# Perspectives from 20-somethings



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I have a friend in his 30s who's overseas. He lives with a few 20-somethings (mostly Americans I think) and his circle mainly consists of people in their 20s. He's the oldest person among them.

I wanted to share their perspective on COVID because it's different than many of ours. This group of young adults has been endlessly partying since the pandemic began. They still host large parties, constantly drink, go to bars and nightclubs, restaurants, meet new people, travel between cities, etc.

Everyone in their circle (about 10 people) has caught COVID. From what I heard, most had symptoms similar to a regular flu and were out of commission for a few days. Sometimes with a cough that lingered for weeks. It was mild for all of these 10 people, and they live in a humid, tropical environment.

My friend started off by saying: COVID really isn't a big deal. We all caught it, and it was like a flu.

I pointed out to him that he's talking about a group of people in their 20s. The disease does not hit 20 year olds very hard at all, but it's riskier for people over 40, and especially into 50s, 60s, 70s, etc. I told him that that many people are getting angry at groups like his for being reckless and spreading the disease.

His response was that: the 20-somethings are getting angry at the rest of society for shutting down all their service industry jobs and closing down all the fun places, closing down parties.

I argued that the risk of harm to the older demographics is a far bigger concern than a few service industry jobs, or the freedom to have large parties.

Anyway... it was interesting hearing the perspective of young people. He sounded surprised when I pointed out to him that everyone he knows who handled COVID "very easily" was young, in their 20s.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

james4beach said:


> His response was that: the 20-somethings are getting angry at the rest of society for shutting down all their service industry jobs and closing down all the fun places, closing down parties.
> 
> I argued that the risk of harm to the older demographics is a far bigger concern than a few service industry jobs, or the freedom to have large parties.


1) 20 somethings are insanely narcissistic these days, and that is a totally expected reaction. They also probably don't know anyone who has died (nor do hardy any of us) from Covid. They are also young and stupid and rash, as were we all back then.

2) It is really, really easy for people who have secure incomes and no great desire to visit crowds anyways (like you, and me) to cast judgement on young people and declare their desires for jobs and social interactions as "trivial" compared to the health of the elderly... but that is because you have no skin in the game. No school aged kids or young adult children trying to find jobs, no job loss yourself.

I am tired of 30-40 somethings with stable easy jobs, which have only gotten easier since being sent to "work from home", complaining about the apparent lack of seriousness that others are taking the pandemic. All when their own lives have only seen net-gains from the lock downs (more time with family, more money saved, less hard work, more exercise, more home cooked meals). And these people want to dump all over others who are in desperate situations because of unjustifiable lockdowns, and are now out work, going to lose their house, their spouse, and their young children are being damaged developmentally in ways nobody even knows by these horrible lockdowns and masks... 

And the rich milllenials with easy lives continue to crow about how they care so much about the elderly that they feel the need to scream at the working class (who aren't work much anymore) because they're getting uppity about whether mask or lockdowns work or not to fix this problem, or that they sometimes let slip that their number 1 priority in life isn't grandma's good health.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

As a 70 year old with some severe health conditions, I'm a patsy for Covid or any other infection that comes along, and I agree with your 20 something friends. The reaction to Covid is over blown. I, and those like me, should self isolate and take precautions, not difficult if you are retired. Younger people should get on with their lives. Everyone forgets that precautions like masks and social distancing were never meant to defeat Covid, and they haven't. They were meant to slow down the spread of infection which they did.
It may be a moot point if vaccines are out by the end of the year.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> As a 70 year old with some severe health conditions, I'm a patsy for Covid or any other infection that comes along, and I agree with your 20 something friends. The reaction to Covid is over blown. I, and those like me, should self isolate and take precautions, not difficult if you are retired. Younger people should get on with their lives.


And you actually think that "the right" to party and drink in large groups is on par with your right to live?

The problem I have with these arguments (like what my friend says) is that in my eyes, having big parties is a luxury thing. A non-necessity. This isn't anything like kids who need to go to school or even the need for young people to have social contacts.

These 20 year olds are telling me that they NEED to have parties and bar nights. They are not willing to stop doing that. Even if they were 'locked down' they would have plenty of social contact. But that's not enough for them. They demand the continuation of the lifestyle they want, which means getting drunk, going out to bars and nightclubs, and inviting random people over to their house.

I do not agree with putting the lives of older people (like you) in danger just because a bunch of 20 year olds, who still have another 70 years of life ahead of them, want to party like this.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

peterk said:


> I am tired of 30-40 somethings with stable easy jobs, which have only gotten easier since being sent to "work from home", complaining about the apparent lack of seriousness that others are taking the pandemic. All when their own lives have only seen net-gains from the lock downs (more time with family, more money saved, less hard work, more exercise, more home cooked meals). And these people want to dump all over others who are in desperate situations because of unjustifiable lockdowns, and are now out work, going to lose their house, their spouse, and their young children are being damaged developmentally in ways nobody even knows by these horrible lockdowns and masks...


Children would be more free to socialize and keep normalcy if these 20 year old party animals weren't being so reckless. Their reckless activities (insisting on continuing large social gatherings & nights out drinking) increases the spread of the illness. Those higher numbers then force the rest of us -- such as families with kids -- to have to compensate by isolating more.

*I agree with you* that families, kids, and people in some industries are put in very tough, stressful situations by lock down measures. So let's avoid the need for these lockdowns of last resort.

I would think you would agree that people who are socializing extravagantly, like this group of 20/30 year olds I know, should be MORE responsible and curtail their disease-spreading activities... so that families, children, and workers in tough situation can continue to have normalcy.

This is a group effort, among the population. If everyone acts responsibly, the disease doesn't spread so rapidly and we can handle it (hospitals are OK). However, if people become reckless, such as holding huge weddings, large party nights, club nights, then the disease spreads rapidly and it *forces* more restrictions fore veryone.

Anyone today who is suffering from the restriction measures, such as parents, or unemployed service industry workers, should realize that it's the reckless people in society (those having large gatherings or insisting on living life as usual) who fuelling this bad situation.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I don't believe other people partying puts me in danger. I could argue the reverse. If everyone else but me were exposed to Covid and developed immunity the disease would die out and I would be in no danger of catching it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Maybe we should reserve hospital space only for old people, since people believe they are only ones facing bad outcomes from COVID.

Everyone else can take their chances at home. Go home and take some Tylenol. It will probably pass in a few days.

They might have to hire old people who isolate themselves to replace younger people working in long term homes.

Sorry we have to let you go, but you are too young and irresponsible to work with the elderly.

And then there are the 'herd immunity" States like North and South Dakota. They are doing so well right now.

Overloaded ICUs, freezer trucks for bodies, exhausted and sick doctors and nurses.........wonderful results.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

It is the self-centered nature of 20s


Rusty O'Toole said:


> I don't believe other people partying puts me in danger. I could argue the reverse. If everyone else but me were exposed to Covid and developed immunity the disease would die out and I would be in no danger of catching it.


That could take years potentially. In the meantime, there is a risk of overloading our hospitals and exhausting and/or killing our front line workers. There will also be much more exposure in the general community almost certainly resulting in more infections in the elderly who won't be able to socialize with anyone under their age cohort. No visitations in homes, no care giving, nothing much at all. 

Thus I don't know that a free-for-all regarding socializing is the answer. Just in the past 2 weeks, BC has had a major outbreak in the small town of Salmo and this week, Revelstoke... the sizes of which resulted from socializing. Folks need to have more discipline than that. A bit of social responsibility is not a big burden to carry for a limited, e.g. one year time frame. Trying to find the appropriate balance is the difficult, if not impossible, part.


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

james4beach said:


> The problem I have with these arguments (like what my friend says) is that in my eyes, having big parties is a luxury thing. A non-necessity. This isn't anything like kids who need to go to school or even the need for young people to have social contacts.


To play the devil's advocate, living past 70 is very much a non-necessity as far as society is concerned. It's a luxury thing. The future needs those kids happy and reproducing a whole lot more than it needs retirees to hang in there a few more years.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

It is true the older we get, the more expendable we are. The economics are unquestionable. Estates get crystallized with all that unrealized cap gains suddenly taxable (last to die), CPP doesn't pay out as much, and Ottawa saves on social welfare (OAS). Why not just shoot them on their 70th or 75th birthdays and not have any burden on the health system at all?


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

Are you trying to appeal to firearm owners?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

off.by.10 said:


> Are you trying to appeal to firearm owners?


The point is none of us oldies (and I am one of them) want to suffer through an covid-19 ICU experience and certainly not intubation, so the alternative is a chemical cocktail, gunshot or similar. It is easy for some folks here to be flippant/cavalier/indifferent to the loss of the elderly until they have to take some responsibility for making our exit a humane one. FWIW, I want to be able to call the 'shots' on how I exit.


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

AltaRed said:


> The point is none of us oldies (and I am one of them) want to suffer through an covid-19 ICU experience and certainly not intubation, so the alternative is a chemical cocktail, gunshot or similar. It is easy for some folks here to be flippant/cavalier/indifferent to the loss of the elderly until they have to take some responsibility for making our exit a humane one. FWIW, I want to be able to call the 'shots' on how I exit.


There are many non covid related things I'd rather not suffer through on my way out. Several certainly worse than intubation. I agree we should get to choose but we're apparently not there yet as a society.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I agree but the tone here was distinctly about sacrificing our expendable seniors so that 20somethings et al can continue to party. If that is the case, then those 20somethings better take on the responsibility to help facilitate the death of the elderly person unlikely to recover from covid-19. IOW, there are consequences to being socially irresponsible of one kind or the other


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> His response was that: the 20-somethings are getting angry at the rest of society for shutting down all their service industry jobs and closing down all the fun places, closing down parties.
> 
> I argued that the risk of harm to the older demographics is a far bigger concern than a few service industry jobs, or the freedom to have large parties.
> 
> Anyway... it was interesting hearing the perspective of young people. He sounded surprised when I pointed out to him that everyone he knows who handled COVID "very easily" was young, in their 20s.


