Young and unafraid of the pandemic? Good for you. Now stop killing people | Hacker News Reader

Young and unafraid of the pandemic? Good for you. Now stop killing people

newsweek.com

193 pointspseudolus162 comments

If Merkel's assertion that 60%-70% of the population in Germany will be infected is accurate, and we end up with similar numbers in the US, the math is pretty stunning.[1] With a US population of 330,000,000, we end up with 198,000,000 infected, using the lower estimate of 60%.[2] A study in China concluded a 2.4% mortality rate and the WHO reported 3.4% among reported cases.[3][4]

Using a (hopefully not) conservative 1% mortality rate, we're talking about 1,980,000 dead Americans. That's more than the American Revolution, the Civil War, WWI, WWII, the Vietnam War, the Middle East wars, and indeed every other military conflict the US has engaged in since 1775.. combined.[5] And not just a bit more, it's roughly 3 times as many as all US combat fatalities since the beginning of our country.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/11/angela-merkel-most-people-wi... [2]https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population... [3]http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/02/study-720... [4]https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1234872254883909642 [5]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualt...

That's ~670 9/11 attacks' worth of dead.

~350x the number of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.

~10x the Civil War.

~3x the yearly heart disease deaths.

~1 death every 0.75 seconds

And this'll occur before June, and something like this will reoccur every year (is that right?!).

If this thing is anywhere near 1% mortality, the US really is in for a tough time.

Yeah, you're right, that is stunning

I really need to call my folks now.

> and something like this will reoccur every year (is that right?!).

No. Once you are one of those 60% you either die or get immunity.

It depends. The seasonal flu mutates enough between seasons that last year's immunity doesn't help you much. If we're lucky, this one doesn't do that, or it mutates in a way that symptoms aren't as severe (since causing the host to die or to be isolated in ICU is also bad for the virus, so there's evolutionary pressure towards less severe symptoms).

This isn't flu, Corona's don't mutate in this way.

There are many weaker coronaviruses floating around that give the common cold. We are still getting the common cold from those, so apparently it mutates in a way that our immmunesystem can't stop it.

It's complicated. https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwaa036

There have been an incident of someone getting infected twice. Although there seems to be no confidence in the results: https://www.wired.com/story/did-a-woman-get-coronavirus-twic...

*has

Results look like ~20% need oxygen(50m) and 5% need ventilators(17m).

How many spare beds do we have?

And so begins the War on Corona.

This is real easy to say to people who largely don't get sick days, oftentimes don't have PTO, and are far more likely to be unable to absorb a week without pay. If I take off work because I'm sick, I simply lose that money. Young people continue life like nothing is wrong because doing otherwise is not an option.

you're focusing only on one uncontrollable thing. the point is to be responsible and lower as much as possible the daily contact you have with people for a while. there are plenty of yuppies where I live who still dont mind going to extremely hot and packed yoga classes, or going out to bars or partying, etc etc. none of that is required, at all, in your daily life.

This article is exclusively about young people, not middle aged folks with the money for things like yoga classes and a social life outside the workplace.

It does seem kind of karmic through the lens of NIMBY older folks have been making it impossible for younger generations to buy/build homes near them, and now they want the young whipper snappers to care about their welfare.

Maybe the best way to become a home owner in SF in the near future is to run around infecting everyone there ASAP.

(In case it's not obvious, I'm mostly kidding)

> Maybe the best way to become a home owner in SF in the near future is to run around infecting everyone there ASAP.

Maybe this outbreak is the first of more to come and that this is actually a wake-up call that we shouldn't be glorifying or desiring residence in such densely populated areas like we have been.

People comparing it to the flu do have one thing right. This will likely be a new ever-present thing in our lives with rapid mutation and seasonal outbreaks. USUALLY these things get less deadly over time due to evolutionary pressures. It will be interesting to see if this has lasting impacts on our social norms and, like you mentioned, desire for high density living.

Edit: I just looked this up and MERS is still around as well. 2019 had 212 confirmed worldwide cases.

Epidemiology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_respiratory_syndro...

This is from 2015: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-33042036/south-korea-...

It frustrates me so much that almost no one gets this.

I know you're joking but there could easily be a great shift in voting patterns if this pandemic reaches deeply enough into older populations[1], presuming older voters generally vote conservative. But even for someone like Joe Biden it could mean a big change since apparently [2] his base is older voters as well.

[1] https://www.axios.com/2020-election-youth-vote-gen-z-895c7c4...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/20/older-vot...

It would mean far more than just changes in real estate, although younger folks would still have to get out and vote.

Of course it's terrible to say, but it might help the USA with social security payments.

Modern Newsweek is just the print-equivalent of a radio station that only features shock jocks.

They weren't always this bad: they used to be quite good. At some point within the past twenty years, they got restructured pretty heavily. Now it's more or less the same as any old rag.

They're at least willing to air views on any side of the aisle; they'll take anyone, as long as they're as simple-minded and as vitriolic as the average Newsweek reader.

Actually, it is just like radio.

Newsweek is a dead, empty brand at this point. A badge that gets passed from owner to owner.

https://nypost.com/2020/02/14/ex-newsweek-owner-dodges-jail-...

Lots of reacting to the title here. Which, granted, is sensationalist.

I think this nicely sums up the article's point:

"It's the civic and moral duty of every person, everywhere, to take part in the global effort to reduce this threat to humanity. To postpone any movement or travel that are not vitally essential, and to spread the disease as little as possible. Have your fun in June, July and August when this—hopefully—is over. Stay safe. Good luck."

