This quarantine shit’s getting real

[obstinate]

1/400 is pretty optimistic. It's more like 1/200, and that's with no priors. If you're an older person, the odds can be more than 1/100.

[HBFIRE]

1/400 is pretty optimistic. It's more like 1/200, and that's with no priors. If you're an older person, the odds can be more than 1/100.

I haven't looked at the latest IFR projections by age, but from what I recall it stratifies very heavily towards 70+.   The IFR last time I looked was less than the flu if you are under 21, and slightly worse than the flu if you are 21-30 (still far below 0.1%).  For the 30-50 cohort, it was ~ 0.05-0.2%.  Then it starts rising fairly rapidly.  So if you are under the age of 60, 1 out of 400 is probably conservative.

[SimpleCycle]

1/400 is pretty optimistic. It's more like 1/200, and that's with no priors. If you're an older person, the odds can be more than 1/100.

I haven't looked at the latest IFR projections by age, but from what I recall it stratifies very heavily towards 70+.   The IFR last time I looked was less than the flu if you are under 21, and slightly worse than the flu if you are 21-30 (still far below 0.1%).  For the 30-50 cohort, it was ~ 0.05-0.2%.  Then it starts rising fairly rapidly.  So if you are under the age of 60, 1 out of 400 is probably conservative.

Where are you getting your data from?  The only study I'm aware of that calculates age-specific IFRs (as opposed to CFRs) is a pre-print and the data is only from Geneva, Switzerland.  Doesn't seem very generalizeable, but you're right that the IFR is driven heavily by an IFR of 5.6% in the 65+ age group.

The crude IFR seems to be clustered around 1% in multiple studies.

[HBFIRE]

Where are you getting your data from?  The only study I'm aware of that calculates age-specific IFRs (as opposed to CFRs) is a pre-print and the data is only from Geneva, Switzerland.  Doesn't seem very generalizeable, but you're right that the IFR is driven heavily by an IFR of 5.6% in the 65+ age group.

The crude IFR seems to be clustered around 1% in multiple studies.

About a month ago the age stratification was published.  I'll see if I can dig it up.  I'm sure it's been updated since.  I also believe the general IFR was estimated in the 0.3-0.5%. range.  The CDC estimated it at 0.3%.

Here is one source that's interesting:


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32240634/


CFR by age (much higher than IFR, normally by an order of magnitude):

[SimpleCycle]

Thanks @HBFIRE.  I'm wondering what will happen when we have reliable U.S. based seroprevalence studies to inform true IFR estimates, especially using U.S. data, since we have some unique risk factors for severe COVID (high obesity rates in particular).

[Plina]

My family is more relaxed about this than I but still pretty much social distancing. My mother has only visited my grandfather once since this started from distance. My aunt that works as a nurse regularly visits my grandfather with her family but does not see it as a problem. But my mothers visits are a problem as we live in a more high risk country. The reasoning makes absolutely no sense as my mother is only going to work and to the store.

My mother told me yesterday that one of my sisters friends that works as a nurse in an ambulance had gotten covid from work and infected her husband. Her father-in-law had also got it and died. My sister is a nurse that is going back to work from a maternity leave this fall.

[obstinate]

1/400 is pretty optimistic. It's more like 1/200, and that's with no priors. If you're an older person, the odds can be more than 1/100.

I haven't looked at the latest IFR projections by age, but from what I recall it stratifies very heavily towards 70+.   The IFR last time I looked was less than the flu if you are under 21, and slightly worse than the flu if you are 21-30 (still far below 0.1%).  For the 30-50 cohort, it was ~ 0.05-0.2%.  Then it starts rising fairly rapidly.  So if you are under the age of 60, 1 out of 400 is probably conservative.

I was assuming that you are an adult and that your father in law is thus at least 50. For someone of that age or greater I think 1/400 is pretty optimistic.

[mm1970]

Ah yes, everyone is over it.  But my IG feed is full of people vacationing and partying...like the teen's birthday party, with at least 20-30 other teenagers, no distancing, no masks - in a state where >9 people congregating is forbidden.

I'm sure those kids aren't going to go see their grandparents, right?

[Paper Chaser]

Ah yes, everyone is over it.  But my IG feed is full of people vacationing and partying...like the teen's birthday party, with at least 20-30 other teenagers, no distancing, no masks - in a state where >9 people congregating is forbidden.

I'm sure those kids aren't going to go see their grandparents, right?

At least some of the responsibility falls on the grandparents in this hypothetical too right? If we're going to expect Personal Responsibility from teens, then shouldn't we also expect it from the grandparents?

[Wrenchturner]

Ah yes, everyone is over it.  But my IG feed is full of people vacationing and partying...like the teen's birthday party, with at least 20-30 other teenagers, no distancing, no masks - in a state where >9 people congregating is forbidden.

I'm sure those kids aren't going to go see their grandparents, right?

At least some of the responsibility falls on the grandparents in this hypothetical too right? If we're going to expect Personal Responsibility from teens, then shouldn't we also expect it from the grandparents?

Very few people in my community wear masks.  I'm surprised at how few elderly people are wearing them at the grocery store.

[seattlecyclone]

Indeed that's what is so fascinating about the risk dimension. I tried to personalize it by describing it as dealing with a homeowner's insurance amount of risk. My FiL is mortgage-free, but he still buys homeowner's insurance (I recognize that MMM is in another place on this spectrum even). But I'm trying to get someone to care about a 1/400 chance of dying, and I don't know how else to describe these odds.

The odds of dying from going to a restaurant or from going on vacation with members of your extended family are very different from the odds of dying once you already have the disease, since there's a much less than 100% chance that you'll contract the disease from interacting with a particular person.

