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?