6 ms·

Covid has left a third of young people feeling life is out of control – study

13 points by makerofspoons 4y ago

josephcsible 4y ago
> One in three think their job prospects will never recover from the pandemic. > The report found that almost a quarter of 16-19-year-olds missed out on having their first kiss because of Covid. For those aged 20 to 25, the figure was was 17%. > A significant number also missed out on starting their first romantic relationship, with one in five of those aged 16 to 19 and 15% of those aged 20 to 25 not having a relationship when compared with the experiences of people of the same age before the pandemic. Important to note that these problems are all from the way governments chose to respond to COVID, not due to the disease itself.
- Proven 4y ago
- dham 4y ago
  Yea I'm not sure what they think this has to do with Covid. They were all at zero risk. Most young people I know just kept partying and doing the same things anyway.
timcavel 4y ago
anm89 4y ago
Definitely not decades of poor political decisions which left us unprepared to deal with a moderate crisis
- PraetorianGourd 4y ago
  Humor me. What would “prepared” have looked like, in your opinion? I am legitimately curious what, functionally, would have been different had we had decades of impeccable political decisions?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - anm89 4y ago
    I don't feel the need to humor you. You certainly don't sound legitimately curious. Maybe humor yourself with some guesses?
    - PraetorianGourd 4y ago
      I am curious. And I am curious precisely because I do not know. Apart from a strategic reserve of N95 and a somehow predictive vaccine, I genuinely don’t see how we can prepare for bespoke virus unexpectedly crossing species to humans. Consider: - We detected this virus very early on - We responded as if it spread via droplets and not airborne (which is what most experts claimed) - We assumed a vast majority of cases would be detected (which based on our early IFR predictions, was reasonable) So, and I mean this as earnestly as possible, what would we have done differently?
      - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        We should have changed our policies as new information came available, instead of politicizing everything. We should have thought through the human costs of isolation, rather than just the epidemiological benefits. We should have used "mandates" less (and other forms of trying to force people). I may have missed something...
      - anm89 4y ago
        Fair. The political decisions I was referencing would be more economic policy - We had a Debt to GDP of ~110% coming into the pandemic. This is well beyond what would have been a consensus reasonable amount 40 years ago. - We had interest rates near 1.5% coming into the pandemic, again, something which would have been a consensus viewpoint bad idea 40 years ago except as a temporary measure during a recession. - In connection with the other two, the Fed balance sheet was already bloated coming into the pandemic. All of these things were IMO bad policy decisions but were unlikely to blow up by 2022 or 2023 without the Pandemic. The reason you don't do these things isn't because the world immediately catches on fire once you do, it's because it makes you less resilient in the event you have other serious problems to deal with, and it turns out that was the year we ended up with other serious problems. In terms of epdidemiology stuff, I'm not really qualified to comment on any of it, I don't feel like our response went well, but i don't have any cohesive alternatives to suggest. I guess my high level criticisms would be that it felt like a weird combination of arbitrary, authoritarian, and inconsistent. I guess I'd expect a pandemic response to be a bit authoritarian but the other two bits made the authoritarian parts feel low value and unfair.

13 points by makerofspoons 4y ago

> One in three think their job prospects will never recover from the pandemic. > The report found that almost a quarter of 16-19-year-olds missed out on having their first kiss because of Covid. For those aged 20 to 25, the figure was was 17%. > A significant number also missed out on starting their first romantic relationship, with one in five of those aged 16 to 19 and 15% of those aged 20 to 25 not having a relationship when compared with the experiences of people of the same age before the pandemic. Important to note that these problems are all from the way governments chose to respond to COVID, not due to the disease itself.

Proven 4y ago
dham 4y ago
Yea I'm not sure what they think this has to do with Covid. They were all at zero risk. Most young people I know just kept partying and doing the same things anyway.

timcavel 4y ago

anm89 4y ago

Definitely not decades of poor political decisions which left us unprepared to deal with a moderate crisis

PraetorianGourd 4y ago
Humor me. What would “prepared” have looked like, in your opinion? I am legitimately curious what, functionally, would have been different had we had decades of impeccable political decisions?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- anm89 4y ago
  I don't feel the need to humor you. You certainly don't sound legitimately curious. Maybe humor yourself with some guesses?
  - PraetorianGourd 4y ago
    I am curious. And I am curious precisely because I do not know. Apart from a strategic reserve of N95 and a somehow predictive vaccine, I genuinely don’t see how we can prepare for bespoke virus unexpectedly crossing species to humans. Consider: - We detected this virus very early on - We responded as if it spread via droplets and not airborne (which is what most experts claimed) - We assumed a vast majority of cases would be detected (which based on our early IFR predictions, was reasonable) So, and I mean this as earnestly as possible, what would we have done differently?
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      We should have changed our policies as new information came available, instead of politicizing everything. We should have thought through the human costs of isolation, rather than just the epidemiological benefits. We should have used "mandates" less (and other forms of trying to force people). I may have missed something...
    - anm89 4y ago
      Fair. The political decisions I was referencing would be more economic policy - We had a Debt to GDP of ~110% coming into the pandemic. This is well beyond what would have been a consensus reasonable amount 40 years ago. - We had interest rates near 1.5% coming into the pandemic, again, something which would have been a consensus viewpoint bad idea 40 years ago except as a temporary measure during a recession. - In connection with the other two, the Fed balance sheet was already bloated coming into the pandemic. All of these things were IMO bad policy decisions but were unlikely to blow up by 2022 or 2023 without the Pandemic. The reason you don't do these things isn't because the world immediately catches on fire once you do, it's because it makes you less resilient in the event you have other serious problems to deal with, and it turns out that was the year we ended up with other serious problems. In terms of epdidemiology stuff, I'm not really qualified to comment on any of it, I don't feel like our response went well, but i don't have any cohesive alternatives to suggest. I guess my high level criticisms would be that it felt like a weird combination of arbitrary, authoritarian, and inconsistent. I guess I'd expect a pandemic response to be a bit authoritarian but the other two bits made the authoritarian parts feel low value and unfair.