For example, in my county roughly 1 out of 4,000 residents tested positive for COVID last week. If I go have dinner at a random friend's house, assuming that friend leads a lifestyle with perfectly average COVID risk, I might then have a 1 out of 4,000 chance of contracting the disease.

Based on the data @HBFIRE posted above, someone in my age bracket has roughly a 1 in 30 chance of getting seriously ill once they have the disease, and a 1 in 400 chance of dying. So by visiting my friend I might have a 1 in 120,000 (4,000 x 30) chance of getting seriously ill and a 1 in 1.6 million chance of dying. If it was just me we're talking about I'd take those odds every day. No matter what happens I'm not going to see another 1.6 million days on this Earth, or even 120,000.

The problem is it's not just me we're talking about. Look at a 70-year-old who has more like 1 in 6 odds of becoming seriously ill, put them in a grocery store with 25 other people who aren't wearing masks or caring about physical distancing, and they might be taking a 1 in 1000 chance of serious illness just from getting groceries with today's relatively low case numbers. As more low-risk people like me decide to go around eating dinner at friends' houses knowing they have little to fear personally, those case numbers are going to increase. Even a ten-fold increase wouldn't make me fear for myself going to one friend's house (1 in 12,000 odds of serious illness are still not really that bad), but bumping that senior citizen's chance of illness buying groceries up to a 1% chance is really a pretty terrible thing. That's why I limit my social contact and wear a mask. It's not me I'm worried about. The amount of disregard people are showing for others in their community is pretty saddening.

[deborah]

If 1 in 4000 tested positive last week, there would be many more people in your county who are infectious.

[Wrenchturner]

Indeed that's what is so fascinating about the risk dimension. I tried to personalize it by describing it as dealing with a homeowner's insurance amount of risk. My FiL is mortgage-free, but he still buys homeowner's insurance (I recognize that MMM is in another place on this spectrum even). But I'm trying to get someone to care about a 1/400 chance of dying, and I don't know how else to describe these odds.

The odds of dying from going to a restaurant or from going on vacation with members of your extended family are very different from the odds of dying once you already have the disease, since there's a much less than 100% chance that you'll contract the disease from interacting with a particular person.

For example, in my county roughly 1 out of 4,000 residents tested positive for COVID last week. If I go have dinner at a random friend's house, assuming that friend leads a lifestyle with perfectly average COVID risk, I might then have a 1 out of 4,000 chance of contracting the disease.

Based on the data @HBFIRE posted above, someone in my age bracket has roughly a 1 in 30 chance of getting seriously ill once they have the disease, and a 1 in 400 chance of dying. So by visiting my friend I might have a 1 in 120,000 (4,000 x 30) chance of getting seriously ill and a 1 in 1.6 million chance of dying. If it was just me we're talking about I'd take those odds every day. No matter what happens I'm not going to see another 1.6 million days on this Earth, or even 120,000.

The problem is it's not just me we're talking about. Look at a 70-year-old who has more like 1 in 6 odds of becoming seriously ill, put them in a grocery store with 25 other people who aren't wearing masks or caring about physical distancing, and they might be taking a 1 in 1000 chance of serious illness just from getting groceries with today's relatively low case numbers. As more low-risk people like me decide to go around eating dinner at friends' houses knowing they have little to fear personally, those case numbers are going to increase. Even a ten-fold increase wouldn't make me fear for myself going to one friend's house (1 in 12,000 odds of serious illness are still not really that bad), but bumping that senior citizen's chance of illness buying groceries up to a 1% chance is really a pretty terrible thing. That's why I limit my social contact and wear a mask. It's not me I'm worried about. The amount of disregard people are showing for others in their community is pretty saddening.

The math gets even more complicated, however, when you consider that the elderly's probability of dying approaches 1 as they age anyway.  So how much societal restriction(insurance) should be purchased in order to avoid adding risk to someone who's already at risk due to pre-existing factors(in this case, age)?  Why are elderly/at risk people entering grocery stores at all?

I have been limiting my social contact but trying to ramp up my outdoor social contact.  People need to live, too.  I can tell my mental health is suffering somewhat.

If 1 in 4000 tested positive last week, there would be many more people in your county who are infectious.

Depending on the false positive rate, which is hard to know.

[SisterX]

Indeed that's what is so fascinating about the risk dimension. I tried to personalize it by describing it as dealing with a homeowner's insurance amount of risk. My FiL is mortgage-free, but he still buys homeowner's insurance (I recognize that MMM is in another place on this spectrum even). But I'm trying to get someone to care about a 1/400 chance of dying, and I don't know how else to describe these odds.

The odds of dying from going to a restaurant or from going on vacation with members of your extended family are very different from the odds of dying once you already have the disease, since there's a much less than 100% chance that you'll contract the disease from interacting with a particular person.

For example, in my county roughly 1 out of 4,000 residents tested positive for COVID last week. If I go have dinner at a random friend's house, assuming that friend leads a lifestyle with perfectly average COVID risk, I might then have a 1 out of 4,000 chance of contracting the disease.

Based on the data @HBFIRE posted above, someone in my age bracket has roughly a 1 in 30 chance of getting seriously ill once they have the disease, and a 1 in 400 chance of dying. So by visiting my friend I might have a 1 in 120,000 (4,000 x 30) chance of getting seriously ill and a 1 in 1.6 million chance of dying. If it was just me we're talking about I'd take those odds every day. No matter what happens I'm not going to see another 1.6 million days on this Earth, or even 120,000.

