Do you think dating has become harder or easier in the last three years?

[msc545]

easier

harder

both or something else

[exitseven]

I imagine it is harder. Everyone complains about how terrible it is.

[exitseven]

Thanks for the MHO😎

[RealMarek]

Locking people down didn’t help. Much harder.

[msc545]

It did keep them alive. It is difficult to have a date with a dead person.

[RealMarek]

I don’t think it really kept many people alive who wouldn’t have survived otherwise, especially among people who are in the non-elderly age ranges that typically date.

[msc545]

ok, it just kept them from having ruined lungs then..

[RealMarek]

I don’t think the vast majority of non-elderly people who got covid have ruined lungs. Furthermore, it is obvious that lockdowns did not prevent the spread of covid. Almost everyone came down with it. That said, because the whole question is contaminated with political agendas I think any data need to be approached with skepticism and we’ll probably never know the real impact for decades. And while some of the secondary impacts of lockdowns, such as social impacts on dating, fertility rate, economic ruination, and (overseas) starvation, etc. are obvious, others such as long-term impacts to academic achievement, verbal/reading skills, and the possibility an anomalous percentage of young children who may never be able to pair-bond or function normally, will take time to assess with any confidence. These were never considered by the epidemiologists who gave lockdown guidance. Why would they be? Leaders assess multiple variables and make decisions and we haven’t had a real leader over the bureaucracy for a very long time. Experts are like the hammer; to a hammer everything looks like a nail.

[msc545]

You can talk about pair bonding all day long, but I doubt that it applies to dead people. You can also doubt that people have impaired lung function as a result of covid but the real data suggests otherwise. Lastly, you should really look at the consequences of long covid to understand the actual impact of this disease. If quarantine helps cut down on the number of people that get it, that is a good thing and totally worth it.

[RealMarek]

Maybe I’m missing something. The disease is endemic, meaning it will always be with us. It is also extremely infectious. Should we lock down every year? That’s not practical in my opinion and I guess my concern is that it would cause more death or negative impact than the actual deaths/impact from the disease itself.

[msc545]

We should do what we can to mitigate it or prevent it. Lockdowns piss people off but they don't cause death or damage organs.

[RealMarek]

I guess where we differ is that I think lockdowns do cause death in the ways I described above, and they affect the young disproportionately while covid affects the elderly disproportionately.

[msc545]

Any evidence for this?

[RealMarek]

Some, for example plunging birth rate associated with lockdown is pretty strong. That has economic consequences that, if history is a guide, will push up suicide rates and poor health outcomes. Also, the number of people who starve for every dollar increase in a bushel of corn is well understood, so supply disruptions are disastrous. The mental health effects of lockdowns are probably harder to untangle due to multiple factors that contribute to suicide rates and mental health. As for child development, I came across some study awhile back but there doesn’t seem to be much focus on it. Some of these effects will only be understood in hindsight, but my problem is that they weren’t even considered by our leaders and are not part of the public discourse about lockdowns. The discourse just seems partisan - liberty vs. safety, not that this isn’t a debate worth having, it’s just not the only debate that needs to be had.

[msc545]

I don't think you are establishing a nexus between, for instance, birth rate and presumably economic decline.

[RealMarek]

The economic consequences of declining birth rates are severe but very long term. I’m not so worried about them in this context as much as the human misery that results in the sharp decline in birth rate and what that entails in terms of mental health, physical health, suicide rates, etc. Of course, admittedly this is complicated because numerous factors are driving down birth rate in the West, but lockdowns notably accelerated that trend.

Or let’s take a different example, speaking of economics. What is the effect in terms of human misery and eventual increased suicide and poor health outcomes of the fact that lockdowns dispossess small and independent businesses of marketshare and drive growth in megacorporations? In fact, the effect was so pronounced that many people perceived that outcome as the actual intent. When we make many people losers to concentrate wealth among a smaller section of the population than before, I believe there is a health impact associated with that. I don’t expect this government given who funds campaigns (regardless of party) to fund studies focusing on this problem.

