago
      > It really looks like you're comparing the lives of human beings to young people having fun. What's the exchange rate? It's the Quality-Adjusted Life Year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year
      - philsnow 6y ago
        yikes, that's chilling. > The method of ranking interventions on grounds of their cost per QALY gained ratio (or ICER) is controversial because it implies a quasi-utilitarian calculus to determine who will or will not receive treatment.
        jdminhbg 6y ago
philsnow 6y ago
> 20s are the prime dating years, it feels like a year was taken out where I aged but my life hasn't moved. So yeah there are people who are choosing to go on dates, gather, party, etc. Those people are very visible. I get it, there can be FOMO. Why should you sacrifice when they're having fun? Does it help to consider that there are lots of people (dare I say a majority) your age who are making the same sacrifice you are? If/when things return to the old normal, you'll have some sense of solidarity and shared maturity with them. Selflessness is a good quality in a potential spouse. (Of course, unlike the "I voted" sticker, there's no "I stayed home" sticker, so in two years you're not going to be able to tell who did what now.) > To make things worse, the whole staying at your home thing has made the desire of having a relationship even more strong as the alone periods do hit you hard. I get this. My wife passed away 9 months before the pandemic hit full swing and I'm lonely af. I don't get to see adult friends really at all anymore. > Though to put things in perspective, a lot of people had it way worse than just their dating life/travel being disrupted. Exactly this. Every time you choose not to go to a party or whatever, you could be averting the death of a family member (yours or a friend's, or friend-of-friend's, etc).
- scarmig 6y ago
  The issue as I see it is that a kind of social contract has been broken. The government executing a real quarantine for two months would be totally reasonable: everyone would have been back to relative normality long ago. But few governments committed to that: moreover, the most vociferous opponents of real lockdowns weren't the young, but the relatively old. And so we've pretty much burned a year of life for everyone. I know many, many people for whom 2020 has been the worst year of their life, in large part due to the lockdown. The people who have suffered least are the people who are basically at home anyway; professionals established enough in their careers to thrive during WFH; the already coupled; and those with kids. Although inconvenienced, they can still progress with their lives. But for many singles in their 20s or 30s, this has been a lost year. And that's very costly: particularly if you want to raise a family, losing a year or more of dating and socialization from your late 20s or 30s is incredibly damaging to those chances.
  - 6y ago

usize 6y ago

> it’s only a selfish minority that have not. It's rather entitled and judgey to imply that people who still have some human contact are bad. Assuming the worst of people basically.

jnwatson 6y ago

I've agreed with most of the societal restrictions so far, but, imposing celebacy on a large subset of the population is a step too far. It is completely and absolutely unrealistic. Trying to suppress life's prime imperative is always a losing battle.

timr 6y ago

> it’s only a selfish minority that have not. If there's one ugly thing about the Covid situation that I hope our society reflects on with great remorse in the future, it is this justification for moralizing the private behavior of others. Covid seems to have unleashed the self-righteous scolds of the world in a way that I haven't seen in my lifetime. If two consenting adults weigh their own personal risks and choose to go on a date, it isn't your business to judge their behavior. Catching a virus is not a moral act. Obviously, people who interact with high-risk individuals should take special precautions. But if I am a healthy young person, live by myself and want to date someone else who is in the same situation, you can take your judgments and go pound sand.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dang 6y ago
Please make your points without flamewar rhetoric. Your comment would be just fine without that ending. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
jedberg 6y ago
> If two consenting adults weigh their own personal risks and choose to go on a date, it isn't your business to judge their behavior. That's fine if it was just a risk to them. But it's not, unless they decide to live together and never leave the house after their first date, or quarantine for 14 days after every date.
- timr 6y ago
  > That's fine if it was just a risk to them. But it's not, unless they decide to live together and never leave the house after their first date, or quarantine for 14 days after every date. The "miniscule risk to others" argument can be extended to literally any intrusion on personal liberty, and is exactly why I hope society looks back on this trend with horror and regret. How far do you take this logic? Do I have to quarantine myself for 14 days after going to the park? Home Depot? A restaurant? If not, why not? I can catch Covid every time I leave my home. Must I lock myself indoors forever, or is it just for things that other people don't approve of?

semistrict 6y ago

From the levels of spread in southern CA it's clear most people are not abiding by the stay-at-home order.

shoguning 6y ago

It's not selfish to be out and about if you are young and healthy. The recovery rate for 20-30 YO is 99.99%+, and if you are healthy it's likely higher[1]. It's on the same order of risk as driving. Many young people die driving every year, yet we still do it plenty, with reasonable precautions. If you take reasonable precautions, are young and healthy, it is a risk worth taking to many. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0/figures/2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0/figures/2

MereInterest 6y ago
From your statistic, I would conclude that it is not self-destructive for young people to be out and about. Whether it is selfish is another matter entirely. Taking an action that is beneficial to oneself, but harmful to others, is typically described as selfish. Edit: To be fair, the same argument can be made in reverse as well, that it is selfish for older people to insist on universal lockdowns, which primarily benefit themselves. To that, I would argue (1) that death is not the only negative result from covid-19, and (2) that the relative magnitudes of benefits and harms need to be compared.
tedsanders 6y ago
We also outlaw speeding because speeding increases the odds that you kill someone else. Catching COVID, even if you recover, increases the odds that you kill someone else through a chain of infections. Remember that R is above 1 in most locations in the world right now. Tens of thousands of people are dying a day right now because not everyone is taking the precautions they have been asked to take. In countries with high compliance, death rates are very low. Mass death is not inevitable. Note that the OP said it was selfish to be out and about, not against self interest. So your statistic is irrelevant to the point made. Selfish means you're benefiting yourself while harming others. That's exactly what happens if you catch COVID, pass it on, and then recover. You're fine. Others may not be.
- shoguning 6y ago
  > We also outlaw speeding because speeding increases the odds that you kill someone else. We could go further and outlaw cars that don't have speed governors. That would save lives. Lower speed limits would save more lives as well. Now we have a balance between freedom and safety. > Tens of thousands of people are dying a day right now because not everyone is taking the precautions they have been asked to take. That was true during the flu season of 2018 as well. The excess deaths from COVID are higher, but not orders of magnitude higher (more like 3x) [1]. The response is off the charts, economically and culturally devastating. Not the right balance. https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

tomp 6y ago

> most people have followed them, it’s only a selfish minority that have not. Most people who have followed the rules are people who believed fake propaganda. Now even the staunchest supporters of lockdowns, e.g. NYC and Chicago mayors, are coming out against them.

closeparen 6y ago

I'm a nonessential worker with no dependents. It would be a slight boon to the receptionist and the Instacart delivery worker, and not much else, if I were to die in my sleep tonight. In the past I would have taken this very seriously. But now I'm feeling something like, "come here and kill me yourself." Selfish? Absolutely. But I don't think this is an entirely terrible development. At some point people have to care about their own well-being.