The problem is it's not just me we're talking about. Look at a 70-year-old who has more like 1 in 6 odds of becoming seriously ill, put them in a grocery store with 25 other people who aren't wearing masks or caring about physical distancing, and they might be taking a 1 in 1000 chance of serious illness just from getting groceries with today's relatively low case numbers. As more low-risk people like me decide to go around eating dinner at friends' houses knowing they have little to fear personally, those case numbers are going to increase. Even a ten-fold increase wouldn't make me fear for myself going to one friend's house (1 in 12,000 odds of serious illness are still not really that bad), but bumping that senior citizen's chance of illness buying groceries up to a 1% chance is really a pretty terrible thing. That's why I limit my social contact and wear a mask. It's not me I'm worried about. The amount of disregard people are showing for others in their community is pretty saddening.

And this analysis also completely discounts the high number of people who are likely going to end up with lifelong health problems due to this. Lung damage, Type 1 diabetes, even brain damage. Sorry, even if I had zero risk factors and wasn't around anyone with any risk factors ever I STILL wouldn't want to mess around with this virus. Just the chance that I'd be one of the 2/3rds of asymptomatic cases that ends up with serious lung problems is more risk than I'm willing to take. I like being able to run and bike and dance and walk long distances too much, thanks.

This is not a virus that gets less scary the more we learn about it. And lest you think that I'm just anxious about illness in general, I got swine flu as a healthy 20-something and while it was miserable, I was fine. This one is special. This is the one people SHOULD be worried about. Not just for the fatalities, but for the longterm health implications. Particularly in a country without socialized healthcare! Are these people also brushing off the possibility of overwhelming medical bills if they get it and need care but live?

People have been pretty good about masks where I live but it actually tends to be the older people I see walking (or in yesterday's case, shuffling) around with their masks around their chins. And teenagers, but that one is slightly more understandable to me simply because of how the teenage brain works regarding risk assessment and mortality.

[deborah]

The tests around here are 94% - 97% accurate. The number of asymptotic people (and won’t be tested) is calculated to be 15%. The number of people who won’t go to get tested is reasonably high - I’d say at least 25%. The number of people who are infectious for more than a week is reasonably high, let’s say 50%.

[mm1970]

Ah yes, everyone is over it.  But my IG feed is full of people vacationing and partying...like the teen's birthday party, with at least 20-30 other teenagers, no distancing, no masks - in a state where >9 people congregating is forbidden.

I'm sure those kids aren't going to go see their grandparents, right?

At least some of the responsibility falls on the grandparents in this hypothetical too right? If we're going to expect Personal Responsibility from teens, then shouldn't we also expect it from the grandparents?

TBH, I blame, first -
the parents who threw the damn party

Then, the parents who attended the party with their kids.  Some of these kids I know (in addition to the birthday girl), and they regularly hang out with their grandparents.

Not to mention...a bunch of these kids have parents my age or a bit older, so...50's.  We aren't so young anymore.

[Gremlin]

I am also VERY curious about this.  I would not be surprised to see a huge surge in autoimmune disease as an after-effect of this pandemic.

No need to wait until after.

There's a discussion I've been involved in as to whether this is simply creating an early manifestation of a underlying or undiscovered issue or whether it introduces something new.  That is, are we seeing something that would've made the last five years of someone's life pretty shitty now making the last sixty-five years pretty shitty or is it that we've got a new bunch of people who are now wearing it?

[seattlecyclone]

Why are elderly/at risk people entering grocery stores at all?

Because they need to eat. Yeah they may be dying in the next decade anyway. That doesn't make it okay to speed up the process by negligently avoiding reasonable precautions that would help avoid exposing them to deadly viruses.

If 1 in 4000 tested positive last week, there would be many more people in your county who are infectious.

Sure. We have ramped up testing significantly in recent weeks, such that anyone with any concern should be able to go and get it checked out. The people who still don't get tested for whatever reason do increase the risk a bit compared to what I stated, just as I overstated the risk by a bit by assuming that being in a room with an infected person is guaranteed to result in you getting infected (which seems to not quite be true).

You could really drill down in any number of different ways to try and hone in on an exact number, but for most purposes a reasonable order of magnitude estimate is good enough. If the real risk is one in a million compared to two in a million or one in two million, would that really change your behavior? Probably not much. But if it gets to 1 in 100,000 or 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 1,000, that can make a difference.

[mm1970]

Why are elderly/at risk people entering grocery stores at all?

Is this a real question?

They need to eat.
Not all locations have grocery delivery or in store pickup.

Not every at risk person has people to shop for them.
Not every person lives in an area where there are services to shop for them.

My stepfather is a diabetic cancer patient in his 70s.  He needs to eat.  He shops usually at the two small local stores, always wears a mask, saves Walmart trips for once a month or two.  But he needs to eat.

He's rural.  There's no grocery delivery.

[OtherJen]

Why are elderly/at risk people entering grocery stores at all?

Is this a real question?

They need to eat.
Not all locations have grocery delivery or in store pickup.

Not every at risk person has people to shop for them.
Not every person lives in an area where there are services to shop for them.

My stepfather is a diabetic cancer patient in his 70s.  He needs to eat.  He shops usually at the two small local stores, always wears a mask, saves Walmart trips for once a month or two.  But he needs to eat.

He's rural.  There's no grocery delivery.

Thank you. Are elderly people supposed to remove themselves entirely from the world so as not to inconvenience young people even slightly?

[Paper Chaser]

Ah yes, everyone is over it.  But my IG feed is full of people vacationing and partying...like the teen's birthday party, with at least 20-30 other teenagers, no distancing, no masks - in a state where >9 people congregating is forbidden.

I'm sure those kids aren't going to go see their grandparents, right?

At least some of the responsibility falls on the grandparents in this hypothetical too right? If we're going to expect Personal Responsibility from teens, then shouldn't we also expect it from the grandparents?