In other words, it's not "this is young people's fault" but "just because you are young doesn't mean you should ignore this"

> civic and moral duty of every person

According to which canon? I find it slightly narcissistic to claim that I would have a moral right to someone else's behavior when it's well within my ability to take preventative steps for my own safety (Wash my hands, dont leave my house, and in between as my risk tolerance allows).

It's a little like someone saying "You all owe me X because I exist". Do we also owe it to the immunocompromised?

I'm not terribly big on the ideas of "civic duty" or "moral duty"... especially as they are usually meant. And as you couch it, I would somewhat agree with your take if it didn't go any farther than that. However, I think it does. Assuming an egoist version of morality, where the goal of morality is the happiest life you can live over the whole of life... I still think there are good reasons to adopt many of the more precautionary steps that are being publicly urged, even if you are in a low risk group.

For example. Am I better off, ultimately, living in a sicker community or not? True, I might be low risk and might not get seriously ill, but the impacts from those that do get seriously ill won't just be limited to them... economics, public expenditure, etc. all go down this path of being a net negative to my larger quality of life personally, even though I can wash my hands, etc. Add to this the likelihood that I will miss something in my precautions either through lack of knowledge or diligence, and not doing the most obvious sorts of things you might do if you were in a relatively high risk group can still lead to you becoming a vector in your own self-harm. This isn't even mentioning the fact that, while I'm not high risk, I know and live with people, people that I value, who are in high risk groups for serious complications to an infection.

Finally, while I don't have the right to other people's behavior in general, I do have the right to self-defense and so do others; and this right is largely delegated to government. Governments rightfully, if not legally perhaps, can demand some of these things in that context.... that's not to say they'd get it right... or even try to get it right... but that aspect is important.

So sitting here from my egoist perspective, it's in my better interest to minimize outside contact almost as much as if I were in a high risk group.

This feels like a knee jerk reaction formulated from a privileged perspective that believes that all beings’ lives are the same- or have the potential to be the same- as your own.

Do you owe it to the immunocompromised? As such an individual, I do not believe I am owed anything of any stripe by anybody.

However, as a human being and good citizen, I do believe I owe it to those in my community to do my best to ensure we have a safe, healthy, and thriving community. Rampantly- or willingly to use less charged verbiage- spreading a novel virus that is extremely deadly to certain segments or demographics of my community seems antithetical to that.

As a contra argument, I am capable of reliably and safely operating a vehicle at 95 mph- why should I be expected to observe speed limit laws that are intended to protect those that cannot? Does that make the law abiding drivers narcissistic?

Lastly, have you considered the impact on community services that widespread disablement of the workforce due to illness could have?

It may very well touch your life in a big way.

Edit: grammar.

> I do believe I owe it to those in my community to do my best to ensure we have a safe, healthy, and thriving community

This is a collectivist morality that not everyone shares. I would argue that American culture is fairly anti-collectivist (at least as I've observed today)

I, however, agree with the general sentiment that others' welfare may be in the individual best interest so maybe that's the avenue to persuade individualist.

> Do we also owe it to the immunocompromised?

Yes? For example, get your vaccines so those who cannot get them have herd immunity.

Ah so people should have free will taken away.

I thought people were advocating for responsible behavior, not enforcement.

Yes. That happens routinely, usually but not always, if society deems your free will is a threat to it.

I think most frequently the society restricts the freewilled acts _upon_ another person. I'm not sure I agree that going out in public is an act upon another person. They are free to touch door knobs or not. They are free to associate or not in public places.

Obviously I shouldnt be allowed to sneeze on someone (how this is defined is unclear) or to enter their private space w/o permission...

This is a bit analogous to the right to photograph/film in public.

I can choose to drive at 100mph in the wrong lane of traffic. This is not impinging on anyone else's free will. They are free to not use that lane, to drive around me, or to join me in going 100mph.

Photography in public is not a public health or safety issue and does not overwhelm hospitals with its effects.

The libertarian view point is that personal freedoms should not be limited, except in narrowest of scopes.

Examples of US policies that limit personal freedoms for the good of society without a direct infraction on someone else include: export controls, gun laws, mandatory auto insurance, income tax, state laws on vaccinations.

Doesn’t seem logical. Why protect someone with such a weak immune system so they can pass it on to the next generation? That makes society weaker.

Because some of us see our friends, family, and neighbors as more than a set of genes to pass on to the next generation.

And if those friends, family, and neighbors are clogging up a strained medical system that could even cause harm to us when we require such services for our own well being.

Because humans are more than their immune systems - I'd argue the Salk made society far stronger than a society requiring polio immunity as a precondition to live

Unfortunately all humans are born with weak immune systems, and sadly babies aren't fully vaccinated until they are ~2 years old. We protect them, because they eventually become our society. That pesky "future generations" concept.

You see, our immune system is built up over time with exposure to viruses, and inoculations. Then as we age, as our health decreases, our immune system gets worse again.

Personally, as I make my way through middle age, I hope that when I do reach my golden years I'm met with a little bit more compassion than "who cares about you, you're old and useless."

Funny enough, I know someone who has an auto immune system disorder, and recently found out this person is a lead figure in setting up Covid-19 response systems for major healthcare systems in the US.

How would you feel if I identified some quality that you have and decided you were not worth protecting because of the result it has on society?

This attitude is one step away from eugenics. You know who was a big proponent? I'll let you look it up.

Also large swaths of the elderly dying is unlikely to have much of an effect on strengthening our gene pool, no?

We also have our freedoms limited by:

- road rules - murder being a criminal offence - the concept of private property

We give up some personal liberties so that everyone has equal liberties including the liberty to enjoy their lives to the extent allowed for everyone.

Ok, we get it you do not have civic or moral compass. Noted.