[msc545]

We do this with or without a pandemic. Correlating things you don't like with the existence of the pandemic is faulty logic unless there is a direct nexus So far you have still not specified one.

[RealMarek]

Direct nexus is a legal term, not a statistical one. I’m not sure what you mean by it.

[msc545]

Some plausible description of the actual mechanism by which the pandemic caused the things you allege. Juxtaposition in time only implies correlation which is where you seem to be now.

[msc545]

I am asking for a logical explanation, not a statistical one.

[RealMarek]

Okay, so one example I witnessed personally is a toddler who was locked down for two years in a remote location and only interacted with her parents during that time. She has serious problems interacting with other children now and they are not getting better despite counseling. This could be a permanent developmental failure.

[msc545]

Again, this is just a correlation. How do you know that would not have happened anyway? What does "serious problems interacting with other children" mean, and how do you know that?

[RealMarek]

Experience with children. That’s how. It was extremely abnormal. It is highly unlikely it was coincidence. Teachers I know also observed developmental impacts from lockdowns of various degrees of severity. Again, could it be coincidence? Maybe, but highly unlikely. Anyway, a full-blown scientific study in social sciences would still rely on correlation.

[msc545]

Experience and opinion are not proof of anything and they are insufficient reasons to prohibit lockdowns which are useful tools in terms of preventing morbidity and mortality during a pandemic such as the one we had. We had a million people die of COVID in this country during the height of the last pandemic and that cannot be easily ignored or dismissed.

[msc545]

Also - it would be fairly easy to compare populations where only lesser or defective lockdowns occurred or there were none at all (like the red states of the US) and places where the lockdowns were more effective (California or New Zealand) and compare relative morbidity/mortality rates. This would not be correlational at all.

[RealMarek]

Experience and observation matter when a political faction is wedded to lockdowns and can steer federal funding away from these “correlational” observations. If I’m correct there is tons of damage done by lockdowns that is completely unaccounted for, so I’ll continue to consider that when attempting to influence policy in my area.

[msc545]

The political stuff is just a wildcard and difficult to predict or manage.

[RealMarek]

It is. I agree with that completely. But it is probably the biggest factor in why we look at lockdowns so differently. If I understand you correctly, your position is that unless lockdowns are proven harmful via peer reviewed study, we should support government imposition of lockdowns. I suppose that is reasonable if our institutions can be trusted. My point of view is very different. I lived most of my life in regions where the economy, sense of community, and social fabric was utterly destroyed by the policy decisions of the governing elites (GOP and DNC alike). I worked hard and got to spend many years in elite institutions, moving up the corporate ladder, etc., and was intensely disturbed by the contempt my prestigious and/or affluent peers held toward the community that I came from as well as their propensity to play in the moral gray area for financial gain. If there is ever a question of whether failed government policy is due to malice or incompetence, I assume malice. If I see a policy that impoverishes my community, I also assume malice. Too many elites get rich off these decisions for me to believe otherwise and, besides, I was among them and find them to be rotten people of poor moral character for the most part. I also view the peer review process, mass media, the tech giants, and major corporations generally speaking as thoroughly co-opted by and slavishly servile to elite interests. I don’t expect you to view things the way I do or even to think I’m reasonable. The American empire is huge, diverse, and complex. Depending on where someone originated within it, how one was raised, the path one took, and perhaps a person’s biological dispositions, the perceptions of it can be wildly different.

Anyway, as always I appreciate your manner of discourse. Just want to make that clear.

[msc545]

Thanks - I enjoyed your informative views and polite participation!

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

Dating has become harder in the last 3 years.

[Anonymous]

For me, it's become easier after 40. It's weird how many women who rejected me before 40 now approach me. Particularly because nothing has really changed about me.

[On_cloud_wine]

I haven’t dated in exactly 3 years..