TBH, I blame, first -
the parents who threw the damn party

Then, the parents who attended the party with their kids.  Some of these kids I know (in addition to the birthday girl), and they regularly hang out with their grandparents.

Not to mention...a bunch of these kids have parents my age or a bit older, so...50's.  We aren't so young anymore.

I'd say that's pretty reasonable. But nobody is making the grandparents take visitors. They're adults with free will, who are choosing to see the kids/grandkids. Hopefully they're fully aware of the risks involved before making choices like that.

[charis]

I know many grandparents who have/had no intention of staying away from child/grandchildren regardless of their activities during the pandemic.  (Including one who traveled to see grandkids and discovered himself to be an asymptomatic positive just before a medical procedure. The grandkids did not have it).  My own have made no attempt to change contact with my kids voluntarily. It's been on us to enforce and the guilt trips are frequent. So yes, some grandparents can be a big part of the problem.

[deborah]

Keeping the elderly from contacts isn’t as simple as them staying at home!

My parents are in their 90s. They are still living at home. They both have walking frames and are frail and elderly. They both have carers who visit them each day to shower them, to clean their home, to do the grocery shopping (neither of them can lift much more than a kilogram, so getting groceries delivered isn’t enough - it needs to be put away), and the gardening. So they have a constant stream of interactions, just to live.

The carers aren’t the same people each day, and they go from home to home assisting elderly people like my parents, but also shopping for them, so they also need to interact with others in the community to do their jobs.

My parents also need to see doctors, pay bills (they don’t have credit cards, and are unlikely to be able to learn to use them now), and get things repaired. They can’t change light globes because they’re not nimble. They try to use their computer, but it constantly stops working (for instance, the keyboard drops and the batteries fall out, so they put them back in the wrong way round because they can’t see the diagram very well, so the computer stops working), so they need someone to come and fix it.

They are far better off in this arrangement than in a nursing home. We all live in Australia, where we haven’t had the enormous numbers of people dying in nursing homes (although a couple of our nursing homes have had outbreaks), but even here, the elderly with home care (like my parents) are less than half as  likely to get covid19 as the elderly in nursing homes.

[DadJokes]

I'd feel terrible as a parent if my child's grandparents contracted covid due to visiting with us. On the other hand, if I were elderly, I'd probably rather take the risk and see my grandchildren and/or great grandchildren than hunker down at home.

I think as long as everyone is aware of the risk (and that's a big IF), then I have no problem letting family see their grandkids.

[charis]

I'd feel terrible as a parent if my child's grandparents contracted covid due to visiting with us. On the other hand, if I were elderly, I'd probably rather take the risk and see my grandchildren and/or great grandchildren than hunker down at home.

I think as long as everyone is aware of the risk (and that's a big IF), then I have no problem letting family see their grandkids.

That's the problem, though.  I think they are downplaying the risk in general because they are taking risks in other areas (going to the store daily, seeing other family members without masks). Otoh, maybe they know the risks and just don't care. As the younger generation, I feel somewhat responsible for setting boundaries because I will likely weather the virus better. But they don't want those boundaries, so what then?

[Sugaree]

I know many grandparents who have/had no intention of staying away from child/grandchildren regardless of their activities during the pandemic.  (Including one who traveled to see grandkids and discovered himself to be an asymptomatic positive just before a medical procedure. The grandkids did not have it).  My own have made no attempt to change contact with my kids voluntarily. It's been on us to enforce and the guilt trips are frequent. So yes, some grandparents can be a big part of the problem.

At the beginning of all this, I offered to go to the grocery store for my parents and asked that they text me a list of what they needed.  I clearly explained that I had a few other things I had to do and it would be a couple of hours since the grocery store would be my last stop.  So, I'm in the grocery store and I had a question about one of the items on my list.  I call my dad.  From the next aisle over, his phone rings.  He had gotten bored and had decided to cook some recipe that he'd found online.  And instead of texting me about it, he'd decided to go to the store himself. 

[Kris]

I know many grandparents who have/had no intention of staying away from child/grandchildren regardless of their activities during the pandemic.  (Including one who traveled to see grandkids and discovered himself to be an asymptomatic positive just before a medical procedure. The grandkids did not have it).  My own have made no attempt to change contact with my kids voluntarily. It's been on us to enforce and the guilt trips are frequent. So yes, some grandparents can be a big part of the problem.

At the beginning of all this, I offered to go to the grocery store for my parents and asked that they text me a list of what they needed.  I clearly explained that I had a few other things I had to do and it would be a couple of hours since the grocery store would be my last stop.  So, I'm in the grocery store and I had a question about one of the items on my list.  I call my dad.  From the next aisle over, his phone rings.  He had gotten bored and had decided to cook some recipe that he'd found online.  And instead of texting me about it, he'd decided to go to the store himself.

My MIL is one of those people for whom shopping for new fun things is her principal hobby. She just loves to go to Target and wander through the aisles looking at trinkets, or going to multiple stores for just the right sweater. When this whole thing started, my husband was routinely getting furious at her because she would call her brother (she can't drive) to pick her up from her assisted living to take her out for a day of "running errands," literally none of which were anything pressing or important. She even managed to make coronavirus an excuse for it -- she had looked up online how to make homemade hand sanitizer, which required her to run to a bunch of different stores for ingredients. Even though she admitted to my husband that she had more than enough sanitizer already and didn't need any more.

It's been quite an uphill battle with her. In fact, she's out and about today, "running errands" with her brother and then going to visit my FIL, who is in a memory care facility in a different location.

At least she wears a mask now.

[Sugaree]

I know many grandparents who have/had no intention of staying away from child/grandchildren regardless of their activities during the pandemic.  (Including one who traveled to see grandkids and discovered himself to be an asymptomatic positive just before a medical procedure. The grandkids did not have it).  My own have made no attempt to change contact with my kids voluntarily. It's been on us to enforce and the guilt trips are frequent. So yes, some grandparents can be a big part of the problem.