To the people here with older parents (70+), there's another thing you can do:

Call your parents. Tell them they need to take this seriously, because they are the ones most likely to die from this virus.

Tell them that while average mortality rates may be low, it is highly dependend on age. Dr. Drosten of Charité in Berlin estimates mortality from corona in people aged >80 to be around 25%.

Tell them that exponential growth always looks harmless at first but that this exponential growth is also what makes atomic bombs explode.

Tell them that dying from Corona means dying alone.

The last point finally convinced them to stay at home.

> Tell them that while average mortality rates may be low, it is highly dependend on age.

Mortality rates are also highly dependent upon healthcare system capacity — especially so for elderly and at-risk, because they're the ones more likely to require hospitalization to survive.

Yes, this!

I think there is some degree of alarmism in the reporting, but this is deadly serious for older people.

IMHO, we should have very strict rules around senior centers, retirement homes, etc. at this time.

For younger people, I am not so sure. Merkel just said Germany can expect 60-70% infection rate. I'm not sure anything can be done to make this lower for the rest of us. (Even China, where quarantine is executed with military precision, is having a failure in this regard.)

The older folks should be a top priority.

It would be worth mentioning in the article that in the US your sick off days usually are deducted from your vacation days. This makes many people reluctant to stay home if they cannot work remotely.

That's only the tip of the iceberg.

So many people don't even have sick leave and are working paycheck to paycheck drowning in debt.

People in the US are essentially doing what they're told to or permitted to under their current financial and employment situations from my anecdotal observations. Very few have the option to forgo their work activities (public transit commuting, wide exposure in service industries, etc.).

Don't point the finger at the US at large, point the finger at US leadership that's more concerned about next quarter's ROI and less on the health of the country. Most people I've talked to have been limiting their exposure and intentionally distancing themselves from the more elderly and or immunocompromised population when they can.

Let's not get it twisted: nothing is deducted from anything. For workers who _do not get sick days_, they are forced to either take unpaid days off or use up vacation days when they are sick.

I really hope this gets changed in light of all this.

Blaming young people seems stupid considering that everybody can spread the virus. This ageist nonsense isn't going to help stop the virus.

The point is that young people are more likely to think "Oh this won't affect me, I'll continue as normal" because the severity and mortality of this illness is statistically higher for older people.

I don't see it as blaming young people, just pointing out that even if you aren't in the statistically "at risk" part of the age curve, you can still play a part in the spread and effects of this epidemic.

The article should've shed light on what govts can do better, not what individuals can. That's where the blame lies.

Who is more likely to read and listen to a Newsweek article, an arbitrary individual reading the article making a decision for themselves, or a governmental policy maker when deciding what to tell the country?

You can choose to be a part of this, but it's the same logic as blaming the poor for societal issues or Muslims for terrorism.

If not being poor was as simple as washing your hands and avoiding necessary travel then that might have more merit.

It's quite possible for both "the systemic response is inadequate" and "we should not take personal actions that cause unnecessary risk for others when possible" to both be true and fit in one's head at the same time. One does not negate the other.

Agree, BUT the media only has so much attention. Use it for chastising the govt.

Let's try to reduce the damage on all levels, by all people? There's no need to choose between one or the other, government action and personal responsibility.

Ideally, sure, but I don't think that that federal government is really going to do better in the near-to-medium term no matter how many such articles are written.

Individual (and state government) action is mostly what we have, so that's more important than ever.

This may sound extreme, but it is scapegoating/systemic apolgia.

I'm not sure I understand your comment, so if my reply is off the mark, that's why.

I am not engaging in apologia. I'm looking at what we can practically expect right now.

Really? Individuals can't do things? Only governments can?

It's so easy to just blame the government...

Exactly!

This scenario is playing out today in a family member's office on the East Coast.

A 30-something in the office, despite the fact that Washington state is a major COVID-19 hotspot with community spread and multiple deaths, nevertheless decided to book tickets to see a grunge band concert in Seattle, along with multiple parties.

Returning last night sent emails from the plane marveling at how empty it was. Clearly missed the memo or DGAF.

Moreover, in the office where he works, the senior partners are over 70, so in a major risk group.

This is now a big issue of how long to keep the guy home.

So, yes, everyone (young and old) needs to get smart, take precautions, and stop risking killing people.

You're 30 and want to take the risk? Fine. Just stay the F away from everyone else who didn't sign up for your risks.

And to the GP's point, no one is being 'ageist' about this.

This is not ageist nonsense. This is aimed directly at the rampant discourse of " only the elderly dies, why should I bother" ?

It's an ageist and offensive narrative to say that young people are saying that phrase and acting it out like they don't care about killing their elders.

I would agree with you, if only I would have not heard this exact "actually it's not so bad, mortality is super low unless you are old or sick already" in the real life way too many times.

Anecdotal evidence is horrible. I’ve heard people in their 60’s say the same thing.

> Antidotal evidence is horrible.

I agree, currently there's a horrible lack of evidence that antidote exists.

Not all young people! But I have personally witnessed many young people speaking openly this way.

When I saw the statistics for my age cohort, my first reaction was to feel cavalier. It was a few minutes before I thought about the harm I could accidentally do to people in their 70s

I missed that part of the article body text, can you quote it?

I did not claim it's in the article, I'm only replying to the parent comment.

Sorry, I thought that was the beginning of this whole discussion about ageist comments and blaming young people.

We're so many levels down into discussing claims that nobody is explicitly making in the article or this comment thread that it's hard to keep track of.

I've witnessed online discussions about how this is a "boomer cull" and had to point out that we all have family or friends that are not likely to survive it.

