I wish there were actually opportunities in my life.

My office is still closed, I tried to have a reunion with university mates in my home country (I always meet them when I travel back to my birthplace), but 3 out of 4 of them bailed out.

I tried to reach out to other friends, but (except one or two) they are also opting out of meeting anyone for the foreseeable future.

I'd obviously try to play it safe: meet the others at a distance, wearing masks, etc.

It seems that most people who are shying away from meeting friends are those who cohabitate, which makes it even more frustrating to those of us who aren't :/

What I started doing during the 5 month lockdown in Bogotá is going for extended walks every day and convinced friends/coworkers and some dates to join. Less risk than meeting indoors and free so it is easier for those who lost their job or have reduced salary to do something.

That said, many people I would meet on a regular basis before, I haven't seen in person since it started. E.g. because they moved out of the citg for the time being or are taking care of their parents and don't want to take risk. With those we started having semi regular group videocalls just chatting to a glass of wine or beer. Not ideal but it did had the upside to connect more to people living elsewhere I interacted less with before the Pandemic.

I had a similar situation, but the reunion-esque meetup functioned adequately over slack instead. It's definitely not the same, but we figured everyone sitting 1.5 meters apart at a bar isn't the same either and also not very conducive to socializing.

I've been getting together with friends and family more the last couple/few months. Outdoors and indoors. A couple/few larger gatherings. There have been no problems.

Most of us our in our 40s and 50s - some older, some younger. We don't sneeze or cough on each other. It is assumed that someone feeling sick would stay home. Our family is more careful around gram, she's 92.

I'm personally not of the belief that covid is the end of the world. A lot of people agree with me.

I know of one person that refuses to leave the house. I understand that this person is more afraid of the virus than most people. I wouldn't want to do unnecessarily do anything to make a person who feels that way uncomfortable. But I'm also not going to live in a bubble for their peace of mind.

The rest of us feel pretty strongly that respiratory pandemics are part of life and can't be stopped by lockdowns, despite all of the fear-mongering headlines and anecdotes. Let me know when covid-19 is worse per-capita than the 1968 or 1957 flu seasons.

In the United States, 100,000 people died in the 1968 flu season, and the US population was about 200 million. There have been 200,000 COVID-19 deaths, and the US population is 328 million.

I think you should consider the actual quantified risk to you and the community.

For someone living alone for example and going to work drinks with 5 people, your risk of contracting COVID is very small. Your chance of developing serious complications from COVID is also very small. Your chance of spreading COVID to others, should you isolate once you develop symptoms, is also small.

I highly recommend you research the actual numbers from WHO, CDC, papers, etc. You might find it surprising how little risk it poses to people our age.

Multiply these all together and you will probably realise that COVID is not so concerning that you should forgo all social outings for.

And yet, 200k people in the US have died already, even with fairly extreme social distancing. Acceptable risks for the individual can translate into massive human tragedy. I have no expectation that Covid would be much more of a bad flu for me, and am not particularly worried for my own health. I socially distance for others: friends, family, and even people I don't know. Society cannot run on pure self-interest alone.

> people our age

So far as I can see, cheschire didn't say anything to indicate their age.

Careful with those assumptions!

Assuming that youth and health are sovereign against bad COVID outcomes sure is an assumption, too.

Isn’t that a statistically valid assumption for reduced risk at the population level?

Do you consider spreading to other more vulnerable people as a bad COVID outcome?

I do, but also think it deserves more context.

I’m not sure most of the public dialogue is framed correctly. As the parent comment stated, it’s about quantifying risk. We (humans) are generally bad at thinking about risk in statistically relevant sense.

Even before that discussion can happen we need to define what is the appropriate level of non-zero acceptable risk and how to measure it. Is it more appropriate to measure in utilitarian or absolute terms?(E.g., is the risk of death to an elderly nursing home patient equivalent to the risk of death to an otherwise healthy teenager? I.e. are ‘life-years lost’ more important than lives lost?) I don’t know the answers, but only once we understand that risk can we accurately mitigate it.

Bypassing all that is just layering assumptions upon assumptions

GP comment says "for someone living alone" which I would consider an answer to your question.

That death and total recovery are the only possible outcomes is also an assumption.

Sorry, my apologies!

"how little risk it poses to people our age."

You know the age of everybody on HN? And that also ignores the risk of long covid, and the risk of serious harm.

And even for young people, the risk is nothing to sneeze at (pardon the pun). See e.g. Penn State's Athletics department numbers of a 15% infection rate on their football team: https://www.centredaily.com/sports/college/penn-state-univer...

Worse, many of those infected in that particular group have rather alarming levels of myocarditis. Their age didn't spare them.

That doesn't mean we should be all "we're doomed", but glibly dismissing the risk isn't helpful either.

And while you personally might be at a lesser risk, everybody you interact with now inherits your risk. (Pre- and asymptomatic spread is a thing, isolation is not a panacea). So at the very least, include your contacts in your risk calculation. You want to see your parents and not risk killing them? Your bar of risk you can take is lower.

You spend your time exclusively with the same 5 people, in a lower age bracket, and none of them venture outside that bubble? Sure, your risk is much lower. But few of us are in a non-family bubble of 5 people who don't see anybody else.

Looks like a good and pertinent question to me. I’m seeing one old friend for a socially distanced outdoor walk / catch-up because I’ve decided the risk is outweighed by the duty to support people who might need it, and as the top OP says life is about connection, not just satisfying wants.

> How does the potential for danger in even mundane social gatherings affect your decision now?

I assess the risk with the same way I assessed the combined cumulative risk of the last 4-5 Flu Seasons. In that it didn't affect my behavior or choices in any way whatsoever. The problem is while I'd like to socialize and get back to normal, unelected health department officials have decided to make socialization illegal.

you can always think of it this way: https://xkcd.com/2346/

(meet people outdoors?)