At the beginning of all this, I offered to go to the grocery store for my parents and asked that they text me a list of what they needed.  I clearly explained that I had a few other things I had to do and it would be a couple of hours since the grocery store would be my last stop.  So, I'm in the grocery store and I had a question about one of the items on my list.  I call my dad.  From the next aisle over, his phone rings.  He had gotten bored and had decided to cook some recipe that he'd found online.  And instead of texting me about it, he'd decided to go to the store himself.

My MIL is one of those people for whom shopping for new fun things is her principal hobby. She just loves to go to Target and wander through the aisles looking at trinkets, or going to multiple stores for just the right sweater. When this whole thing started, my husband was routinely getting furious at her because she would call her brother (she can't drive) to pick her up from her assisted living to take her out for a day of "running errands," literally none of which were anything pressing or important. She even managed to make coronavirus an excuse for it -- she had looked up online how to make homemade hand sanitizer, which required her to run to a bunch of different stores for ingredients. Even though she admitted to my husband that she had more than enough sanitizer already and didn't need any more.

It's been quite an uphill battle with her. In fact, she's out and about today, "running errands" with her brother and then going to visit my FIL, who is in a memory care facility in a different location.

At least she wears a mask now.

My mom is like this too.  I don't understand this.  She is more than happy to wander the mall and window shop.  I mean, I guess it's good that she doesn't feel like she has to buy something to justify her trip.  But I just don't get the urge to go to the mall if I don't have to.  I want to be in and out as quickly as possible.  I probably haven't been to an actual mall in three years.

[economista]

My mom is like this too.  I don't understand this.  She is more than happy to wander the mall and window shop.  I mean, I guess it's good that she doesn't feel like she has to buy something to justify her trip.  But I just don't get the urge to go to the mall if I don't have to.  I want to be in and out as quickly as possible.  I probably haven't been to an actual mall in three years.

My husband is like this. He was lamenting the other day that the one thing he really misses due to covid is the ability to just go to the mall to walk around for a few hours. I told him I don't miss it at all because I would much rather walk outside. We joke that I'm an addict and he's a pusher - I can avoid buying things unless you put me in front of them and then it's hard to say no. If we go to the mall I will inevitable see something that I want and I will buy it. He can walk around the mall for 3 hours without even the slightest inclination to buy anything. 

[Kris]

I know many grandparents who have/had no intention of staying away from child/grandchildren regardless of their activities during the pandemic.  (Including one who traveled to see grandkids and discovered himself to be an asymptomatic positive just before a medical procedure. The grandkids did not have it).  My own have made no attempt to change contact with my kids voluntarily. It's been on us to enforce and the guilt trips are frequent. So yes, some grandparents can be a big part of the problem.

At the beginning of all this, I offered to go to the grocery store for my parents and asked that they text me a list of what they needed.  I clearly explained that I had a few other things I had to do and it would be a couple of hours since the grocery store would be my last stop.  So, I'm in the grocery store and I had a question about one of the items on my list.  I call my dad.  From the next aisle over, his phone rings.  He had gotten bored and had decided to cook some recipe that he'd found online.  And instead of texting me about it, he'd decided to go to the store himself.

My MIL is one of those people for whom shopping for new fun things is her principal hobby. She just loves to go to Target and wander through the aisles looking at trinkets, or going to multiple stores for just the right sweater. When this whole thing started, my husband was routinely getting furious at her because she would call her brother (she can't drive) to pick her up from her assisted living to take her out for a day of "running errands," literally none of which were anything pressing or important. She even managed to make coronavirus an excuse for it -- she had looked up online how to make homemade hand sanitizer, which required her to run to a bunch of different stores for ingredients. Even though she admitted to my husband that she had more than enough sanitizer already and didn't need any more.

It's been quite an uphill battle with her. In fact, she's out and about today, "running errands" with her brother and then going to visit my FIL, who is in a memory care facility in a different location.

At least she wears a mask now.

My mom is like this too.  I don't understand this.  She is more than happy to wander the mall and window shop.  I mean, I guess it's good that she doesn't feel like she has to buy something to justify her trip.  But I just don't get the urge to go to the mall if I don't have to.  I want to be in and out as quickly as possible.  I probably haven't been to an actual mall in three years.

Oh, God, yes. Me, too. I had to go to a mall last summer (I forget why -- I think it was a repair for my phone?) and damn, did I hightail it out of there as soon as I possibly could.

[Kris]

My mom is like this too.  I don't understand this.  She is more than happy to wander the mall and window shop.  I mean, I guess it's good that she doesn't feel like she has to buy something to justify her trip.  But I just don't get the urge to go to the mall if I don't have to.  I want to be in and out as quickly as possible.  I probably haven't been to an actual mall in three years.

My husband is like this. He was lamenting the other day that the one thing he really misses due to covid is the ability to just go to the mall to walk around for a few hours. I told him I don't miss it at all because I would much rather walk outside. We joke that I'm an addict and he's a pusher - I can avoid buying things unless you put me in front of them and then it's hard to say no. If we go to the mall I will inevitable see something that I want and I will buy it. He can walk around the mall for 3 hours without even the slightest inclination to buy anything.

A few years back, I had avoided being in a mall for a long time, and then I made a trip to one for some reason -- I probably needed a specific type of clothing like a sweater that would be appropriate to wear over a dress at a wedding, or something. For something like that, I prefer to go to a mall because I have a better chance of at least finding the thing I need.