It's been well-established for some millennia that young people think they're indestructible. Here's some anecdata for you [1] including the following illustrative Twitter quote from a 27-year-old:

> Okay I know the world is in a state of panic but flights are cheap AF. I definitely just booked a flight to see my grams for her birthday.

(Her grams is 71 and well into the COVID danger zone.)

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/young-people-capitalize...

This is not blaming young people, though admittedly it's keeping its context implicit, which isn't helpful. This is a reaction to _way_ too many articles and posts that went "don't worry, coronavirus ain't so bad, only people who already aren't healthy are at any real risk," which a) not true, and b) is kinda scary in how it dismisses the less-than-healthy-people.

Granted, the title is gratuitous click bait but the message is on point and from someone on the front-lines in a country further along the curve than most others.

Blaming? Or encouraging?

We are telling a billion impoverished millennial-somethings that they can murder their wealthy elders with minimal risk and guilt.

Heck, there's a whole generation of food-service workers who couldn't take a sick-day even if they wanted to. Will they weep if that pizza kills a retired plutocrat?

I'm not even entirely unsympathetic to that line of thought, but the big problem is that my parents and grandparents are in the risk group too, and they're in no way in the 'I got mine', 'Ok Boomer', 'fuck your future and fuck the environment' cohort.

And I suspect many of the 'elderly' that I don't personally care about are similarly innocent.

Well ya, of course, many that we care about and/or innocent in that group.

But among the young we will see a lot of, "I'm pretty stoned, working a double shift and got the sniffles. Did I remember to wipe that pan? Ahhh fuck the boomers!"

This isn't a clear-thinking kind of situation.

The title of this is clearly supposed to be clickbait but what I find interesting from personal (23, London) experience is that most people my age are taking this seriously in the sense we recognise it can get worse and are taking sensible precautions (hand sanitiser, I know a few people self-isolating just in case).

While a few days ago I was speaking to a Primary school teacher friend of my parents, who claimed that because the UK "only has a couple hundred cases, it's not worth worrying about at all" the angle of "Oh i've seen virus' before and it was okay" was very apparent.

Now I know these are 2 personal anecdotes but I do wonder if generally it could be the opposite of what the title suggests, people my age have faint memories of Swine Flu but not much before that so I feel like we could be taking it more seriously

Of course there are "Well it'll kill all the boombers so it's good" jokes going around, but they're exactly that a joke, for the generation that called millenials snowflakes some (I believe a minority personally) can't really take a joke

Auto play videos make me instantly hit the back button

Firefox auto blocking of video and audio is one of my favorite settings

> Do not go to places where you are more than 20 people in the same room. It's not safe and it's not worth it.

Why 20? Is this simply about reducing exposure to potential carriers?

Arbitrary number, but yes. Network effects. The more people, the more likely one has the virus, and the more people likely to be affected by it, and thus carry it to still more places.

If the virus has spread to 0.01% of the population (33k cases), a stadium with 6932 people in it has a 50% chance of having at least one infected person in it (assuming uniform distribution).

If the virus has spread to 0.1% of the population (330k cases), an auditorium with 693 people in it has a 50% chance of having at least one infected person in it.

If the virus has spread to 1% of the population (3.3M cases), a cafeteria with 69 people in it has a 50% chance of having an infected person.

If the virus has spread to 10% of the population (33M cases), a house or office with 7 people in it has a 50% chance of having an infected person.

If the virus has spread to 50% of the population (165M cases), a fortified secret bunker with 1 person in it has a 50% chance of having an infected person.

But if that bunker dweller hunkered down back when the spread was only at 0.01%, not only would they have less chance of being infected themselves, they would also not be potentially spreading it to others. So it pays to start limiting contacts earlier.

We don't know the actual number, and the minimum (i.e., the number we know of) is constantly in flux, so any number derived from those is wrong. The 'safe' percentage chance of someone with the virus being in the room with you is definitely arbitrary. So...arbitrary. Yes, you can run statistics to say that "well, we made a bunch of assumptions and came up with a specific number", but most of those assumptions are arbitrary.

Yeah, it’s a numbers game. If you don’t know who has it, less people is less chance. Also contact tracing is easier when you’ve only met x amount of people.

Old people still need a functioning society and economy right? So therefore maybe it makes sense for the less vulnerable people to keep doing things.

This is the exact attitude described as being destructive in the article. It is also plainly illogical. It is so obviously illogical that it is boring. By doing normal things one spreads the virus, killing people and grinding businesses to a halt. This argument boils down to stopping deaths by increasing infection rates.

If the economy collapses our ability to contain the virus will be severely diminished.

28 yr old here, I work in the valley, havent been to work since last monday. And starting this monday, have only gone out one time, for a jog at the local track, where social distancing I guess more or less upholds itself amidst maybe 10 - 15 people max, spread out while walking or running the track.

It's easy to understand how Europeans look at Americans is if they're brain-dead. However, the article does nothing to support the thesis that young people in particular are killing other people.

It may be true. If so, including evidence to that effect would make a better article.

"young people in particular are killing other people"

I don't think that's the point. The point is that people are looking at the mortality curve of this illness, and it looks like it most severely affects the elderly. I've heard this point repeated all over the place as a "don't panic" qualifier, it's not so bad since you are not likely to be severely effected unless you are elderly.

But if you aren't in that severely effected part of the age curve, your actions still can significantly affect the spread and effect of this illness on others and the strained medical system as a whole.

It's not "young people are to blame" but "Just because you're young doesn't mean you shouldn't care about this"

Also this is in Newsweek, which as far as I know is mainly read by older, not so critical media consumers. This is sort of a playing to the home crowd piece.