It's a tough position to be in, for any age really. I know people from 20-70 that would just go about their regular business if you let them ... it's not "only" the young ones. In a way I'd almost be willing to say "let them" provided they gave up their right to a hospital bed and ensured anyone else they came in contact with knew they were high risk people before they got together.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> I don't believe other people partying puts me in danger. I could argue the reverse. If everyone else but me were exposed to Covid and developed immunity the disease would die out and I would be in no danger of catching it.


I think it absolutely does put you in danger, because these are the ways the disease is spread. If they were more responsible, the virus wouldn't circulate as aggressively.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> Maybe we should reserve hospital space only for old people, since people believe they are only ones facing bad outcomes from COVID.
> 
> Everyone else can take their chances at home. Go home and take some Tylenol. It will probably pass in a few days.


And you know what? When people land in the hospital, the medical staff also prioritizes saving the lives of younger people, especially when resources are stretched (like they are right now).

Take CPR for example. It's possible to work CPR and AED (defibrillation) for a very long time on someone. So there's a key question in hospitals: how long do you keep working on someone? Do you give up after a couple minutes, or do you keep working for 20 minutes ... 30 minutes ... 40 minutes to try getting the heart going again.

Spoiler alert: they work longer on the younger patients.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

off.by.10 said:


> To play the devil's advocate, living past 70 is very much a non-necessity as far as society is concerned. It's a luxury thing.


*Strongly* disagree.

First of all, 70 used to be a very old age but really isn't any more. I'm not trying to be politically correct, I'm talking about modern life expectancy. Things have changed a lot from a century ago. Not only do people live much longer, but people at this age are typically in much better shape than in the past.

Living past 70 is not a luxury. We all deserve to live full and happy lives, and "full life" means living to whatever age is reasonably attainable with your genetics and our modern healthcare.

It's hard to argue this stuff because it also comes down to cultural beliefs and values. MY values are that a person's worth as a human are not tied to employment, career, or pumping out children. Otherwise, a mother would be worthless once she stopped giving birth & raising children, or someone who is injured and unable to work any more would lose all worth as a human... that's ludicrous.



off.by.10 said:


> The future needs those kids happy and reproducing a whole lot more than it needs retirees to hang in there a few more years.


This is a false dichotomy. Maybe for an extremely lazy society, it might be this black & white. But with any reasonable effort and intelligence, we don't have to choose between happy kids and protecting seniors.

Example: I'm a single young adult. I went on a date this week with a woman I like, and have gone on many dates during the pandemic. At the same time, I wear masks in public areas, I avoid going out when I have cold-like symptoms, and I avoid large gatherings. The woman and I are on the same page that we won't meet if any of us have symptoms, and we will take precautions to limit COVID spread.

These are SIMPLE measures which are extremely minor inconveniences. I can still date and do my extremely useful youthful things that make me so incredibly valuable to society. I expect others my age to do the same.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I have been getting statistics on the virus from this web site Coronavirus Update (Live): 62,082,069 Cases and 1,451,136 Deaths from COVID-19 Virus Pandemic - Worldometer
Here is the page specific to Canada Canada Coronavirus: 359,064 Cases and 11,894 Deaths - Worldometer
Looking at the facts, the number of infections is growing much faster than the number of deaths. This makes sense if we are doing more and better testing and have better treatments than we had back in January. This is why I think it more important to look at the death rate.
We see there was a big wave of Covid in the spring, followed by very few infections and deaths in the summer, and a lesser wave in the fall. I can't explain this but have heard that this is typical of viruses like colds and flu. They come in 2 waves then peter out and disappear.
If we look at total deaths we find there have been 11,894 Covid related deaths in Canada or 314 per million of population, a death rate of .0314%. Total cases 359,064 so even if you get it bad enough to be tested your chance of surviving is still 97%

This compares to 1407 deaths per million for Belgium and 16 per million for Japan, the highest and lowest for developed countries. It does not seem reasonable that 2 countries with similar population density and medical systems should be so far apart but there it is. At the same time China reports 3 deaths per million but a lot of people suspect such statistics from China to be politically corrected.

My takeaway from all this is that the virus is not as deadly as initially feared. The death rate has already peaked and will continue to drop with or without a vaccine. I haven't even mentioned improved methods of treatment because I know it is controversial and grounds for being banned on this web site to even suggest there are cures.

Right now there are 60,666 known cases of Covid in Canada, of which 60,216 are classified as "mild" and only 450 or 0.7% as serious or critical. I doubt that those 450 cases are going to crash the Canadian medical system.

I hope this helps put the situation in perspective. I don't follow the mainstream media, I prefer to go by facts so if you think I am nuts, this may be why.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

I generally agree James that your example to start with, 20 year old clubbing in close proximity, is high on the list of bad activities that should be considered for restriction...

But even then, I'm still concerned. 20 year olds _need_ to continue to learn to socialize properly in groups and meet new friends and find spouses. That is _very important_ to them and to society. Yes it could be done a bit differently and recklessly, but I'm afraid that is actually asking too much of them, nor are there systems to facilitate youth socializing in reasonable ways any longer provided by parents and communities, so they are on their own.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

I still argue, that although the younger generations tend to socialize a little louder and perhaps with larger groups, it is not like 40 year olds, 50 year olds or 60 year olds are acting all that more appropriately. They just misbehave in ways that we tend to believe are a little more appropriate. Family gatherings and other less loud and perhaps drunk social gatherings.

At the end of the day, it is all the same. Bad behavior. The only difference in my books is that the older generations are more infectious. Common sense says they are more infectious from a viral load point of view but even science will tell you that they are certainly infectious for a lot longer period of time then the younger people would be. It just takes so much longer for an older person to neutralize their infection compared to a much younger person.

In my opinion, the bullseye should be pointed at the 40 to 60 year olds, as the group causing the largest part of the Covid-19 problem today. Most of the risk the pose is of no fault of their own, but of course some of it is, with respect to their behaviors. In any case it is their misbehavior that causes so much more transmission of "problem generating" infections.

Just my opinion, of course.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Right now there are 60,666 known cases of Covid in Canada, of which 60,216 are classified as "mild" and only 450 or 0.7% as serious or critical. I doubt that those 450 cases are going to crash the Canadian medical system.


I do wonder how those stats are assigned and if they reflect the pressure on our health care system. I gather the 450 cases you mention are purely ICU patients but what about the much larger number of those hospitalized, are they all considered mild and not putting pressure on our system?

Currently Manitoba has 332 in hospital (45 ICU) and Ontario in hospital 595 (155 ICU).


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> I still argue, that although the younger generations tend to socialize a little louder and perhaps with larger groups, it is not like 40 year olds, 50 year olds or 60 year olds are acting all that more appropriately. They just misbehave in ways that we tend to believe are a little more appropriate. Family gatherings and other less loud and perhaps drunk social gatherings.
> 
> At the end of the day, it is all the same. Bad behavior. The only difference in my books is that the older generations are more infectious. Common sense says they are more infectious from a viral load point of view but even science will tell you that they are certainly infectious for a lot longer period of time then the younger people would be. It just takes so much longer for an older person to neutralize their infection compared to a much younger person.
> 
> ...


I disagree with your assumption that older person viral loads are a "main issue". Our public health Doctor stated the largest difference between first (we did really good) and second (we did terrible) waves in MB was the huge increase in number of contacts shown during tracing. Also our 20-29 group is still by far the highest case count by age group.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> His response was that: the 20-somethings are getting angry at the rest of society for shutting down all their service industry jobs and closing down all the fun places, closing down parties.
> 
> I argued that the risk of harm to the older demographics is a far bigger concern than a few service industry jobs, or the freedom to have large parties.


Well that's the problem right there.
We don't have a good method to weigh the different costs.

Sorry, but when you're on the edge of starving and homeless it is offensive to say "a few service industry jobs".

The big problem is we don't have an agreed way to admit to the value of a human life. 
There is one, we all know it, but we're not willing to publicly state anything.

I'd also argue that the things you dismiss as unimportant are to other people incredibly important.
Your close minded attitude and failure to understand that they honestly have different values than you is the problem.

Also remember, there are a lot of older people in the risk group also ignoring the guidance. 
Go to Michaels (the craft store), and you'll see at risk people crammed in together, touching all sorts of things. 

Arguements I've heard from older people who refuse to pull back
I'm old and going to die soon anyway, I'd rather enjoy the time I have left.
I disagree with them, but I understand that's a legitimate opinion.

If some 20 something thinks it's worth the risk to go out, that again is their opinion.
Again I disagree with them, but I disagree with lots of things people support, and it's part of living in a "free" society.

That being said, I'm in the more highly compliant group for handwashing, sanitizing, facemask, and reducing interactions.
I consider it impolite/antisocial to not put forth a serious effort to slow the spread.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> *It is the self-centered nature of 20s*
> 
> That could take years potentially. In the meantime, there is a risk of overloading our hospitals and exhausting and/or killing our front line workers. There will also be much more exposure in the general community almost certainly resulting in more infections in the elderly who won't be able to socialize with anyone under their age cohort. No visitations in homes, no care giving, nothing much at all.
> 
> Thus I don't know that a free-for-all regarding socializing is the answer. Just in the past 2 weeks, BC has had a major outbreak in the small town of Salmo and this week, Revelstoke... the sizes of which resulted from socializing. Folks need to have more discipline than that. A bit of social responsibility is not a big burden to carry for a limited, e.g. one year time frame. Trying to find the appropriate balance is the difficult, if not impossible, part.


 ... one word: SELFISHNESS. And this is not just the mentality coming from the 20s and 30 year olds but from all ages. The thinking is it always happen to someone else, not oneself/themselves.