I very clearly remember that after about half an hour of being in the mall and going to different shops to find this item, I started feeling really antsy and bad about myself. Seeing all the new products in the windows, all the pretty clothing that would make me look stylish, etc... and I realized all at once, like a thunderbolt, how incredibly corrosive the whole place and experience was. It was pretty damn enlightening. I got my item and got out of there as soon as I could, and I have religiously avoided malls and any stores that sell "lifestyle" products ever since.

[SunnyDays]

I'd feel terrible as a parent if my child's grandparents contracted covid due to visiting with us. On the other hand, if I were elderly, I'd probably rather take the risk and see my grandchildren and/or great grandchildren than hunker down at home.

I think as long as everyone is aware of the risk (and that's a big IF), then I have no problem letting family see their grandkids.

That's the problem, though.  I think they are downplaying the risk in general because they are taking risks in other areas (going to the store daily, seeing other family members without masks). Otoh, maybe they know the risks and just don't care. As the younger generation, I feel somewhat responsible for setting boundaries because I will likely weather the virus better. But they don't want those boundaries, so what then?

I used to work with people with intellectual disabilities, where the natural tendency was to try to protect them from all harm.  At one point, a new philosophy became prevalent, called the Dignity of Risk.  Meaning they had just as much right to make bad decisions for themselves as anyone else, assuming they had adequate information to make a decision.  I think this might apply in your situation.  It may not be what you would do, but if they aren't harming anyone else, then they have that right to decide to do something that could have a bad outcome for themselves.

[Wrenchturner]

At one point, a new philosophy became prevalent, called the Dignity of Risk.  Meaning they had just as much right to make bad decisions for themselves as anyone else, assuming they had adequate information to make a decision.

I like this!

[MonkeyJenga]

I'd feel terrible as a parent if my child's grandparents contracted covid due to visiting with us. On the other hand, if I were elderly, I'd probably rather take the risk and see my grandchildren and/or great grandchildren than hunker down at home.

I think as long as everyone is aware of the risk (and that's a big IF), then I have no problem letting family see their grandkids.

That's the problem, though.  I think they are downplaying the risk in general because they are taking risks in other areas (going to the store daily, seeing other family members without masks). Otoh, maybe they know the risks and just don't care. As the younger generation, I feel somewhat responsible for setting boundaries because I will likely weather the virus better. But they don't want those boundaries, so what then?

I used to work with people with intellectual disabilities, where the natural tendency was to try to protect them from all harm.  At one point, a new philosophy became prevalent, called the Dignity of Risk.  Meaning they had just as much right to make bad decisions for themselves as anyone else, assuming they had adequate information to make a decision.  I think this might apply in your situation.  It may not be what you would do, but if they aren't harming anyone else, then they have that right to decide to do something that could have a bad outcome for themselves.

In a pandemic, everyone taking a risk for themselves is also taking a risk for everyone around them.

[charis]

I'd feel terrible as a parent if my child's grandparents contracted covid due to visiting with us. On the other hand, if I were elderly, I'd probably rather take the risk and see my grandchildren and/or great grandchildren than hunker down at home.

I think as long as everyone is aware of the risk (and that's a big IF), then I have no problem letting family see their grandkids.

That's the problem, though.  I think they are downplaying the risk in general because they are taking risks in other areas (going to the store daily, seeing other family members without masks). Otoh, maybe they know the risks and just don't care. As the younger generation, I feel somewhat responsible for setting boundaries because I will likely weather the virus better. But they don't want those boundaries, so what then?

I used to work with people with intellectual disabilities, where the natural tendency was to try to protect them from all harm.  At one point, a new philosophy became prevalent, called the Dignity of Risk.  Meaning they had just as much right to make bad decisions for themselves as anyone else, assuming they had adequate information to make a decision.  I think this might apply in your situation.  It may not be what you would do, but if they aren't harming anyone else, then they have that right to decide to do something that could have a bad outcome for themselves.

In a pandemic, everyone taking a risk for themselves is also taking a risk for everyone around them.

I absolutely agree SunnyDays - I recently became more familiar with this concept. 

Moneyjenga - I interpret this as not assigning more risk to another, against their wishes, because I see them as more "vulnerable." Thus giving them the dignity of making that risk-cost determination for themselves. Is that fair?

[BNgarden]

While I absolutely agree with the concept and practice of Dignity of Risk, on a broader level, taking a risk for oneself in a pandemic translates into taking risks for everyone you're in contact with as well.  This is because much of the transmission happens before someone is symptomatic (and for 40% of people infected they don't even know they are).  So you are exposing others to risk, though largely unwittingly, if you do get exposed.

I believe this is the perspective MJ was expressing?

[Kris]

While I absolutely agree with the concept and practice of Dignity of Risk, on a broader level, taking a risk for oneself in a pandemic translates into taking risks for everyone you're in contact with as well.  This is because much of the transmission happens before someone is symptomatic (and for 40% of people infected they don't even know they are).  So you are exposing others to risk, though largely unwittingly, if you do get exposed.

I believe this is the perspective MJ was expressing?

I agree. And I'm another person who agrees with the concept of Dignity of Risk, though I hadn't heard the term before. I was arguing the same thing over 20 years ago, when my dad's brother was trying to talk my dad into intervening in their financial disaster of a sister's life.

But yeah, I think the analogy sort of breaks down in a pandemic.

[Freedomin5]

Yeah, I don’t see the concept of Dignity Of Risk working in a pandemic. If you take a risk to hang out with others, you are automatically assigning more risk to others (the people with whom you come in contact) without their consent and against their wishes (since I assume no one wishes to be infected). As mentioned, Dignity of Risk works if they are not harming anyone else. In a pandemic, they may be unintentionally harming a lot of people. And therefore boundaries are needed.

