Except that in doing this, you are increasing the likelihood of spreading the virus to other people you interact with. So you are evaluating risks for yourself, but the impact is on society as a whole. It's like that superspreader wedding in Maine, where the people who ended up dying were people who didn't attend the wedding. Instead, they spread the virus to each other, and then to others they interacted with.

It's more like drunk driving. I may evaluate that after 4 beers I'd still be comfortable with the risk of driving. It's my life to lose after all. Except I'm not the only one affected by it.

> If two consenting adults weigh their own personal risks and choose to go on a date, it isn't your business to judge their behavior.

That's fine if it was just a risk to them. But it's not, unless they decide to live together and never leave the house after their first date, or quarantine for 14 days after every date.

> That's fine if it was just a risk to them. But it's not, unless they decide to live together and never leave the house after their first date, or quarantine for 14 days after every date.

The "miniscule risk to others" argument can be extended to literally any intrusion on personal liberty, and is exactly why I hope society looks back on this trend with horror and regret.

How far do you take this logic? Do I have to quarantine myself for 14 days after going to the park? Home Depot? A restaurant? If not, why not? I can catch Covid every time I leave my home. Must I lock myself indoors forever, or is it just for things that other people don't approve of?

Because the risk of catching it from spending more than 15 minutes indoors, unmasked, is much higher than all those other activities.

If your date is a walk in the park six feet apart, then great, you're probably fine.

If your date involves touching, hugging, kissing, or vigorous sex in a small bedroom for more than 15 minutes, then you have a much higher chance of spreading the virus.

But of course, it's easy to sit on your married-with-kids throne and judge the single folk who are essentially forced into roughly the equivalent of solitary confinement via all this social isolation / shut-everything-down bullshit.

Here's a suggestion: Have some empathy and consider that it's highly likely that you have knowingly or unknowingly made plenty of mistakes over the year that have contributed to the spread of COVID.

I have plenty of single friends and know what they are going through. They are also dating safely, or in a lot of cases, not at all.

Yeah I get it, it sucks, you can't have random hookups. I feel for you, I really do. There's lots of things I can't do either. But if we all sacrifice a bit, this will be over sooner. We've all had to change our lives during this pandemic. You're not unique in your suffering.

If you both live alone, having each other as your only contact per 14-day period is actually pretty feasible.

Sure, as long as you date each other exclusively for at least 14 days, then no big deal.

Please make your points without flamewar rhetoric. Your comment would be just fine without that ending.

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

I sympathize with your argument, but I disagree. Here's why.

If you choose to raise your risk of catching COVID, a few things can happen:

(1) You don't catch COVID

(2) You catch COVID, and recover safely in the privacy of your own home

(3) You catch COVID, and accidentally spread it someone else while pre-symptomatic

(4) You catch COVID, get very unlucky and have to be hospitalized. The hospital's ICU beds are full, and they prioritize your young life over someone else's old life, and that old person dies.

If the only possible outcomes were (1) or (2), I would agree with you that it's a private decision that no one should scold you for.

But as the likelihood of (3) and (4) rise, your actions increasingly impact others. At a low likelihood, it's not a big deal and we can probably round down to zero in our moral calculus, just for convenience. But when R is above 1, and the average person is likely to pass on the disease, it's very possible that your infection on average leads to dozens or hundreds of infections over the next year. The expected value of quality adjusted life years lost at this point is not negligible. Tens of thousands of people are dying every day, and it's only going up[1]. ICUs are full in a non-negligible fraction of US hospitals [2].

I get that all of our actions impact other people, and it would be hassle to constrain your freedoms by that fact alone. But when it comes to COVID, your actions affect others by a much larger degree than other everyday choices.

Incidentally, this is why we as a society have made speeding a crime and not a 'personal choice.' Driving very fast is usually safe but occasionally hurts others, and we've decided that that risk is large enough to be worth restricting your freedoms over. Not all externalities meet that threshold, but some do.

So if one unnecessarily risks catching COVID and passing it along, then scolding seems ok to me. People who recklessly pass on COVID are why millions are dead and dying. Countries with much better adherence have much lower death tolls.

I personally have curtailed my dating life this year to try and save lives. I encourage others to do so as well.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths?country=~USA

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/covid-hospitals-...

All four of those possibilities exist at any other time in human history. This is not the first year where I can catch and spread a disease that can kill someone else.

Likewise, how far do you extend this logic? I can catch and spread Covid literally any time I go outside. Do I have to avoid all other human contact, or is it just the things that a tribunal of strangers on the internet thinks is unnecessary?

> So if you take dumb risks and raise your odds of catching COVID and passing it along, then I am happy to scold you. People who recklessly pass on COVID are why millions are dead and dying.

I made a comment about two consenting adults, who live alone, taking a calculated personal risk. I am not sure who is being reckless here, but at the least this is an exaggeration.

> Likewise, how far do you extend this logic? I can catch and spread Covid literally any time I go outside.

I don’t know how things are where you live but here (Germany) it’s been severely restricted why (and how) you can do things. There’s actually a defined list of reasons under which you’re allowed to go outside. Now that list is pretty generous and include exercise, shopping, etc. but it exists. Any store that doesn’t serve a basic need is closed and at best can do “Click & Collect”

Likely this weekend things will go further here in Berlin. The airport will be shut down and you won’t be able to go further than 15km outside the city limits. Again there’s a defined list of reasons why you can go, just as en example visiting your spouse is ok. Visiting your parents or adult children is not unless you’re a care giver.

I say this in so many words not to say look at us, we got it so bad. But because what you said is true, _anytime_ you go outside you can catch and spread COVID. That’s why we have restrictions on when you can go outside.

News out of Germany seems to indicate that there is some household mixing allowed. What's described here should be more than permissive enough to allay the concerns of those living alone in e.g. San Francisco, who were not officially permitted any contact whatsoever until December, and then only outdoors. (Of course no one really waited for that rule change to meet up outdoors).

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55292614#:~:text=A%20m....

With a monogamous relationship as your only close contact, you’re pretty unlikely to do (3).