> the article does nothing to support the thesis that young people in particular are killing other people.

It is very simple: from the pool of "all people" in any big enough area (e.g. a small city) those who will catch the virus, be able to spread it to others and will not develop significant symptoms, most of them will be very young. The older one is, more chance is that he will have strong symptoms (like not being able to breathe).

So any young person which doesn't "feel" being ill who continues to live "normally" -- meaning contacting other people like always, as in "going out" at the evening or whatever -- is a strong transmitter of the same virus that is actively killing older people.

Which all doesn't mean that older people who also behave like "nothing is happening" aren't also spreading the virus... and also, effectively, killing people.

The biggest point is: please don't behave like "it's nothing."

Disproportionately, it is the olds who are behaving like nothing is happening. They are the ones consuming the cable news that is framing it as "wash your hands and everything will be fine!".

Youngs generally accept that these large-scale phenomenon are real. We are just also powerless to change them, because politics are dominated by centrist olds who just don't want their 401k to go down too much.

Yes, you should wash your hands, but that's not going to have much of an impact on an aerosolized respiratory virus. Individual action has a very limited impact on these giant, planet-wide phenomena. A very large number of people are going to get coronavirus unless there are state or country-scale interventions like mass quarantines. It's not our fault that the bigger actions aren't being taken. Youngs wield extremely little political power (in significant part thanks to ourselves and our own unwillingness to vote).

See also: climate change, gun violence, pollution, etc etc. These are large problems that youngs accept and olds stonewall collective action on, instead pushing bullshit "individual responsibility" narratives with no realistic chance of solving the problem.

> the ones consuming the cable news that is framing it as "wash your hands and everything will be fine!".

It was sad to watch that: both sides of political spectrum have had their own motives to downplay the issue and therefore postpone the necessary political actions -- and for these, obviously, the youngest can not be responsible.

Both sides behave so, of course, "because economy" but there are other motives around as well.

In reality being complacent seem to already result in bigger problems than the isolation measures alone would. Italy is an obvious example.

I agree, there are indeed some similarities with the climate change problems.

It is substantially better to respond to article content, not headlines. Authors don’t write their headlines.

It would be better if they did, but they don’t. So if you argue against the headline only, you argue against a strawman.

(It’s fine to address the headline as well, as that gets a lot of attention. But don’t attribute it to the author)

The headline is what brought many participants to this discussion. It's a part of the article, and comment-worthy.

This looks like an editorial, for which it seems that at least some authors choose their own titles. For example, see:

> Use a catchy title that ties into the theme of your piece. The title is what the reader sees first. Your title should entice the reader.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/writing-op-eds

There are other sources that give similar advice.

I specifically said the title is worth commenting on. Just not the only thing or the main argument.

> It's easy to understand how Europeans look at Americans is if they're brain-dead.

I could easily say the reverse is equally understandable (letting their rights to free expression be eroded, horrible internet legislation for two) and that the covid-19 situation in Europe as a whole seems to be objectively worse than the US.

>It's easy to understand how Europeans look at Americans is if they're brain-dead.

It's absolutely not, considering how fast the virus is spreading in Europe, and mostly through old populations too. Symptomatic people spread virus faster, that much is obvious.

why isn't the author pointing fingers at the EU?

Italy cannot control its own currency so it's at the behest of the ECB when it comes to supporting banks, citizen bail outs, etc. the ECB is still in "monitoring mode", whatever that means. also recall Italy has been in various austerity-like periods for some time now. is Brussels sending in staff and building emergency facilities to help out its struggling member?

so what gives? is the ECB going to backstop Italian banks/businesses? directly inject capital a la what the US Federal Reserve ostensibly could (will) do? how about other member nations e.g. Germany?

Those damn poor people at it again! They should be ashamed!

At the rink of someone missing my message: blame the causes, not the victims. Govts and certain individuals are to blame for killing the old ladies, not some college student.

Brought you buy the Newesweek of "OK, Millennial: Boomers Are the Greatest Generation in History" https://www.newsweek.com/2020/03/13/ok-millennial-boomers-ar...

God damn. I've seen some pretty thoroughly wrong articles before, but that one takes the cake.

All the “rich media” on that website makes me cringe. And I think I just blew past my monthly mobile data limit just to read this article. Horrible.

Newsweek is garbage, and has been at least since they "outed" "Satoshi Nakamoto".

Switzerland is currently ok, but now I am thinking of canceling my trip.

Depends on your definition of okay, I suppose, but 75 cases per million people seems pretty high to me. China is only at 56 cases per million people. Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