[charis]

In the specific scenerio that I described and SunnyDays was responding to, it's the risk of harm to them that I had specifically referred to.  Grandparents getting visits from family members (us) who are taking precautions around others. The point is that we might unwittingly spread it  to them despite these precautions and whether they should be allow to accept that risk.  They also wear masks in public and wash their hands.

[SisterX]

In the specific scenerio that I described and SunnyDays was responding to, it's the risk of harm to them that I had specifically referred to.  Grandparents getting visits from family members (us) who are taking precautions around others. The point is that we might unwittingly spread it  to them despite these precautions and whether they should be allow to accept that risk.  They also wear masks in public and wash their hands.

But there's the reverse of that too. What if they're so desperate to see their grandkids that they don't tell you they went to the store and forgot their mask? I can definitely think of a few grandparents I know who would be manipulative enough (not that they'd think of themselves that way) to take a risk and hide it because, in their minds, they'd be the only ones at risk in that scenario. And maybe they are the ones most at risk but they're not the only ones at risk.

[Bloop Bloop]

While I absolutely agree with the concept and practice of Dignity of Risk, on a broader level, taking a risk for oneself in a pandemic translates into taking risks for everyone you're in contact with as well.  This is because much of the transmission happens before someone is symptomatic (and for 40% of people infected they don't even know they are).  So you are exposing others to risk, though largely unwittingly, if you do get exposed.

I believe this is the perspective MJ was expressing?

We allow a lot of "spread out" risk in society. For example we don't require drivers to take out insurance to cover others for property damage done by the driver's negligent driving. So what happens when an insured person writes off your car is that your own insurance pays for it and the cost gets spread to all the other responsible insured out there. Likewise we don't require business owners or individuals to take out bankruptcy insurance - we just let them write off their debts and their creditors just eat the loss as a bad debt. So until we get that level of personal responsibility sorted - where those most likely to default are precisely the ones who are allowed to not self-insure - then I am reluctant to criticise the present situation, where it is mainly young people (those least likely to default) who are not "self-insuring".

[calimom]

My son graduated from high school in early June.  A party was planned, months ago to include grandmothers from faraway  states: New Hampshire and Arizona (we live in California), to attend the ceremony and celebrate with a family party. It was much anticipated by all.  By late March/early April, it was abundantly clear these loving grandparents would not be attending. They are smart and well-informed women and knew the risk would be  ill-advised. It was sad; the ceremony was a drive-by and six local family members attended a socially distanced outdoor party.

We're all sorry about it, but would be much sorrier if someone got ill/spread disease.  Not worth it.   

[shuffler]

We allow a lot of "spread out" risk in society. For example we don't require drivers to take out insurance to cover others for property damage done by the driver's negligent driving.

Uh ... yes we do.  Almost all states require insurance against property damage.
(Ok, I get that you're upside-down so YMMV, but the forum typically has a USA perspective.)

Likewise we don't require business owners or individuals to take out bankruptcy insurance - we just let them write off their debts and their creditors just eat the loss as a bad debt.

Even though you say "likewise", this is not a good analogy for the current pandemic's risk calculus.  Creditors loan money after an opportunity to assess the borrower's viability, and with an understanding that they are taking on risk in order to profit.  Creditors are informed and willing participants.  That's not the case for the pandemic.  In the pandemic, acquaintances and strangers that come into contact with you are put at risk, without the opportunity to review your viral hygiene practices, and certainly without expectation of profiting from the encounter.

So until we get that level of personal responsibility sorted - where those most likely to default are precisely the ones who are allowed to not self-insure - then I am reluctant to criticise the present situation, where it is mainly young people (those least likely to default) who are not "self-insuring".

When I read this, I think you're saying that "because brankruptcy insurance isn't mandatory, we shouldn't criticize young people for acting in ways that spread the virus" ... but I must be reading it wrong; it's such a non-sequitur that I can't imagine that's what you actually meant.

[Wrenchturner]

Risk is often socialized to others but we do try to weigh this pretty carefully as a society.  If you crash your motorcycle on the side of a mountain, an EMT might get run over when aiding you.  This doesn't mean we ban motorcycles.  Medical staff still treat people with blood-borne diseases, etc.  The further the risk branches out from consent the more complex this gets, but it's not novel, it's just trickier math than usual.

As I said further up the thread, much of the risk involved with COVID regarding the elderly is actually risk that comes with aging generally, and COVID happens to prey on that.  Not saying that we shouldn't mitigate that risk, but perhaps going forward we will discourage the elderly from exposing themselves to groups of people, especially children, where hygiene suffers.  A balance still has to be struck between the imposition on the mostly-healthy herd and the vulnerable groups.

Meanwhile, Canada's inflation adjusted GDP per capita has dropped to 1999 levels.

[Dee18]

The thing to balance against risk is what is the cost of lessening the risk.  As an over 60 person with a 97 year old mother, all I am asking of others is that they wear masks. Every single time one is within 6 feet of non family members.  My daughter has been working in China for the past year.  She wears a mask when out.  It is required for her to ride on public transport, to teach her class, to walk down a public sidewalk.  Wearing masks is a key reason why many Asian countries have resumed near normal economic activity and daily life.  Having older people Just avoid others will continue to limit the economy in ways mask-wearing will not.  Seniors  spend a lot of money.  Seniors/retirees provide a lot of beneficial volunteer work.  Many Seniors/retirees provide child care for their grandchildren.  And many seniors/retirees have earned their retirement by serving in essential roles for 40+ Years.

I noticed today that England has issued new rules for weddings.  The rules include no food or beverages because people cannot wear masks then, along with a 30 person limit on size for a brief ceremony. I would love to visit England this year, as I had planned, but that will not be permitted because Americans are totally refusing to take the steps to lessen our infection rate. 

