Hacker News Reader

Comment by Brakenshire | Hacker News Reader

Young healthy people shouldn’t be doing this, the slots should go to the ill and elderly, people who are in immediate danger from catching the illness.

View on HN

38% of the people hospitalized with COVID-19 are between 20 and 54. [1] Everyone can catch the illness, everyone can wind up in the hospital, and depending on the state of the local hospitals, everyone is in immediate danger.

[1] https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/medical/close-to-40percent-...

But not everyone can get grocery delivery, so who should have priority?

>38% of the people hospitalized with COVID-19 are between 20 and 54. [1]

This is odd statistic to give, considering it's not normalized by how many 20-54 year olds are there. So I clicked through to the original study[1] and found a more helpful figure: people between the ages of 20-44 have a hospitalization rate of 14.3%-20.8%, and an ICU admission rate of 2.0%-4.2%.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm?s_cid=mm...

All the more reason to dedicate the slots for the disproportionately-represented older cohort.

Or reorganize to have a central delivery service that goes to all the houses in an area.

That 38% figure is not relevent in this context, because it does not control for the demographics of the population in general. 45% of admisions are over 65, despite the fact that >65 makes up only 16% of the total population [0].

Further, according the the underlying report, of the 22-44 year olds admitted to the hospital, only 2-4% went to the ICU. The 75–84 bracket had 11%–31% admitance to the ICU.

Of the deaths reported, 80% were over 65, while the other 20% was 20–64.

Yes, this virus can kill anyone, but statiscally speeking, it is far more likely to kill you when you are old. If there is a limited supply of a protective messure, we should prioritize giving it to the far more vulnerable.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...

So you get to decide that risking death for a 70 year old is worse than risking permanent lung damage for a 30 year old?

Agree with your point (that raw % of hospitalizations is misleading), but it's 2-4% of total positive cases, not 2-4% of those admitted to hospital.

...which means 62% are people 55 or older. I'm not sure you're proving your point as well as you think you are.

you missed the "healthy" part.

obese, diabetic, or cardiovascular condition means you're in a risk group, regardless of age.

pretty sure the relatively high numbers cited in the us are partly a statistical fluke resulting from the way the sample was generated and partly due to higher rates of metabolic disease etc in the us compared to european or asian countries

How not-young must one be to be legitimate in taking steps like this to avoid contracting this potentially fatal illness?

I’m not yet 40. I have bought all of my food online and had it delivered for years now. Should I now begin exposing myself to the infection risks posed by going inside a grocery store?

This may sound like snark but it’s not. I’m curious about the opinions of people who feel this way.

Are you otherwise healthy? If so and if you find almost every food delivery slot taken then I would say yes, you should be doing your grocery shopping in person. It's not a huge burden to change your behaviours for other people's benefit especially if others also do the same.

And if the slot gets taken by a 20 year old what has been achieved? It's really down to governments to set up food delivery to affected groups. Altruism can't solve this problem.

I'm assuming that if I leave a slot available, there is a higher chance that someone who is sick or vulnerable will get the slot they need. Maybe you're suggesting that all the slots will be taken by 20 programmers who write bots. Even in that case, I can't see how my behaviour doesn't help the chances of that vulnerable person.

> It's not a huge burden to change your behaviours for other people's benefit especially if others also do the same.

Potentially exposing oneself to a lethal virus is indeed a huge burden, and I do not agree that anyone is obligated to put themselves at risk.

No one is obligated to put themselves at risk but you can think of it as a choice that you can make to benefit others. All the doctors and nurses who have come out of retirement to work in hospitals at a time where their personal risk is high are doing it not because they feel obligated but because they recognise it is something they can do now so that fewer people suffer in the future. Choosing to go to the grocery store even when there are lower risk alternatives should be the same.

Yes, the UK supermarkets are asking you to do this. Tesco's CEO "We are at full capacity for the next few weeks and we ask those who are able to safely come to stores to do so, instead of shopping online, so that we can start to free up more slots for the more vulnerable".

To add to this, if the sick can’t get grocery delivery, they will go to the grocery stores.

In Bulgaria between 8.30 and 10.30 shops are open for the elderly only. I'm not sure how effective this is but it strikes me as a good low tech move.

Some stores in Washington state (US) have elected to implement this, but it is not a legal requirement.

Happening in Canada as well, Save-On-Foods, Shoppers Drug Mart, Real Canadian Superstore and London Drugs at least - there may be others. London Drugs have also added an hour for healthcare workers and first responders at the end of the day.

Singapore does 7am till 8am, you need a senior citizen card, or be taking care of a senior citizen / person with disability to get in during this time.

I think this is really great. When I go it's often crowded because people are still panicking.

I’m not sure it’s a great idea because older people are far more likely to catch the disease, so you’re crowding the most susceptible, most at-risk demographic together. But I’m not sure there’s an alternative. It’s better if the hours are longer.

Alot of super markets in Singapore are 24/7, a lot of the elderly wear masks, and for the most part people adhere to social distancing. The spread is minimal in Singapore.

British supermarkets have bizarrely cut their hours. Presumably the idea is that staff can stock shelves while distancing from customers, but the effect is to crowd customers together and increase queues.

Same is Slovakia. When looking on handling the covid spread, it seems that generally central/east european countries are doing surprisingly good job compared to western europe, which is rather clueless and is paying/will a rather pay high price for this incompetence.

I think it’s far too soon , and naive, to make such a statement. It’s easy to see some of the mistakes done by Spain and Italy in hindsight, but I don’t see central and Eastern Europe doing any better.

I'm afraid little testing helps keep numbers low. They tested 5000 people since a few days ago in Bulgaria.

Actually, it depends on where do you live. In OP's country elder people have been given rights to call social services and even police to get their shopping done. Other than that, in Turkey family relations are similar to Italy: the old people and younglings usually live together. So there is always a risk to get the disease in the market and then pass it to an elder back at home. OP's doing the right thing keeping his head down and order online.

Whilst I may be young and relatively healthy (mild asthma) I'm still sticking to delivery. Near to me there are few grocery stores and if I wanted to go to a larger store I would typically take transit. I've tried to minimise my impact by only ordering every 2 weeks as opposed to every week, but it seems like this is how I can have the lowest impact given the situation.

Not giving you it to young people prevents them from giving it to vulnerable people further down the road.

If 1 person infects 10 prevention of one transmission can save a 1000.

Everyone ought to do curbside pick up or delivery for everything.

At this point everyone is in immediate danger of catching the virus, the ill and the elderly are just the ones less likely to recover from it.

Probably the fairest way to do it is everyone gets in the queue instead of competing for spots, and limits are enforced to help spread demand.

I agree; however, a plea to young people on HN is much less effective than having it as a company policy. They could reserve some/most/all spots for seniors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com