I just spent alot of my time reading the thread here, it's 3:10a.m. here in the Midwest. I gotta say, some get it, some simply want to put heads in the sand. My own brother, me being the oldest of 8, has a kid on the way, is a paramedic, lives in our home state of GA. He's a paramedic. I called to let him know my concerns and he brushed me off. Let's say it bugged me abit. My grandparents are innocent, in their late 70's and early 80's. Here locally, in MO, in my area, I've tried to tell people to do this/that, be reasonable, help out if possible, etc. Hoarding is ridiculous though, stealing, only the beginning. I was in the service for 8yrs, 2 deployments, seen the worst in people in war. I gotta say, at my point in life, at the early years of my middle age, I've got kidney problems so my doctor told me to stay indoors which I usually do anyway, had to stop working for myself so it's just my wife making most of the money right now. It's hard on everyone. When I hear the term "young & old people" I roll my eyes, it's everyone, younger, middle, old folks. If the U.S. where I live, loses almost 2 million people, and many of them are oldest, well, I can't lie, those who have the money/power who've been doing us in before even I was born, for too long, for those types, good riddance. For those like my grandparents and others I don't know, they're innocent. Just as the rest of us are who are being cautious, like I am. My wife has a protocol I've given her, something similar to how the military does things. Hard to let go of many years doing things a certain way with vet's like myself. Whether or not things are followed or not, if we lose that many people, we'll see what we see. I see it day/day. And I got no proof, just a theory, based on what I've seen in the field by merc's, and then the Chinese, some of them, blaming our U.S. Army when some went to an event there in China back late last year for doing this to them, I hold down my stance that the U.S. Govt did this by sending a team out there dressed in our uniforms, but them being merc's, they don't care, they'll still be safe and secure for the money. No ROE, nothing. I've seen it too much. For the rest of everyone, just stay safe and try to minimize contact. Washing hands alot, etc. My life is mid-way over and I'd like to make it to 50, if I can. I'm not far from that. We live paycheck to paycheck as most do here, but, at least the electric company here is suspending and forgiving late payments and so on. Then we're about to hit flood season here, it's already rising. It happens alot here, it'll make this worse too. My neighbor, one of several, lost his job for the time due to it being in the restaurant business. My wife's job has cut out all 70+ patients and instead, are doing things over the Skype and stuff for visits. Everyone else is being tested for fever as they come there before entering. Smart. Yet, no security. I'm speaking more about localized issues here, but we just got 10 new cases confirmed nearby in the county my wife works in. The Rolling Stones aren't coming here now, for now, because of this. All things considered, my theory, my position to be safe and smart and not be ridiculous when it comes to buying products, which we're already experiencing a shortage of, is to ration and keep those hands and feet clean. Keep uniforms from work separate from your people at home as my wife is doing now. We'll see what we see, as another put it, it's a number's game, time will tell, the virus will eventually burn itself down to a point that normality, whatever you want to call that, will come back. The Guard has been on alert, as all states here are on state emergencies. I've been hearing of forced removal though, some being asked to leave too, don't know all the facts on that yet, but I'm tracking this. I see locally how some people think this is just a "cold" & nothing more. Okay, well, we'll see. I already know it's not, so at least here locally some folks are listening to people like me. I am no scientist, but, I'm not stupid, been in the field, had to help injured folks from the enemy trying to kill us, etc. I expect the worst, hope for the best. Stay safe everyone.

Please note: this isn't my own opinion, read this as you would a dystopian science fiction lore

A month ago when I read that the Virus improportionally affects older people, I had a short thought about a movement of young people who embrace the virus against the Boomers. This doesn't exist to my knowledge, but it wouldn't surprise me if it would.

If I follow that strain of fantasy for a moment, a cynic would argue: only once the old, many and poltical established Boomers are affected drastic measures happen. That is why the climate crisis didn't produce tangible results. As a rich person you can mitigate against many problems a climate crisis brings, that is harder with a virus. As a old person you will be dead once the most disturbing consequences of global warming start to really hit home, but a virus that can end your life right now is something different.

If we take a utilitarian perspective and do what prevents most suffering. And the empathic and intuitive thing is to avoid as much human suffering as possible now, but what if our inaction today creates magnitudes more suffering tomorrow? Wouldn't it then be justified to view it as some sort of poetic justice when a virus specifically hits the older generations who's political interests prevent real solutions to even bigger existential questions that are global in the truest sense of the word?

Ok, so the pandemic became a Boomers vs Millenials issue?

Is this from the same issue as the "OK, Millennial: Boomers Are the Greatest Generation in History" piece?

Wait is this a real article? Because wow...

Yep, it read like an Onion article and they made it the cover of their magazine.

Yes, I caught that the other day. I couldn't even finish the article. I'm from gen-x and it even annoys me how hyper-critical the baby boomers are with millenials and gen-z. Attempting to lay blame on young people for the spread of corona-virus is just absurd and irresponsible.

My personal favorite in this type of article is the mocking of millennials who “want participation trophies”

Who exactly was it that bought these trophies and gave them to kids again?

They make a good point in this article, I just wish Newsweek and other media outlets would get this pissed off about climate change. "Old and unafraid of the climate crisis? Good for you. Now stop killing future generations." If we're mobilizing to stop a pandemic, why the hell aren't we mobilizing to stop climate change?

I know this is going to get downvoted into oblivion, I just wanted to say it.

Not to excuse anything, but the main difference is the time scale—within days/weeks we saw differences, and death counts... with climate change it's not only difficult to measure easy-to-understand direct correlation sometimes, it also is at minimum on time scales of months to years.

Most news cycles are hours or days, not months or years.

This is exactly right. As young people we are afraid of climate because we know it will affect us in the future. That's not true for older people (well, we can quite easily argue that it is __currently__ affecting people).

I think another good example is nuclear. It may have low deaths per terrawatt of energy, but the deaths it causes are localized, physically and temporally. It doesn't matter that each year more people die in the US from coal ash than all those that ever have (or will) from (current) nuclear disasters.

These kinds of things are well known in psychology (including the simplest: marshmallow experiment). Humans are bad at risk estimation and even worse when it comes to time scales. If it isn't happening before our eyes then chances are we're pretty bad at estimating risk.

> with climate change it's not only difficult to measure easy-to-understand direct correlation sometimes, it also is at minimum on time scales of months to years.

Isn't this, exactly, why we are in trouble with the coronavirus. Our inability to see a disaster looming ahead?