Moreover, the younger ones are not afraid to die due to the perception of "invincibility" with lots of time on this earth. I say just go party ... as no one else can change their attitude and mentality except themselves ...aka grow the @#!$ing up.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

The challenge is that the long term effects of covid are not yet known. Indications are that they could be very serious. A fast recovery at any age does not mean this is over.

So, in the future will having covid count as one of the 'preconditions' that impacts one's life insurance or out of country travel insurance policies?


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

cainvest said:


> I disagree with your assumption that older person viral loads are a "main issue". Our public health Doctor stated the largest difference between first (we did really good) and second (we did terrible) waves in MB was the huge increase in number of contacts shown during tracing. Also our 20-29 group is still by far the highest case count by age group.


That only makes sense if you believe that all infections are the same. This is where most of our lazy thinkers fail when they focus almost solely on infections. Most people do and most people are wrong. Obviously an asymptomatic infection is a walk in the park compared to an ICU infection, when looking at just those two individuals. When you consider transmission infections that occur you must understand that there is very little difference between an asymptomatic young person and a vaccinated person. Of course there are differences or we would forgo vaccinations and just ask our young people to hug others more often. That said, an asymptomatic person always has less viral load then symptomatic people, who have been infected for the same amount of time. The only question that remains is if there is also a difference in the levels of transmission and "how serious is the infection" that the two different groups tend to transmit.

It is my opinion, that the younger asymptomatic people transmit mostly mild and asymptomatic infections. Once you then take in the benefit of the immunity all these recovered people have to our pandemic fight, subtracting from that the almost zero cost in treating them, you start to see my point. There is a big difference in the type of infection a person attracts.

I could even see a scenario where it would be determined that they are actually a benefit in the fight against this pandemic, but that might be a bit of a stretch, even for an independent thinker like myself. But they certainly are not as harmful as many of us seem to believe they are.

Just because infection numbers are going up does not mean that the young are responsible for it. We have no idea what the numbers should be whether the young are a problem or not. So you cannot use that as your guide. It will take you down the wrong road.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I know this is off the topic but am I the only one that finds it amusing that a year ago worry warts were concerned that young people were spending all their time staring at cell phones, playing video games and messing around with computers and not enough time going out and socializing? Now it is the opposite.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

It is not inconsistent. There are smart ways to socialize and really dumb ways to socialize in a health crisis. Surely IQs beyond 50 can figure that out?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ From ian's post #26:


> _So, in the future will having covid count as one of the 'preconditions' that impacts one's life insurance or out of country travel insurance policies? _


I wouldn't be surprised it would be included as a pre-xcondition.

In fact, unless the policy states specifically that a covid illness is covered or that it's not an exclusion, then there should be no ambiguity. Otherwise, assume it's not covered.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> It is my opinion, that the younger asymptomatic people transmit mostly mild and asymptomatic infections.


IMO this is just not true. Infection severity will depend on one's ability to fight the virus. If your body is weaker the virus will replicate much more rapidly, such is the case with older people and/or ones with some other underlying health conditions. A 20 something with an asymptomatic or near "common cold" level infection could transfer the virus to one that is older and/or weaker and easily kill them.



OptsyEagle said:


> Just because infection numbers are going up does not mean that the young are responsible for it. We have no idea what the numbers should be whether the young are a problem or not. So you cannot use that as your guide. It will take you down the wrong road.


We have a very good idea, the younger crowd (20-29 here) account for the most cases. Not sure how or why you would ignore that statistic?

In any case, we all know the absolute best protection is to stop the spread of the virus by reducing all contact with it, i.e. limiting the number of contacts people have. Trying to just reduce the amount of viral loading by itself is lost cause as the spread will continue on.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

cainvest said:


> IMO this is just not true. Infection severity will depend on one's ability to fight the virus. If your body is weaker the virus will replicate much more rapidly, such is the case with older people and/or ones with some other underlying health conditions. A 20 something with an asymptomatic or near "common cold" level infection could transfer the virus to one that is older and/or weaker and easily kill them.
> 
> 
> We have a very good idea, the younger crowd (20-29 here) account for the most cases. Not sure how or why you would ignore that statistic?
> ...


You really are missing the point.

No. Your ability to fight off the virus is not solely based on your personal ability or immune system. It is a combination of that, in conjunction also to the "initial dose of infection" you received. How much virus did your body receive, that it now needs to fight off, is absolutely critical to your outcome. That is science, it is how most virus infections work, and it is a critical point you need to understand, to understand not only what I am saying, but to competently protect yourself.

To your second point which pretty much proves that you missed my point is that it does not matter who spreads the most infections, it matters only who spreads the dangerous and most infectious infections. Remember a recovered infection is probably better then no infection at all, since that person is now eliminated from the problem group to protect, upon recovery.

Lastly, please lets not go through the social distancing thing again. It has nothing to do with what I am saying and I have already agreed that it is the best way to stop infections, so please let that go.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

I will leave with this analogy of my point. 

We all know playing with matches is something that should be discouraged. However, if you have a young person who just came out of the lake after a swim playing with matches and beside him, you have a middle aged guy all covered in gasoline playing with matches.

Do you still believe that the dangers of playing with matches are the same for both of those individuals. If you had to take the matches away from both of them, which person would you remove the matches from first?

That is what I am saying. Yes. The young could act better but luckily for us, they are no where near as dangerous as the middle aged and older people are when it comes to this virus, so that is where I would focus my efforts if I had to distinguish between the two.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> You really are missing the point.
> 
> No. Your ability to fight off the virus is not solely based on your personal ability or immune system. It is a combination of that, in conjunction also to the "initial dose of infection" you received. How much virus did your body receive, that it now needs to fight off, is absolutely critical to your outcome. That is science, it is how most virus infections work, and it is a critical point you need to understand, to understand not only what I am saying, but to competently protect yourself.


True, a higher initial infection will very likely produce a worse (or at least faster) outcome, that is a given. But assuming a small viral load can't be fatal to older or people with weak immune systems would be a stretch IMO. Of course we're both just armchairing this as there (to my knowledge) is no covid-19 science data to back this up, just general info.



OptsyEagle said:


> To your second point which pretty much proves that you missed my point is that it does not matter who spreads the most infections, it matters only who spreads the dangerous and most infectious infections. Remember a recovered infection is probably better then no infection at all, since that person is now eliminated from the problem group to protect, upon recovery.


It appears you missed my point .... everyone who spreads the covid-19 is dangerous! Asymptomatic, presymptomaic, critically ill, young or old ... there is no reason to split hairs on which "could be" less infectious or dangerous. And yes, some will shed more virus than others.

Again ... AFAIK there is no data (only assumptions) on the minimal viral load amount defined for covid-19 so I'll just play it safe (as everyone should) and say anyone potentially with covid-19 could be highly dangerous to me.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I haven't seen or heard any evidence that viral loads have anything to do with the eventual course of the infection.

In fact according to the emergency doctors and nurses, the most common and troubling occurrence is the patient is stable and fine and then quickly become unstable and in serious trouble. They say it can happen in a matter of minutes and they race from patient to patient trying to deal with an array of symptoms......from strokes, heart attacks, neurological problems, respiratory problems, organ failure. Those problems are common among all age groups of COVID patients and are the cause of the lingering affects long after the virus itself is eradicated from their body.

COVID Is a blood disease and travels throughout the body causing destruction wherever it discovers a weakness. It is not a respiratory illness.

That is why patients report difficulty breathing, but also loss of taste and smell, extensive faigue, and severe racking pain throughout their body.

I have heard that recounted over and over by the health professionals and the recovered patients.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> That is what I am saying. Yes. The young could act better but luckily for us, they are no where near as dangerous as the middle aged and older people are when it comes to this virus, so that is where I would focus my efforts if I had to distinguish between the two.


You're also neglecting the fact that young people (20-29 here) are spreading it more than any other age group. Each time one of these young people pass it on to any age group the pandemic gets worse, more so because more of them have it. How are you not seeing this as a problem?


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

cainvest said:


> You're also neglecting the fact that young people (20-29 here) are spreading it more than any other age group. Each time one of these young people pass it on to any age group the pandemic gets worse, more so because more of them have it. How are you not seeing this as a problem?


But what kind of infection are they spreading? A dangerous one that puts someone into the ICU or an asymptomatic one that gives the infected person immunity in a few days? Hopefully you can see the difference between those infections.

Yes. An older unhealthy person can survive covid-19 if their initial dose is low enough. That is a fact. Yes. An older unhealthy person will have problems with higher doses of covid-19, that a younger more healthy person would not. I never said that there is no risk being near a younger infected person. I said they were less dangerous then being near an older infected person, and that the younger infections don't in themselves cause us as much problems as the older ones do. That is my point.

Why does it matter? Because if you are unlucky enough to find yourself at a Christmas dinner, that you could not get out of. If you have a choice of sitting between your two nieces, age 14 and 16, or between your sister in law, age 52 and the neighbor, who must be almost 60, there is a significantly larger risk in sitting between the older people, when compared to the younger. That is common sense, with a little science built in if you keep your eyes open to it and remove any bias.

Is it common knowledge? Of course not. That is why I am posting it. There are other benefits to understanding the true discriminatory effect this virus has on age, but my posts are already long enough, so I will just state again, younger people are not causing us the problem the press seem to want us to believe.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> But what kind of infection are they spreading? A dangerous one that puts someone into the ICU or an asymptomatic one that gives the infected person immunity in a few days? Hopefully you can see the difference between those infections.
> 
> Yes. An older unhealthy person can survive covid-19 if their initial dose is low enough. That is a fact. Yes. An older unhealthy person will have problems with higher doses of covid-19, that a younger more healthy person would not. I never said that there is no risk being near a younger infected person. I said they were less dangerous then being near an older infected person, and that the younger infections don't in themselves cause us as much problems as the older ones do. That is my point.