[StarBright]

But there's the reverse of that too. What if they're so desperate to see their grandkids that they don't tell you they went to the store and forgot their mask? I can definitely think of a few grandparents I know who would be manipulative enough (not that they'd think of themselves that way) to take a risk and hide it because, in their minds, they'd be the only ones at risk in that scenario. And maybe they are the ones most at risk but they're not the only ones at risk.

^ this. My parents were blase about being careful at first. When I pushed on social distance my dad actually said "We are all going to die sometime, if I die a little earlier it isn't the end of the world." I had to remind him that I have health issues that put me at risk and I would rather not die and leave my young children motherless.

I had to stop myself from "ok boomer"-ing him.

They eventually agreed to self quarantine for two weeks so we could go and see them, and I know they are being more careful than most people, but I still don't think they are being as careful as we are. For instance, they refuse to do curbside grocery pick up because they are intimidated by on-line grocery shopping.

[SimpleCycle]

As I said further up the thread, much of the risk involved with COVID regarding the elderly is actually risk that comes with aging generally, and COVID happens to prey on that.  Not saying that we shouldn't mitigate that risk, but perhaps going forward we will discourage the elderly from exposing themselves to groups of people, especially children, where hygiene suffers.  A balance still has to be struck between the imposition on the mostly-healthy herd and the vulnerable groups.

One issue with this is that many of the at-risk older adults are not "elderly" in the traditional sense.  My mom is 71 (so firmly in the at-risk category) but very healthy and in normal times volunteers 3 days a week, coordinates her church's outreach efforts to a soup kitchen, runs a scholarship fund, socializes with her friends, etc, etc.  She likely has 20 more years of life in front of her (her statistical life expectancy is 92) so dying of COVID would significantly shorten her lifespan.

Realistically, she is doing everything she can to lower her risk.  But she still has to grocery shop and go to the doctor, and those things are riskier at higher levels of community spread.

[dougules]

Risk is often socialized to others but we do try to weigh this pretty carefully as a society.  If you crash your motorcycle on the side of a mountain, an EMT might get run over when aiding you.  This doesn't mean we ban motorcycles.  Medical staff still treat people with blood-borne diseases, etc.  The further the risk branches out from consent the more complex this gets, but it's not novel, it's just trickier math than usual.

As I said further up the thread, much of the risk involved with COVID regarding the elderly is actually risk that comes with aging generally, and COVID happens to prey on that.  Not saying that we shouldn't mitigate that risk, but perhaps going forward we will discourage the elderly from exposing themselves to groups of people, especially children, where hygiene suffers.  A balance still has to be struck between the imposition on the mostly-healthy herd and the vulnerable groups.

Meanwhile, Canada's inflation adjusted GDP per capita has dropped to 1999 levels.

You seem to be making an implicit assumption that Canada's economy would have kept on as normal if no restrictions had been put in place.  I keep seeing the false choice between the economy and public health, when they go hand in hand.  Will people carry on with normal economic activity when they see people around them getting seriously ill?  What are the economic costs of large portions of the population taking weeks of sick leave?  What are the economic costs of having to pay for so much medical care?  What are the economic costs of even a small group of people having long-term disabilities?  What are the economic costs of losing even a small percentage of experienced doctors and nurses? 

The actual economic choice is between a short-term hit and a long drawn-out drag that very likely could be worse in the long run.  One way or the other, any economic comparisons to years not involving pandemics don't make any sense right now. 

[bigblock440]

Risk is often socialized to others but we do try to weigh this pretty carefully as a society.  If you crash your motorcycle on the side of a mountain, an EMT might get run over when aiding you.  This doesn't mean we ban motorcycles.  Medical staff still treat people with blood-borne diseases, etc.  The further the risk branches out from consent the more complex this gets, but it's not novel, it's just trickier math than usual.

As I said further up the thread, much of the risk involved with COVID regarding the elderly is actually risk that comes with aging generally, and COVID happens to prey on that.  Not saying that we shouldn't mitigate that risk, but perhaps going forward we will discourage the elderly from exposing themselves to groups of people, especially children, where hygiene suffers.  A balance still has to be struck between the imposition on the mostly-healthy herd and the vulnerable groups.

Meanwhile, Canada's inflation adjusted GDP per capita has dropped to 1999 levels.

You seem to be making an implicit assumption that Canada's economy would have kept on as normal if no restrictions had been put in place. I keep seeing the false choice between the economy and public health, when they go hand in hand.  Will people carry on with normal economic activity when they see people around them getting seriously ill?  What are the economic costs of large portions of the population taking weeks of sick leave?  What are the economic costs of having to pay for so much medical care?  What are the economic costs of even a small group of people having long-term disabilities?  What are the economic costs of losing even a small percentage of experienced doctors and nurses? 

The actual economic choice is between a short-term hit and a long drawn-out drag that very likely could be worse in the long run.  One way or the other, any economic comparisons to years not involving pandemics don't make any sense right now.

That's because that strawman's in your head.  Nobody's saying that there wouldn't have been any economic effect, but it wouldn't have been anywhere near ending 36 million jobs overnight, shuttering entire sectors of the economy for months.  The argument you seem to be making is that everybody would be scared of their shadow, nobody would leave their house, go to restaurants, bars, shopping, etc. as long as the risk of catching the virus was still around and we were always going to end up with 36 million out of jobs and the entire retail and dining industry would cease to exist.  I think that's been proven false in many states by now, as people continue to crowed into restaurants and flock to bars.

[obstinate]

I think that's been proven false in many states by now, as people continue to crowed into restaurants and flock to bars.

I don't think this inference is valid, simply because in most of those states the amount of virus is (was) low. If the amount of virus were high, you would likely see different behavior.