Nobody is dying from global warming. It's a sea level rise of 2-3mm a year. Less than 11,000 people a year die from natural disasters, which is near all-time lows despite a rising population. 100 years ago, it was common for at least 1,000,000 people a year to die from natural disasters. Thanks to technology, including internal combustion vehicles and electricity, that number has dropped dramatically. Crop yields are up almost 100% since the 80s for many crops, including staples like corn, wheat, and soybeans. We're able to feed more people than ever before. Also, winters are far more deadly than summers.

Source for the data: https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters Zoom out back to 1900 and see how much the world has improved.

> Nobody is dying from global warming.

Citation needed. Many (also old) people died in the European heat waves of the last summer. And every year these summers are getting hotter.

Once crops closer to the already dry and hot areas of the globe stop to yield, and people migrate away from those areas — how many people die in the resulting conflicts, how much human suffering will be produced there?

What impact will the usage of resources we use to safeguard costal cities against rising waters have on other areas that prevent human suffering?

Answering the possible fallout from even a moderate change in global climate is nowhere near as clear cut as you make it out to be.

On top of that: the ddcisions we take now could potentially be multiplied by the next 1000 human generations, only idiots would take that risk lightly.

I did include a citation with a chart for deaths from natural disasters worldwide for the last 120 years. Meanwhile you mention heat wave deaths in Europe (with no citations) and conveniently exclude deaths from winter-based natural conditions.

Here's the CDC analysis on deaths from temps, showing that among weather related causes of death (which are not even in the top 50 ways to die, by the way), 31% were due to excessive heat and 63% were due to excessive cold: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25073563-deaths-attributed-t...

There is no evidence of precipitation decline across the planet. Some drought-prone areas, that have been drought prone for thousands of years, have gotten some drought conditions. There's nothing new about that. In California there's fossil evidence of 200 year megadroughts that pre-date industrialization. So mother nature is gonna throw us curve balls no matter what we do. We have to adapt when that occurs, see links below for studies on historical megadroughts not caused by man:

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstrac...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2730237/

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10933-012-9590-9

Good points, but:

> On top of that: the ddcisions we take now could potentially be multiplied by the next 1000 human generations, only idiots would take that risk lightly.

The problem with this is that the decisions we take now could potentially mean anything. The butterfly effect effectively makes it meaningless to measure what we do now, so many years into the future. There's a lot of sentiment against climate change "denial", but the real denial is not about the presence of climate change but rather whether it is wise to make changes that we cannot measure the impact of.

If you argue like that nothing counts anymore and everything can be justified – maybe it turns out the puppy you shot would have mauled the kid that would have invented the cure to cancer – who knows. If you warm a perfectly inhabitable planet up very quickly, there will be friction.

What too little people really grasp is the fact that global warming is a highly non-linear process. It takes the same energy to melt 1kg of ice (at 0°C) to 1kg of water (at 0°C) as it takes to heat water from 0°C to 80°C. Currently we are melting ice – once that is gone things will go at a very different pace and this will be practically irreversible.

I don't think I am clever enough to judge alone if this is really a safe route to go, which is why I trust the experts on this one. And they all say: get your fuckign shit together and do something drastic right now.

> Nobody is dying from global warming.

This is definitely not true now and will be less true in future. And its a very narrow view - climate change is spreading misery and destruction at massive scales.

- More powerful hurricanes and cyclones kill people directly then many more through disease, starvation, homelessness, etc.

- The Australian fires killed 1 BILLION animals. [1]

- India is running out of water [3]

- Ocean fish stocks are collapsing - leading to malnutrition and starvation of many who depend on them

- Global heating is driving conflicts and migration from places like central america, middle east, etc.

- While not climate change, the cause of it (fossil fuels) causes 10K deaths EVERY DAY [2]

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/australia-fires-over-1-billion-... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/03/10/every-da... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/opinion/india-water-crisi...

Deaths are down 99% over the last 100 years. From 1,000,000+ a year in (as many as 3,000,000 people a year died from natural disasters in the 30s!) This despite a population increase of almost 5x in that time frame. Follow my link in the parent comment and zoom out to 1900 on natural disaster deaths. It's not even close to what our ancestors were dealing with. We're at near all time lows.

That is thanks to tech. Less people are dying from all natural disasters than they were 100 years ago. We have emergency response vehicles, we have satellite communication and early warning signs for impending disasters, we have better response systems that while imperfect far exceed what were available 100 years ago. We have worldwide wireless phone coverage and many countries that didn't even have phones 100 years ago can now dial for help in an emergency.

The Aussie fires are nothing new. This happens every couple of decades in Australia and has occurred for thousands of years. The whole history of weather in Australia is drought, flood, drought, flood, rinse, repeat.

https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/science-envir...

Stop blaming EVERY occurrence of weather on elevated CO2 levels. It makes zero sense from a thermodynamic perspective. There are systems in the climate that are completely outside of our control, and they cause weather and climate to change. Some small fraction of that is due to CO2.

"If we're mobilizing to stop a pandemic, why the hell aren't we mobilizing to stop climate change?"

Because a frog boiled very slowly usually doesn't complain until it's too late. Had this pandemic infections happen two orders of magnitude slower, nobody would give a damn.

We're just not wired to think about things at that scale and over long periods of time. IMO the reason we're taking climate change as seriously as we are now is because of the visceral evidence provided by the hurricanes of the last couple of years.

We collectively need things to be observably happening right now in order to believe they are true.

Plus, climate models and predictions just don’t resonate with people.

> They make a good point in this article, I just wish Newsweek and other media outlets would get this pissed off about climate change. "Old and unafraid of the climate crisis? Good for you. Now stop killing future generations." If we're mobilizing to stop a pandemic, why the hell aren't we mobilizing to stop climate change?

> Help to fight climate change. Kill old people with the corona virus.