Got any covid-19 studies or data to back up your wild claims? Few days of immunity? Old person can survive a low dose? Also, how low of a dose exactly ... one glob of "talking spit" from someone infected, two globs maybe?




OptsyEagle said:


> Why does it matter? Because if you are unlucky enough to find yourself at a Christmas dinner, that you could not get out of. If you have a choice of sitting between your two nieces, age 14 and 16, or between your sister in law, age 52 and the neighbor, who must be almost 60, there is a significantly larger risk in sitting between the older people, when compared to the younger. That is common sense, with a little science built in if you keep your eyes open to it and remove any bias.


A christmas dinner you couldn't get out of during a pandemic, seriously lol?
Common sense would dictate (and has been shown through contact tracing) every single one at that dinner would have a high probably of getting infected if only one person was infected there. Prolonged indoor exposure is the worst thing one could do and you're worried about who you are going to sit beside thinking that's really going to make a difference ... WOW.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I think us old farts should be the ones taking precautions, isolating and taking a few hits. Its not hard to do.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eder said:


> I think us old farts should be the ones taking precautions, isolating and taking a few hits. Its not hard to do.


I was at home depot today and saw an old couple.
I would guess they were in their 70s.

They had no masks, and they were leaning on their card for support. They are clearly in the at risk group. (old and physically weakening)

They were yelling at each other having a discussion/fight, as much as they could, since they didn't have the lung power to really yell all that loud.
Yet no masks.. 

People stopped halfway down the aisle and left them on their own. 

I had a pair of 20 somethings apologize for stepping a bit too close because they weren't paying attention.

Can't argue with stupid, and it comes at all ages.


I think, that there are likely more young people taking COVID19 less seriously, because all the data shows that COVDI19 is VERY low risk for young people.

If you do a cost/benefit analysis at the individual, I don't think COVID19 restrictions make sense for young people. The risk is negligible for them.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Your personal anecdote/opinion. 

Also just a BC Covid snapshot of the demographics of tested infections. 20-29 is the most significant age group and that doesn't catch those who didn't get tested obviously.

Will try to find recent stats of demographics of hospitalizations


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> I was at home depot today and saw an old couple.
> I would guess they were in their 70s.
> 
> They had no masks,


...

A clinical study showed wearing medical grade mask made no difference in contracting Covid...maybe the 70 year olds had breathing trouble?

They should order online from HD instead.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> Will try to find recent stats of demographics of hospitalizations








COVID-19 epidemiology update: Key updates — Canada.ca


This summary of COVID-19 cases across Canada contains detailed data about the spread of the virus over time and in different regions of the country. Includes breakdowns by age and sex or gender. Provides an overview of testing, variants of concern, cases following vaccination and severe illness...




health-infobase.canada.ca




Near the bottom of the page.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> because all the data shows that COVDI19 is VERY low risk for young people.
> 
> If you do a cost/benefit analysis at the individual, I don't think COVID19 restrictions make sense for young people. The risk is negligible for them.


The risk is not that low for young people. And sadly, now I have a real-life example from my family.

I have some family in Europe. The married couple are both 35 years old and they now both have covid. The wife is sick at home and she tells me it's worse than a typical flu, but something she can manage at home.

The husband however is now in hospital. He's 35, physically fit (not overweight) but is having a very rough time from the infection. He caught covid from another family member who has since died from it. The wife is wondering if she's going to lose him, and she's sick too so definitely can't be at his side.

For all of you saying that risk is negligible and it's no big deal for young people ... I would recommend not being so dismissive of the risk. This is NOT just a flu, and it does land healthy 30 year olds in the hospital.

Do you want your children to end up in hospital, like this family member of mine? It CAN happen to your kids, if they're in their 20s or 30s. Yes the odds are that they will survive it, but it's not 'just a flu' and it really is dangerous.

. . .

I was already losing sleep worried about the safety of my older parents, and now I'm going to be thinking about this 35 year old family member who's in hospital. Do you REALLY think covid is not a big deal? Doesn't require extreme caution from everyone?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

And an update, just texting with the wife at this moment. She writes: "He was really in a bad condition"

She says another mistake was there was a big delay before understanding he was in rough shape and needed hospital care. She wishes he went to the hospital sooner.

Healthy 35 year old. Caught it from his uncle (who died of it).


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> The risk is not that low for young people. And sadly, now I have a real-life example from my family.


Sorry, but the risk for young people is low.








Age-specific COVID-19 case-fatality rate: no evidence of changes over time







www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov





For under 30's it's 0.1% or one in a thousand.


> Do you want your children to end up in hospital, like this family member of mine? It CAN happen to your kids, if they're in their 20s or 30s. Yes the odds are that they will survive it, but it's not 'just a flu' and it really is dangerous.


It's not the flu. I've been arguably one of the most consistant that it is not the flu.
it's a Coronavirus, much different.



> I was already losing sleep worried about the safety of my older parents, and now I'm going to be thinking about this 35 year old family member who's in hospital. Do you REALLY think covid is not a big deal? Doesn't require extreme caution from everyone?


I do think COVID19 is a big deal.
However, and this is the important part, many people think that at a low risk (around 1 in a thousand, if they even get it) that it's an acceptable risk.

My question to you is that if there is a small risk (0.1%) should we shut down the entire country?
Since *YOU* keep bringing up the flu.








Influenza mortality rate by age group U.S. 2019-2020 | Statista


The mortality rate from influenza in the United States is by far highest among those aged 65 years and older.




www.statista.com





It looks like the risk for a 20 something at about 0.1% is similar to the risk for flu in 65+.
And that's WITH a vaccine.

If you know anyone who's 65+, who doesn't isolate and hide away behind a mask from flu, they are just as "irresponsible" as the 20 somethings living their life.

That being said, going out and having fun at a small risk is worth it for these people. Who are you to judge what an acceptable risk is?
At less than 1 in a thousand, if you're healthy, I'm not sure the lockdown makes sense for young people.

However for those in their 40 and up, I think they should be taking more care, as the risk is an order of magnitude higher, or worse.

The level of caution should be directly proportional to the risk of yourself and those around you. A bunch of teenagers should wash their hands, and not be around vulnerable people, but really they SHOULD treat it like a 65+ person treats the flu. 
Of course that's a data driven opinion.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

cainvest said:


> Got any covid-19 studies or data to back up your wild claims? Few days of immunity? Old person can survive a low dose? Also, how low of a dose exactly ... one glob of "talking spit" from someone infected, two globs maybe?


Donald Trump is a good example. What was he sick for, maybe a few days.

This is how viruses work. Do you really think all the differences in outcomes is due to some people being super human immuno gods and the others some kind of weak humans that can't handle a few viruses. Please you need to get up to speed on virology.




> A christmas dinner you couldn't get out of during a pandemic, seriously lol?
> Common sense would dictate (and has been shown through contact tracing) every single one at that dinner would have a high probably of getting infected if only one person was infected there. Prolonged indoor exposure is the worst thing one could do and you're worried about who you are going to sit beside thinking that's really going to make a difference ... WOW.


You really are bad with analogies aren't you. It makes it difficult to talk to you. Not sure why I try.

Look. For everyone else: I am not the guy giving the younger generation a free pass. Mother nature did that. Can't you see that. I am just observing this and attempting to use it as opposed to just stamping it out like there are no differences. There are. Just open your eyes.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> Your personal anecdote/opinion.
> 
> Also just a BC Covid snapshot of the demographics of tested infections. 20-29 is the most significant age group and that doesn't catch those who didn't get tested obviously.
> 
> Will try to find recent stats of demographics of hospitalizations


It will be night and day. Very unlikely many of those infections are leading to hospitalizations. All they will lead to, in my opinion, is a Covid-19 immune person, in a few days. Most of the people they infect will most likely all have a pretty good outcome. Of course their will be a few exceptions. I am just stating the rule. 

Caution should always be taken, by everyone, but if I had to choose whose behavior to change first, it would be those of an older age first. They are the more dangerous.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

As already advised by the health experts (plus many politicians), not sure what part of the "*all*" in the "*we all need to do our part*" that some of the "we (include young, old and inbetweens who are able to read)" don't get, in managing this pandemic or getting the infection rates down???? Duh.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> As already advised by the health experts (plus many politicians), not sure what part of the "*all*" in the "*we all need to do our part*" that some of the "we (include young, old and inbetweens who are able to read)" don't get, in managing this pandemic or getting the infection rates down???? Duh.


We are doing our part, are you?

The real question is "what is reasonable?"

Lots of disagreement there.

I think the 20-somethings partying it up aren't behaving responsibly.
I think the elderly at risk people who aren't wearing masks or taking the most basic precautions aren't behaving responsibly either.

Finally, it's all too easy to tell other people they aren't sacrificing enough for your benefit.

The cost is disproportionately impact young people, mostly for the benefit of older people.

These are the same old people who didn't save for retirement, maintain our infrastructure, or properly fund the health care system for decades.
Yet now they want us to drop everything to take care of them?

They didn't do their part, but somehow expect young people to "do their part". It's pretty self serving.

That being said, I think our government, from the very start, has been setting a poor example, with our PM encouraging and even participating in massive public gatherings, and violating health orders, of course young people think it's a joke. Because our political leaders, specifically the PM have been treating it like a joke.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> We are doing our part, are you?


 ... I'm part of the "we" and so are you?



> The real question is "*what is reasonable?*"
> 
> Lots of disagreement there.


 ... no kidding but your question has an infinite number of answers.



> I think the 20-somethings partying it up aren't behaving responsibly.
> I think the elderly at risk people who aren't wearing masks or taking the most basic precautions aren't behaving responsibly either.


 ... needless to say these folks need to smarten up.



> Finally, it's all too easy to tell other people they aren't sacrificing enough for *your benefit.*
> 
> The cost is disproportionately impact young people, mostly for the benefit of older people.


 .. my benefit? And you assumed I'm a senior? LMAO.



> *These are the same old people who didn't save for retirement*, *maintain our infrastructure, or properly fund the health care system for decades.
> Yet now they want us to drop everything to take care of them?*


 ... I don't supposed you were born an orphan? Ever heard of taking care of your parents aka personal responsibility?



> They didn't do their part, but *somehow expect young people to "do their part". It's pretty self serving.*


 ... the only part I agree these "disadvantaged" older people didn't do their part is beat the crap out of their kids so now they can whine that they have to do their part looking after "their" elderlies. Or look into the mirror on their own parental skills = NONE or DISMAL. No wonder the next generations have such whiny, me-me-me and poor me mentalities.



> That being said, I think our government, from the very start, has been setting a poor example, *with our PM encouraging and even participating in massive public gatherings, and violating health orders*, of course young people think it's a joke. Because our political leaders, specifically the PM have been treating it like a joke.


 ... where's the proof on that with the "PM"? I really would like to see that evidence.

For one, I know that TO's mayor (Tory) did that, mingling and acting like a CovIdiot at Trinity Bellwoods Park at the initial stage of the pandemic. But now some 6 months later he knows better, hiding out in his WAH office.

And nice try on the political angle ... you might as well include Ford too on setting a bad example.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Beaver101 said:


> MrMatt said:
> 
> 
> > with our PM encouraging and even participating in massive public gatherings
> ...


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

... okay, one example ... participating in a "needed" big gathering... early in the pandemic. So that's even with the Tory incident. 

But MrMatt said "*encouraging *and participating in massive *gatherings"* ... like what the Dump has continuously done.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... okay, one example ... participating in a "needed" big gathering... early in the pandemic. So that's even with the Tory incident.
> 
> But MrMatt said "*encouraging *and participating in massive *gatherings"* ... like what the Dump has continuously done.


Yes, right at the beginning Trudeau participated in a unnecessary big gathering.
Yes, just like Trump.

Yes, that is one of many examples of him ignoring health orders, but you know, those rules don't apply to the rich and connected.
Plus it's not only that he ignored them, he encouraged others to ignore them.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Beaver101 said:


> ... participating in a "needed" big gathering...


Needed? Debatable.



Beaver101 said:


> ..early in the pandemic.


Arguably the worst time he could have done it.

ltr


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> Donald Trump is a good example. What was he sick for, maybe a few days.
> 
> This is how viruses work. Do you really think all the differences in outcomes is due to some people being super human immuno gods and the others some kind of weak humans that can't handle a few viruses. Please you need to get up to speed on virology.


So I ask for studies and data to back your claims and you give me "Trump had it". lmao
Ok, let's conclude you have no data and leave it at that. 



OptsyEagle said:


> You really are bad with analogies aren't you. It makes it difficult to talk to you. Not sure why I try.


Not sure why you're trying to push your opinion and not the real facts either ...


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

What more evidence do people need than to look at what is happening in the places were there were no COVID restrictions. They are a disaster zone.


----------



## MK7GTI (Mar 4, 2019)

Just like every other thread, this has turned into the same 25-30 members arguing the same points at each other.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

cainvest said:


> So I ask for studies and data to back your claims and you give me "Trump had it". lmao
> Ok, let's conclude you have no data and leave it at that.
> 
> Not sure why you're trying to push your opinion and not the real facts either ...


What you are asking me is to show you a study that proves 2+2=4. Since it is expected that everyone with an ounce of common sense knows this, finding a study to prove it is quite difficult. What I have stated about initial dosage of infection is fundamental viral transmission knowledge. Find your info yourself. By the way, this is how a mask protects the healthy person, by reducing the initial dose of infection they would otherwise have received if they were not wearing a mask. This is fundamental knowledge.

To observe it in action, however, I would ask you why such discrepancies of outcomes do we see from people of the same age? Do you think all those discrepancies are associated with such major differences in health? They do not. The major reason one 75 year old is sick for a couple days and gets over it and another of equal age goes into the ICU is because they did not receive the same dose upon infection. The first one received a smaller dose then the second. This is common virology knowledge. It is almost too basic to find studies. They would probably be decades old and pertain to a different virus and I am sure that would then be your next complaint. 

The Trump example was to illustrate that we are seeing more older people having mild outcomes then we are seeing bad outcomes. We always have. Although there are differences in the health of each person, that kind of difference in outcomes is better explained by the differences in initial dosage of infection, then the health status of each before infection. For the lion's share of our population there are just not that many differences in us when looking at people of the same age. There are outliers that we focus on but the majority of people are pretty much the same.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

For example: On this CBC video that J4C posted on the masks thread, if you go to 2:00 to about 2:45 into the video you will hear an Infectious Disease specialist explain how a mask can reduce the initial dose of infection, which can offer you a much better outcome upon your infection. I am sure it is not what you want but it should give you pause that perhaps your understanding of virology is not complete.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> The Trump example was to illustrate that we are seeing more older people having mild outcomes then we are seeing bad outcomes. We always have.


Are you really saying we're seeing more old people with mild outcomes vs young people with mild outcomes? Just want to be clear here ...



OptsyEagle said:


> Although there are differences in the health of each person, that kind of difference in outcomes is better explained by the differences in initial dosage of infection, then the health status of each before infection.


And of course there is no way to directly prove what percentage is a bigger factor. However, all health guidelines state that high risk people (old and/or with health issues) should take extra precautions. Obviously the hospital/death numbers support that the high risk group health factors play a very significant role. But, correct me if I'm wrong here, you want me to believe that all the high risk group got a larger initial dose and that is what is making it worse for them?


----------



## Janus (Oct 23, 2013)

My 2 cents

The actions we're taking as a society are to protect the old. This group also happens to be the asset owners and the retired.

The cost of these actions disproportionately affect the young, whose careers are more likely to be low end, service roles. So you're asking people in the prime of their youth not to socialize and not to work, so that the boomers (who mind you don't have student debt and who won't be taxed to oblivion to pay for all this) can stay healthy. Going out to bars and partying is a bit much, but I think after this is all over the youngest people in our society deserve an effing break rather than everything constantly happening in favour of the old retired asset owners with pensions. It's a bit ridiculous.

Obviously we need to protect the old but the amount of content written about how awful the young are is so ridiculous to me. As a population, they've got it the worst and have paid the heaviest price. The boomers are riding this out in their muskoka and PEC cottages while the young tear their hair out in their little apartments, unemployed or worried about unemployment.

A year from now, the boomers will be wealthier than when this started and a segment of a generation of young people will be devastated and trying to pick up the pieces of their careers and lives. Oh, and their dream of ever owning a home just got _even_ less likely.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

cainvest said:


> Are you really saying we're seeing more old people with mild outcomes vs young people with mild outcomes? Just want to be clear here ...
> 
> And of course there is no way to directly prove what percentage is a bigger factor. However, all health guidelines state that high risk people (old and/or with health issues) should take extra precautions. Obviously the hospital/death numbers support that the high risk group health factors play a very significant role. But, correct me if I'm wrong here, you want me to believe that all the high risk group got a larger initial dose and that is what is making it worse for them?


I suppose you are asking good questions, if you never heard this before. No. I am saying that we don't just see old people with bad outcomes. We also see old people with very mild outcomes. The main reason for that is the difference in initial dosage of virus they received when they were infected. There will be other differences with a few of the less healthy but for the average person of ANY AGE the initial dose of infection is the primary determinant of the outcome they will have. 

Does that make sense. I am not asking you to agree, I am just asking if you finally understand what I am saying.

And yes, there is no way to prove what percentage is the most important factor except for the differences in outcomes from such a large number of people who appear to be equally healthy. That observation unfortuneatly will not give precise numbers we all would like. I will feel I did pretty good here if I can finally get you to agree that there is more to a person's outcome then just the health status of that person before infection. If I can get you to finally see that intaking 10,000,000 viruses will be more difficult for any body to fight off then intaking only 10,000. Can you see that?


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> I suppose you are asking good questions, if you never heard this before. No. I am saying that we don't just see old people with bad outcomes. We also see old people with very mild outcomes. *The main reason for that is the difference in initial dosage of virus they received when they were infected.* There will be other differences with a few of the less healthy but for the average person of ANY AGE the initial dose of infection is the primary determinant of the outcome they will have.
> 
> Does that make sense. I am not asking you to agree, I am just asking if you finally understand what I am saying.


I do hear what you are saying. I just think your conclusion is completely wrong, as in, your weighting factors of viral load is greater than ones age/sickness status. *The main reason we see more old people with worse outcomes is precisely due to age and/or other conditions. *Again, are you asking me to believe more older people are getting a higher dose than younger people?



OptsyEagle said:


> And yes, there is no way to prove what percentage is the most important factor except for the differences in outcomes from such a large number of people who appear to be equally healthy. That observation unfortuneatly will not give precise numbers we all would like. I will feel I did pretty good here if I can finally get you to agree that there is more to a person's outcome then just the health status of that person before infection. If I can get you to finally see that intaking 10,000,000 viruses will be more difficult for any body to fight off then intaking only 10,000. Can you see that?


Yes, there is more than just a person's health BUT their current age/health condition plays a major rule not a minor one as you want me to believe. Everyone in the world and all the stats agree that age and health are highly significant factors towards the outcome of a covid-19 infection.


----------



## MK7GTI (Mar 4, 2019)

Janus said:


> My 2 cents
> 
> The actions we're taking as a society are to protect the old. This group also happens to be the asset owners and the retired.
> 
> ...


Finally someone with some sense.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

cainvest said:


> I do hear what you are saying. I just think your conclusion is completely wrong, as in, your weighting factors of viral load is greater than ones age/sickness status. *The main reason we see more old people with worse outcomes is precisely due to age and/or other conditions. *Again, are you asking me to believe more older people are getting a higher dose than younger people?
> 
> 
> Yes, there is more than just a person's health BUT their current age/health condition plays a major rule not a minor one as you want me to believe. Everyone in the world and all the stats agree that age and health are highly significant factors towards the outcome of a covid-19 infection.