I knew someone was going to take it to this level after I read your initial post an upvoted it, a part of me laughed, another part made me wonder if that's what it would take...

I can't agree with this enough. The media seems willing to be alarmist about everything _but_ the most important crisis my generation will ever face.

Part of the problem here is that extremists have subjected us to at least three decades of climate alarmism poisoned by bad science and failed predictions. People who lack the scientific background to properly understand specific claims and the basis for them rely on ignorant heuristics, such as "the boy who cried wolf". They wrongly conclude that the current round of climate concern is no different than the rounds they've previously experienced.

> extremists have subjected us to at least three decades of climate alarmism poisoned by bad science and failed predictions.

I'm sure someone said something dumb. But straightforward models of long term climate change and CO2 output going back to the 70's have all been largely proven out. Which "extremists" are you trying to point the finger at, specifically?

> I'm sure someone said something dumb

Yes, just one person.

Edit: I try not to engage with people who use this kind of rhetorical technique. If anyone else is honestly ignorant of and curious about the damaging effects that decades of climate alarmism has had on some people's trust, you need only Google. For example: "bad climate change predictions"

In my opinion, the problem still exists and it is important to be honest about the elements (activists, journalists, politicians) who are on the 'right side' of the discussion but do a poor job of representing the data.

Is that true? I feel like the mainstream scientific picture has been alarming (correctly) for that whole period, and people (using ignorant heuristics) have incorrectly discounted the warnings since they don't feel the pain right now.

Both [your observation and mine] are true. I am not talking about mainstream scientists. Sadly, they don't control the larger conversations.

> I am not talking about mainstream scientists.

Then who are you talking about?

> Then who are you talking about?

This question is so strange I don't know where to begin. Should I look up the percentage of the population that are scientists? Should I pull up an Amazon list of books popular in the 70s and 80s dealing with climate change? Should I start listing various forms of dysfunction in the 4th estate? Should we talk about the culture of activists?

Disseminating scientific knowledge correctly is a challenge in our society.

OK, start with those. I mean, your point upthread is that you didn't personally believe all the good science of the last 30 years because of some "extremists", which now apparently includes the entirety of the media and political left. I think that's a pretty ridiculous argument, and am challenging you to give me some specifics to focus the discussion.

You don't get to wave this away. Let's see who you're talking about.

Please try not to misrepresent other people's claims nor presume their experiences.

>I mean, your point upthread is that you didn't personally believe all the good science of the last 30 years because of some "extremists"

> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

There’s numerous cognitive biases in play that cause people to disproportionately weigh near-term risks/rewards (hyperbolic discounting). Not to mention one is a direct threat while one is more abstract

Fewer people means less carbon emissions. More people means more carbon emissions.

On the other hand, fewer people means lower oil prices, which increases carbon emissions.

Hard to say what the net effect will be.

Newsweek's main audience is older folks. I think they wouldn't necessarily like to bite the hand that feeds them.

But I agree, and I hope you don't get downvoted to oblivion.

But we aren't mobilizing to stop the pandemic (or at least, not enough), and the WHO even cited that as a reason for declaring COVID-19 as a pandemic today.

Many of these media outlets still publish their Coronavirus content behind paywalls, or plastered with advertisements everywhere. That isn't mobilizing, that's capitalizing.

Ironically making people more aware of climate change causes people to vote for candidates who are objectively terrible for climate change (see: anti-nuclear Green party in Germany, Bernie Sanders etc.)

Perhaps its because we already have technological solutions put in place or still actively developed to actually reduce climate change ahead of time even when eventually we'll see the real devastation in action in 10 - 20 years time.

Compared to this, the virus spreads extremely fast and healthcare systems across the world are being stretched and tested since there aren't any vaccines or solutions yet to tackle COVID-19 except for reminding everyone to wash their hands regularly.

So the world now has to focus on battling a pandemic now rather than improving on the technologies already put in place to save us from climate catastrophe. At least taking a flight should now be seen as a double negative at this time for the kids of today.

I was making a related comment to my coworkers earlier this week: if the stock market is this freaked about covid19, just wait til investors realize climate change is real and it will be hard to make money while NYC is flooded and nobody wants to buy oil anymore.

At this point we have had 1C of warming, and the economic effects have been minimal. The most aggressive IPCC model shows another 1C by 2050. So that's double the warming. What will the economic damage be? Probably more than 2x, but almost certainly not 100x, which is what it would take to have a meaningful impact on the economy. This is why the market isn't worried about it.

When you say things like this, you come across as uninformed. Not smart.

Seriously, https://riskfinder.climatecentral.org/place/new-york.ny.us?c... shows you the worst projected flood in the next 30 years. As you can see, there is substantial damage, but the vast majority of New York will be fine.

And mitigation of that particular risk is available at a relatively cheap price of building dykes. Which is well-understood technology. In fact there is a country (the Netherlands) that in large part consists of reclaimed seabed kept dry through dykes.

About oil, oil isn't most of our economy. Believe it or not, people realize this and it won't actually change our economic system as much as you seem to think it will.

So yes, climate change is a real problem. But "OMG, NEW YORK IS ABOUT TO BE FLOODED AND OUR ECONOMY WILL END WITH OIL" is not supported by the evidence.

Do you mean flooded from some specific storm, or from rising sea levels? When do you think NYC will become flooded? I've heard predictions of a sea level rise of 50 inches by 2100, but I don't know how much the levels need to rise to flood NYC.

I think people know and just believe there will either be a magical human engineered solution that solves the problem or lots of time to find a greater fool before it gets that bad.

Climate change is real doesn't mean NYC will be flooded.

[flagged]

Please don't do this here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com