You are really fighting it. Just let it sink in. You will feel better after you do. lol

If the main reason we see poor outcomes with older people is their state of health, why is it that sometimes older people have a better outcome then younger people. Even when both appear to be of average health status for their age? You are observing the health exceptions and I am pointing towards the average. Since the average is a much larger group it is believed that initial dose of virus is more important then current health. It just shows up as the likely candidate so much more often, but at the end of the day they are both very important.

In any case, you cannot do much about the state of your current health so reducing the initial dose of infection is something one can sometimes do something about. Like wearing a mask.

Anyway, at least we are on the same page of understanding now. I think if I give you a little more time with your new information you will start to see a slightly different picture, but in the end, if you can avoid infection at all, it really does not matter.

My two rules for Covid-19 protection:

*1) Ensure you do not get infected.
2) If you get infected, ensure it is of the lowest dose possible.*

I have stated those rules quite a few times on these boards, since the beginning of this pandemic, but they can always use repeating.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

Out of curiosity, I googled for OptsyEagle's theory and found this nicely written article:








Does Virus Dose or Load Predict How Sick You Get With COVID-19?


Initial exposure, strength of virus infection both seen as contributors to illness severity




www.medpagetoday.com


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

It was asked what amount of virus constitutes a low dose. The answer is that no one accurately knows. They are looking at it but this is a new virus after all. Right now we just know that less of it is better then more of it.

Anyway, if anyone observed closely the mess up by the Astra Zeneca vaccine trials, they would observe that a large number of participants received the wrong dose of vaccine for the 2nd dose. Did anyone notice the dosage difference.

I am going by memory now, but if I recall correctly the idea was to dose everyone with 0.53 x 10^10 viral particles in the first dose and then double it to 1.06 x 10^10 viral particles for the 2nd dose. What they actually did for most of their participants which was the mistake made, was they dosed them with 0.53 x 10^10 viral particles in the 2nd dose as well. As we know, this mess up was the difference between 90% effectiveness down to 70% effectiveness.

My point here, is that we are actually needing our body to receive 53,000,000,000 viral particles to get 70% of us to develop any useful immune response. For the other 20% we need twice that many viruses to do that.

Those are the numbers we are talking about. My guess is that the 20% of participants that did not get an immune response from this mess up would mostly be younger people. It is probably for them that they increased the dosage but in hopes of not creating a cytokine storm attack on the older participants, they wanted to create some level of immunity for them (with the 1st smaller dose) before they hit them with the larger one. Which is probably why it is being done in two doses. Just to ensure we don't overdose anyone.

Anyway, I found that interesting.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> You are really fighting it. Just let it sink in. You will feel better after you do. lol


lol, just going with what makes sense to me .. nothing else.



OptsyEagle said:


> If the main reason we see poor outcomes with older people is their state of health, *why is it that sometimes older people have a better outcome then younger people*. Even when both appear to be of average health status for their age?


Statements like yours above just doesn't make any sense to me.

On average, older people get sicker and die more (far more) than younger people. Of course there are times when an older person's outcome is milder than a young persons but certainly not on average. Also don't forget that older people are much more likely to have developed underlying conditions (sometimes multiple conditions) to make matters even worse for them. Just look at the numbers for hospitalizations, ICU and deaths ... they climb significantly when the age group is over 50.

So in comparison ..
3% of 20-29 yr olds get hospitalized
12.8% of 50-59 yr olds get hospitalized
16.5% of 60-69 yr olds get hospitalized




OptsyEagle said:


> My two rules for Covid-19 protection:





OptsyEagle said:


> *1) Ensure you do not get infected.
> 2) If you get infected, ensure it is of the lowest dose possible.*
> 
> I have stated those rules quite a few times on these boards, since the beginning of this pandemic, but they can always use repeating.


*Agreed! 
* with a much higher priority on #1


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think people are missing that the low fatality rate for young people is hiding a lot of potential permanent health impacts/disability caused by COVID. Breathing problems, kidney problems, mental fog, etc. Outcomes are not binary: mild flu vs ICU/death. Even being sedated and put on mechanical ventilation is enough to cause serious disability.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

andrewf said:


> I think people are missing that the low fatality rate for young people is hiding a lot of potential permanent health impacts/disability caused by COVID. Breathing problems, kidney problems, mental fog, etc. Outcomes are not binary: mild flu vs ICU/death. Even being sedated and put on mechanical ventilation is enough to cause serious disability.


Yes and there's also the possibility of blood clots and lasting problems for the heart and other internal organs. There is the possibility we are going to see significant numbers of previously healthy, young people with new disabilities. Or even unable to work due to a long recovery.

Regarding society's mask rules, limitations on gatherings: they are to protect *everyone*, not just the old.

My 35 year old relative with COVID is still in hospital, and I just learned an hour ago that he has pneumonia. This isn't just an illness that affects the old. If you're a parent with adult children, I strongly recommend encouraging your children to be cautious / avoid gatherings, to protect _themselves_.

And @MrMatt , how soon do you think it will be before my previously-healthy relative is able to work again? I assume/hope/pray he will survive. So he won't show up as one of those deaths in your statistics. And yet, there is a tangible harm to society ... the man will NOT be working again too soon. Do you think he will draw EI for a long time? Maybe he will go on short or long term disability.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Yes and there's also the possibility of blood clots and lasting problems for the heart and other internal organs. There is the possibility we are going to see significant numbers of previously healthy, young people with new disabilities. Or even unable to work due to a long recovery.
> 
> Regarding society's mask rules, limitations on gatherings: they are to protect *everyone*, not just the old.
> 
> ...


Don't know, I'm not his doctor.
That's irrelevant to the discussion anyway.

When we make decisions we decide the costs and the benefits.
Some people think that it's worth the risk, and some people don't.

With such a huge variation in risk profile, it isn't surprising.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I just got another update from friends of mine (20s and 30s) who are overseas. As I mentioned before, they have been having large parties and spreading COVID to each other _for months_ now. They also likely spread it within that community, since they are constantly going to restaurants, taking public transit, etc.

Now the country they're in is banning alcohol and parties. The guys in their 20s and 30s don't sound like they want to stop partying. They are mostly Americans and seem to consider 'their right to drink and party' one of the most important things in life.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I just got another update from friends of mine (20s and 30s) who are overseas. As I mentioned before, they have been having large parties and spreading COVID to each other _for months_ now. They also likely spread it within that community, since they are constantly going to restaurants, taking public transit, etc.
> 
> Now the country they're in is banning alcohol and parties. The guys in their 20s and 30s don't sound like they want to stop partying. They are mostly Americans and seem to consider 'their right to drink and party' one of the most important things in life.


and maybe those are the most important things in their lives?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> and maybe those are the most important things in their lives?


It may be the most important thing in their lives, sure. What's your point?

I may argue that one of the most important things in my life is to drink alcohol whenever I want, including when I drive a car. I promise I'll be careful. The public disagrees ... now what I want (drinking & driving) is at odds with what the public wants (no drinking & driving). In response I might whine and complain that I should have the right to do whatever I want, they are taking my rights away.

Similarly for these young adults, they genuinely might think that drinking & partying is the most important thing in their life. The jurisdiction they are in says that drinking & partying is no longer allowed. In response they might whine and complain that they should have the right to do whatever they want.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> It may be the most important thing in their lives, sure. What's your point?
> 
> I may argue that one of the most important things in my life is to drink alcohol whenever I want, including when I drive a car. I promise I'll be careful. The public disagrees ... now what I want (drinking & driving) is at odds with what the public wants (no drinking & driving). In response I might whine and complain that I should have the right to do whatever I want, they are taking my rights away.
> 
> Similarly for these young adults, they genuinely might think that drinking & partying is the most important thing in their life. The jurisdiction they are in says that drinking & partying is no longer allowed. In response they might whine and complain that they should have the right to do whatever they want.


Well I guess my point is that these people are acting in line with their priorities.

As far as they should have the right to do whatever they want, they DO have the right to do this.
Sorry the Constitution is pretty clear that we have the right to freedom of association.

The real question is when should the government be allowed to infringe on our constitutionally protected rights?


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Well I guess my point is that these people are acting in line with their priorities.
> 
> As far as they should have the right to do whatever they want, they DO have the right to do this.
> Sorry the Constitution is pretty clear that we have the right to freedom of association.
> ...


In another thread you were just arguing that the government should be cracking down on freedom of movement. So I suppose it is a real question.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Spudd said:


> In another thread you were just arguing that the government should be cracking down on freedom of movement. So I suppose it is a real question.


It is, I think that they should have actually prohibited non-essential travel, they still haven't done this.

I think that it is very hard to argue against human rights, however since our constitution doesn't actually provide any protection of these rights, and the government and courts seem willing to ignore it I don't see how a reasonable restriction on non-essential travel is inappropriate.

I don't think they should be having COVID parties, I think the government should enforce restrictions on flagrant and willful acts that may cause significant harm.

If a drive in church can be banned, then a house party should definately be banned.

If gatherings between familys can be banned, then entry protocols to the country or any other area can be implemented. 
The "Constitutional" argument is legally dumb, since the constitution doesn't protect any rights.

Secondly I think it is similarly inappropriate to say that someone shouldn't be allowed to exercise their constitutionally enumerated rights.

You should be able to exercise them, simultaneously the government should act in a manner to balance those rights with the larger needs of society.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Spudd said:


> In another thread you were just arguing that the government should be cracking down on freedom of movement. So I suppose it is a real question.


I don't think Mr Matt understands how individual rights work.

This kind of thing has gone to the courts repeatedly. People cannot do any old thing they want, if it also causes harm to the public or country.

Individual rights and freedoms are not unlimited. That's why I can't drive under the influence of alcohol. It's also why freedom of speech is not limitless. It very much is limited when it crosses into the realm of harm to the public.

In the case of 20 year olds who want to drink & party, and are spreading COVID in the middle of a pandemic where the hospital system is collapsing ... the public interest overrules the desire of the young adults to have fun.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I don't think Mr Matt understands how individual rights work.
> 
> This kind of thing has gone to the courts repeatedly. People cannot do any old thing they want, if it also causes harm to the public or country.
> 
> ...


Actually I do know how individual rights work. I also know how they should work.

Free speech is a good one, I think you should be able to say, without criminal penalty pretty much anything that is true.
Beyond that I think you should be allowed to freely discuss and debate opinions etc, civil discourse is essential to a healthy democracy.
The people who stand against free speech are anti-democratic. To me it's obvious that they know their ideas are $#[email protected]# and can't stand up to scrutiny.


As far as 20 year olds who want to drink and party, I've been consistent that this should not be permitted. I've also been clear on closing the border to non essential travel.

As much as I'm one of the strongest proponents of human rights on this forum, I have stated, repeatedly that I think in the context of COVID19, infringing the right to freedom of association may be appropriate in some circumstances.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I don't think Mr Matt understands how individual rights work.
> 
> This kind of thing has gone to the courts repeatedly. People cannot do any old thing they want, if it also causes harm to the public or country.
> 
> ...


Also you have no "right" to act in a willfully negligent manner towards others. 
Personally I think drunk driving should carry the death penalty. I've probably stated this before too.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Well I guess my point is that these people are acting in line with their priorities.
> 
> As far as they should have the right to do whatever they want, they DO have the right to do this.
> Sorry the Constitution is pretty clear that we have the right to freedom of association.
> ...


Didn't james point out the limits to do what you feel like: driving under the influence, for instance?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Didn't james point out the limits to do what you feel like: driving under the influence, for instance?


I think it's funny that the same one decrying the social gatherings aren't furious Trudeau still hasn't closed the border.

Also how is a drive in church service a risk to anyone?
When infringing our rights, it must be a measured response.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> I think it's funny that the same one decrying the social gatherings aren't furious Trudeau still hasn't closed the border.


I am disappointed Trudeau hasn't closed the border. I've been saying for months that we should be doing what Australia has done:

Restrict travel between provinces, and
Limit entries into Canada, and
Strict quarantine for everyone entering Canada, at monitored facilities (traveller pays the cost)

And I say this as a guy who loves to travel and who normally hops between provinces and across the US border, probably 10+ times a year.

These measures violate rights and freedoms _under normal times_, but these are special circumstances and I think there's a good case to be made for adding these restrictions. Same way that authorities are justified in restricting private gatherings and church services, at the moment.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I am disappointed Trudeau hasn't closed the border. I've been saying for months that we should be doing what Australia has done:
> 
> Restrict travel between provinces, and
> Limit entries into Canada, and
> ...


Not these measures violate rights and freedoms RIGHT NOW.
It's a reasonable infringement in some situations.

There is a world of difference between.
You have these rights and we're infringing on them for a good reason.
vs
You don't have these rights right now because we have a problem to deal with, so we've taken them away.


Human rights aren't merely something that the government can grant and recall on a whim, you have them. It's just if the government will choose to respect them at a particular time.


If you believe in rights, as enshrined in our constitution, you have to acknowledge they're being infringed.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Reportedly, about 3 weeks ago, the number of covid related deaths in Canada outside of old age homes was 165, while the number of deaths inside old age homes was over 12000. 

That might help explain the perspective of youth.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Where are you getting those numbers from ?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

sags said:


> Where are you getting those numbers from ?







__





Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson covid deaths 165 - Google Search






www.google.com


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Sucregirl said:


> I think it is also dependent on one's immune system not just age. Someone in the 20's with underlying health condition is at a greater risk than someone in the 40's whose health is a perfect state.


I agree. There are many 20 year olds at very high risk from covid.

I also want to point out that my very healthy 35 year old relative (no underlying health conditions, extremely good physical shape) ended up in hospital for COVID. He was there for a week and had pneumonia. After they both caught it, his wife told me that they wish they had taken COVID more seriously, and they had been stupid and reckless.

Many in their 20s and 30s currently have the wrong idea, that COVID isn't a big deal to them and no worse than a cold/flu. But it really is worse. Within my extended circle (what I hear from friends) I now know of a handful of people in their 20s/30s who caught COVID. Roughly 10 to 15 infected people that I am aware of.

Of those ~ 15 that I'm aware of, 1 was in hospital with severe conditions, and 1 *died*.

The death wasn't my direct friend, but was a close friend of my ex girlfriend. He was in his early 30s, in Washington State. She told me on the phone and was crying. But hey maybe your adult children in their 20s/30s will be luckier and won't die from it?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

For a while I had eased off on blaming the 20-somethings, thinking that they might be getting infected because they work in dangerous jobs etc.

But after what I've seen this weekend, I don't think so any more. It's pretty clear that anyone over age 30-40 in my area is being very careful. Their behaviours are ultra cautious... always wearing masks, keeping distance, not talking to people. Inside our building, these older people always wear masks and work hard to avoid people.

Meanwhile

I've seen partying of the 20-somethings, including large groups of them wandering around both indoors and outdoors, and 20-somethings not wearing masks inside the building. Large groups of them, everywhere I look. On the floor of my building I witnessed a 7 hour party with tons of mixing of people in this age group.

They are the *only* age group that I repeatedly see doing these dangerous behaviours. So I'm back to thinking that 20-somethings are in fact the problem and spreading it by being stupid. At least in my neighbourhood.

Trust me, it's NOT covid fatigue. They really just don't care. *Even with provincial laws and my building's rules requiring masks, the 20-somethings are still the only group which I consistently see maskless.*

They are putting my life in danger and I do not appreciate that.



james4beach said:


> Of those ~ 15 that I'm aware of, 1 was in hospital with severe conditions, and 1 *died*.


I can also now update this statistic. Of the roughly 15 people I know in their 20s/30s who caught COVID
1 died
2 were hospitalized


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

james4beach said:


> For a while I had eased off on blaming the 20-somethings, thinking that they might be getting infected because they work in dangerous jobs etc.
> 
> But after what I've seen this weekend, I don't think so any more. It's pretty clear that anyone over age 30-40 in my area is being very careful. Their behaviours are ultra cautious... always wearing masks, keeping distance, not talking to people. Inside our building, these older people always wear masks and work hard to avoid people.
> 
> ...


Maybe the 20-somethings are just more woke?

Like come on, let them do what they want. It's not like they are partying WITH YOU.

If you're so scared, wear a mask, bring sanitizer everywhere you go, and get the vaccine.

Stop hating on 20-somethings and generalizing an entire decade of people. You also have to understand most of these people have nothing to live for anyway, since the economy is in the shitter.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

KaeJS said:


> Stop hating on 20-somethings and generalizing an entire decade of people. You also have to understand most of these people have nothing to live for anyway, since the economy is in the shitter.


Sorry but I just have to chuckle on that last paragraph saying not to generalize then the following sentence does exactly that. 

But seriously, 20-29 age group have much less to fear on covid stats wise. Also, I know people in all age groups not following "the rules", albeit the younger crowd seems to be less inclined to do so.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

KaeJS said:


> Like come on, let them do what they want. It's not like they are partying WITH YOU.


Actually, they effectively are, because unmasked 20-somethings are congregating at the elevator and also spitting up the hallway which I use... these are shared public areas *where I live*.

They are directly putting me in danger, not to mention indirectly by spreading COVID in my community.

Nobody has the right to put my life in danger just because they want to have parties. And I will do everything within my powers to stop them, and make sure they have a very miserable time.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

james4beach said:


> Actually, they effectively are, because unmasked 20-somethings are congregating at the elevator and also spitting up the hallway which I use... these are shared public areas *where I live*.
> 
> They are directly putting me in danger, not to mention indirectly by spreading COVID in my community.
> 
> Nobody has the right to put my life in danger just because they want to have parties. And I will do everything within my powers to stop them, and make sure they have a very miserable time.


And you don't have the power to control other people.

Don't be in an elevator with them, then.
Refuse to get into the elevator with anyone. Push the elevator button with a pen and sanitize it.

Why are you leaving your place, anyway?
Better be only for groceries.

Wear 3 masks and avoid people and sanitize.

It's not fair for you to want to control other people for an insecurity that you have and fear that you hold.

Unless someone is purposefully and blatantly putting you in danger, then your feelings are just as overblown as covid. People deserve their freedom.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ I have to somewhat agree with KaeJS on this and so not in particular with the 20s something. But applicable to these people of all ages - their mentality of "invincibility" or "only happens to someone else" until they meet their maker. And then, it'll be "oh well, too bad, too late" without having to say "told/warned you so". That'll be the their cost of "freedom" too.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> And you don't have the power to control other people.
> 
> Don't be in an elevator with them, then.
> Refuse to get into the elevator with anyone. Push the elevator button with a pen and sanitize it.
> ...


This is exactly why Urban areas become authoritarian, or lawless wastelands.
Either James gets everyone to behave the way he wants, or KaeJS gets his way and everyone can act with reckless abandon.
When your neighbours are literally in your face (like in an elevator) there isn't much room for live and let live.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> And you don't have the power to control other people.
> 
> It's not fair for you to want to control other people for an insecurity that you have and fear that you hold.
> 
> Unless someone is purposefully and blatantly putting you in danger, then your feelings are just as overblown as covid. People deserve their freedom.



By people purposefully ignoring health regulations and laws, it has an impact on more than themselves. I am usually mind your business and let the stupid be stupid. With COVID, it shows people do not live in their own bubble. One can choose to be 'free' and normally I would say if they get sick, that's there problem. 

However with COVID, if one gets sick,, they could do the following:

Require medical attention which, I would be a little more okay if they waived all their rights to any medical treatment if they get ill. I would be okay if the person who get sick due to the pursuit for freedom gives up their need to for care from the group taking away their freedom. It doesn't stop here, they could also infect someone else.
Infect some one else, which can infect another person, which will eventually lead to medical treatment or death.
A person requiring hospital care is taking a bed from someone else. The are people with non critical but important surgeries that are being cancelled because of this person

In this case, people's reckless behavior does impact others even if they don't intend to.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

I think we need to define reckless.

Standing in an apartment lobby without a mask is not really reckless. 

If someone is so worried about passing them... They should be wearing a mask. Hell, if you're THAT worried... Hold your breath for 30 seconds as you walk by.

You can't freak out if someone is just being normal. If someone gets in an elevator with you, maskless, and starts coughing everywhere... Well, that is reckless and unacceptable REGARDLESS of covid. They should be covering their mouths and facing away from you.

So...

I think there is a difference.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

KaeJS said:


> Standing in an apartment lobby without a mask is not really reckless.


Here that would be breaking the current health regulations .... is it not reckless then?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Here that would be breaking the current health regulations .... is it not reckless then?


That's a question of opinion.
Lots of people consumed illegal drugs, expecting that the police wouldn't enforce the law.
So how reckless is it to admit you smoked pot?
If you're the VP, it might get you elected, if you just work in the whitehouse it might get you fired.








Opinion | The White House's staff weed policy is a bad vibe


Let's be real: White House staffers drinking is more of a risk than if they're toking.




www.msnbc.com


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

cainvest said:


> Here that would be breaking the current health regulations .... is it not reckless then?


No. It is not reckless.

If covid was really such a big deal, trips to the LCBO wouldn't be a thing.

I fail to understand how you can go to the store to get alcohol, but being in an apartment lobby with no mask is a big no-no.

You can also be outside and be on a "run" with no mask and you can quite literally pass other runners also huffing and puffing, but it is not illegal or reckless?

Mickey mouse rules in this country. Run by puppets.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> This is exactly why Urban areas become authoritarian, or lawless wastelands.
> Either James gets everyone to behave the way he wants, or KaeJS gets his way and everyone can act with reckless abandon.
> When your neighbours are literally in your face (like in an elevator) there isn't much room for live and let live.


No, that's your anti-urban bias talking. What I'm talking about are actually laws in British Columbia.

You don't think people should obey the law? Gosh that's a real flip on your usual position.

What often happens is that people in urban areas live harmoniously by *learning to be respectful* to the communities they live in... such as being polite and quiet, instead of doing loud parties.

In my case the building has certain rules, and these people are breaking the rules (which also happen to be laws in BC). They are creating friction because they are not holding up their OBLIGATION to live by agreed upon, shared rules.

On my part, I do live by the agreed upon shared rules. I'm holding up my side of the deal and expect others to do the same. If they don't like it, they should leave.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

KaeJS said:


> I think we need to define reckless.
> 
> Standing in an apartment lobby without a mask is not really reckless.


No, it's reckless and it's also against the law. Both against BC law and against the laws *they agreed* to follow in my building.

All residents who live here agree to live by certain rules. Those rules are meant to provide maximum safety and comfort to all residents.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

I guess the law has never been wrong, right?

Nobody has been wrongly convicted?
Marijuana was always legal?

Come on James, you're killing me.

Standing in a lobby not wearing a mask is not reckless. And did they really agree to those rules, or were those rules forced upon them without their opinion or say in the matter?


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

KaeJS said:


> No. It is not reckless.
> 
> If covid was really such a big deal, trips to the LCBO wouldn't be a thing.
> 
> I fail to understand how you can go to the store to get alcohol, but being in an apartment lobby with no mask is a big no-no.


You are required to wear a mask in the LCBO as well ... not difficult to understand if you want to.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

KaeJS said:


> And did they really agree to those rules, or were those rules forced upon them without their opinion or say in the matter?


That's an interesting idea ... ya, only make laws and regulations apply to those that agree with them.

Person: "Yes, officer I was doing 120 km/h in a 50 km/h zone but I never agreed to that limit, it was forced on me".
Officer: "Completely understand, you're free to go".


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> No, that's your anti-urban bias talking. What I'm talking about are actually laws in British Columbia.


Yes I'm anti urban. I think urban culture is broken.



> You don't think people should obey the law? Gosh that's a real flip on your usual position.


No, I think they should obey just laws.
I think masking is a reasonable law.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

KaeJS said:


> I think we need to define reckless.
> 
> Standing in an apartment lobby without a mask is not really reckless.
> 
> ...


reckless[ˈrekləs]
ADJECTIVE (of a person or their actions) without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action.

In my province, it is the LAW to wear masks in common areas in the condos is the law. Following the law is NORMAL. It USED to be normal to walk around with out mask, that is no longer the case.

Not considering that one is breaking law, and why the law is there, is reckless. It was mentioned that the people were having illegal parties in their place indoors, that is also reckless. In my province, most spread is happening through indoor gatherings as such. 



KaeJS said:


> 1. No. It is not reckless.
> 2..If covid was really such a big deal, trips to the LCBO wouldn't be a thing.
> 3. I fail to understand how you can go to the store to get alcohol, but being in an apartment lobby with no mask is a big no-no.
> 4. You can also be outside and be on a "run" with no mask and you can quite literally pass other runners also huffing and puffing, but it is not illegal or reckless?


1. Yes it is reckless, and the law would agree me. Because it is reckless to take the law into your own hands. 
2. It is illegal to go to any store without a mask. The issue here is not what one is buying but the risk involved without a wearing a mask. If the person wears a mask to lobby, liquor store, cannebis shop, hospital etc, they are less risk and following the law. Again, the issue is the wearing of mask wear it it a legal requirement, not whether you agree what is a requirement or not. Two diffierent aruguements.



KaeJS said:


> I guess the law has never been wrong, right?
> Nobody has been wrongly convicted?
> Marijuana was always legal?
> 
> Standing in a lobby not wearing a mask is not reckless. And did they really agree to those rules, or were those rules forced upon them without their opinion or say in the matter?


Perhaps a law has been wrong, but it is still the law. Science has shown masks wearing reduces transmission. That is a fact. It is a law to wear a mask in common areas. That is is also a fact. It is a requirement to follow the law, that is also a fact. Whether you believe the law is right or wrong, is your OPINION. 

Being wrongly convicted of something is irrelevant to this discussion. There is no doubt they were breaking the law. Laws and health regulations will change, one doesn't get to decide that will follow it when it is convenient. In some countries marijuana is still illegal, just because you don't agree with it and believe the law should change, doesn't mean you can decide not to follow it. When they change the law, then you can legally do it.

I don't agree with all of the taxes that I pay and I how I should have to follow it. It's the law, so I do. Anything else would be reckless.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> *Yes I'm anti urban. I think urban culture is broken.*
> 
> 
> No, I think they should obey just laws.
> I think masking is a reasonable law.


 ... the bolded part/statement is funny.


----------



## moderator2 (Sep 20, 2017)

Please keep the thread on topic.

I moved off topic political posts to the Politics thread. I will continue to delete or move off topic political posts.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

KaeJS said:


> No. It is not reckless.
> 
> If covid was really such a big deal, trips to the LCBO wouldn't be a thing.
> 
> ...


It's pretty simple. Indoors is where almost all infection takes place. So, yes, being indoors calls for more precautions. Masks are advised outdoors if you are within 6 feet of others more than momentarily.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

Sabrina Maddeaux: Millennials are fleeing Canada's big cities as Big Government coddles boomers (msn.com)


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

I've always viewed wearing masks as being polite and respectful to other people. You are showing that you care about other people. Some people, not only 20 something s, just don't care.


----------



## latebuyer (Nov 15, 2015)

As a single person, i recognize the value of socializing. Pre covid, i would go out to dinner with groups of 4 to 6 friends and i miss that. There hasn't been a lot of focus on the mental health of single people from covid who have been more impacted versus couples from a socialization perspective. We don't have a significant other to go home to.Thats why in a way i sympathize with 20 somethings while not excusing their behaviour.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

latebuyer said:


> As a single person, i recognize the value of socializing. Pre covid, i would go out to dinner with groups of 4 to 6 friends and i miss that. There hasn't been a lot of focus on the mental health of single people from covid who have been more impacted versus couples from a socialization perspective. We don't have a significant other to go home to.Thats why in a way i sympathize with 20 somethings while not excusing their behaviour.


I'm single and not too much older than them, and I don't sympathize.

The reason is that there are easy ways for them to still socialize! In BC, a single person is allowed to even go into another "bubble" person's home, possibly with 1 or 2 other people. So they are *allowed to be together* in a 3 person total gathering, if they are an exclusive bubble.

That is different than a party with many strangers, obviously non-bubble people, coming in & out. That is not allowed, because it spreads COVID and also makes contact tracing impossible.

Also, a person is allowed to gather with 10 friends outdoors. While I was watching this illegal party, and dangerous indoor socializing (which spreads COVID) ... the same people could have gone outdoors, where it was beautiful, and if they wanted to could have been hanging out ALL NIGHT in the nearby park, which is in fact open 24 hours and is a beautiful place to be.

These kids were just being lazy and selfish. Nobody is saying they can't socialize. Hell, I am socializing all the time myself and these 20 years olds can do it to:

My single neighbour can socialize with her bubble household,
And she can socialize with 10 friends outdoors.

I'm planning to meet my bubble-friends and the three of us will have drinks on a patio soon. How exactly am I lonely and deprived? Make no mistake... these kids are just being stupid.


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

Eder said:


> ...
> 
> A clinical study showed wearing medical grade mask made no difference in contracting Covid...maybe the 70 year olds had breathing trouble?
> 
> They should order online from HD instead.


 Not everyone believes the conspiracy theories that masks & lock downs work.


----------

