Men should stay at home to minimise risk. Can we have this conversation?

[DJLippy]

The stats are showing that men are far more likely to die from Corona than women. It's a 70/30 split according to some estimates.

However when I go out on my daily bike ride I notice far more men in the streets than women. They are very vulnerable to Covid I am concerned. Should we encourage men who are not key workers to stay at home? Would society be able to function?

Many of the key services are staffed by women. The NHS workforce is 74% female and nurses and health care assistant workforces (who provide the most intimate care) are 90% female. Even doctors (who we often imagine as male) are 45% female.

The key workers seem to be split by sex quite a lot. For example - nurses and teachers overwhelmingly female. Drivers, engineers, road crews ect overwhelmingly male. Obviously they are allowed to travel freely. They are doing vital work.

Is there a case to be made (to minimise risk) that men should stay in the house?

Aside from the genetic aspects which make men vulnerable to Covid, stats show that men (as a class) all have much lower personal hygiene than women. Women obey the hand washing rules better than men. Therefore women (as a class) are less likely to spread disease.

Meanwhile police have to concentrate their resources on Covid related issues. Considering that men commit 90% of violent crime maybe it's best we introduce a law which keeps the sex with the greatest propensity for criminality in the house.

I cant help but feel like if the stats were the other way around women would be living under house arrest. Or at least face a lot of social pressure to do so...

Can we have a conversation about this?

DJLippy

Okay..taking this as a purely hypothetical question (which is quite obviously what it is)

I would imagine that single men could request an essential food box which could be arranged in the same way as Morrisons are doing

But would you say all men but keyworkers isolate or just a certain age group for example?

Even if my arguments about higher contageon risks for men were unproven wouldn't this curfew mean less people out and about?

Would asking half the population to remain at home mean half as many people are in public - therefore minimising risk? Obvs people should only be out for 'essential activity' but everyone seems to have their own idea about what is considered essential.

I think there would be a reduction in the net amount of people who are in public therefore less risk.

Also, there is a safety element to my argument. I dont think it's much of a problem right now but I think if things get more dangerous in future you will see less and less women out in public - for their own good of course!

A bit OT to this discussion but interesting, the tracker for my area says the largest number of confirmed cases is in the 21-40 age group. I suspect that this is a result of not practicing social distancing very well (my nephew has been inviting his friends over to play games and watch Netflix, is currently in the huff because DH declined his invitation to come over).

(Note that this means they are confirmed to have coronavirus, not that they are in the hospital or in the ICU.)

I would imagine that single men could request an essential food box which could be arranged in the same way as Morrisons are doing

Have you seen the contents of these boxes? What about all the luxury items that people simply cannot do without - chocolate, wine, cakes etc? How about people with dietary requirements - gluten free etc?

DJLippy

So, basically your idea is unworkable is that what you're saying?

I think it's a great idea. I shall tell my dh to stay in, following your rules, please send me a link as to where I can get a woman to go and do our shopping, pick up my medication.

my nephew has been inviting his friends over to play games and watch Netflix, is currently in the huff because DH declined his invitation to come over).

Careful there prodigal you don't want to accused of being part of the curtain twitching stasi

A bit OT to this discussion but interesting, the tracker for my area says the largest number of confirmed cases is in the 21-40 age group. I suspect that this is a result of not practicing social distancing very well (my nephew has been inviting his friends over to play games and watch Netflix, is currently in the huff because DH declined his invitation to come over).*

I think that those who are more likely (as a class, statistically) to take risks could have their freedoms curtailed. Young peole and young men have to pay more for their car insurance- because it's a proven fact that this group more likely to be in accidents.

DJLippy

yeah so as kittens demonstrates its not the age that would be the problem its the risk taking bit

So far it's been young men who've seemed most oblivious to the concept of social distancing so far to me in terms of just will not step back and give other people any space.

Brace for the wave of "that is totally not true about car accidents and even if it was it's not nice to bring it up" you're about to get, Lippy.

There is another thread at the moment suggesting that people Between 20 and 30 years of age should be allowed to go back to ‘normal’

So far it's been young men who've seemed most oblivious to the concept of social distancing

Ive not really been out so couldnt comment

Ds2 doesn’t like interacting with actual humans and ds1 is a rule follower

Oh op, the gift that keeps on giving.

So now you're advocating restricting men AND young people. So, now we need older women doing the shopping and running around for everyone else? Obviously not women over 70 so good luck 41 - 69 year old women. It's all down to you.

I'm not the one insisting that people shouldn't be buying things like biscuits Hooves...

I'm not the one insisting that people shouldn't be buying things like biscuits

Absolutely not...could just make deliveries of whatever stuff requested, Marks definitely did a nice treaty box...wasn’t much actual food

But your entire premise is to lock men up indoors yet you've not thought about the implications of that. Totally ridiculous suggestion that actually makes it very much harder for women yet when it's pointed out to you you get snippy.

I've not been out much either but the only time anyone's gotten close enough to make me uncomfortable and been oblivious to my attempts to reestablish distance it was a group of lads. Presumably you, Rufus, have brought yours up to have better manners!

I think what we have got so far is:

It is possible that men as a class (age-regardless) are more prone to risk-taking than women -- I'd be interested to see a breakdown of the Dangerous Sports clubs memberships, for instance. I think the "looking after small/helpless children" part of the female psyche might tend to them being more careful, as a very generalised thing. But only as a very generalised thing: when they are driving, for instance, women often take risks quite as hairy as any taken by men.

If the general risk-taking idea is the case, though, then men as a class would be likely to be less careful about social distancing and so on in order to avoid infection.

And I suppose (again in this hypothetical case, if it's accurate) asking women rather than men to go out to get the shopping, in households in which there is one of each sex, would reduce the risk of infection to both the male (not getting it from others while out) and the female (not getting it from the male who had been careless about precautions).

It's an interesting thought if it is stripped back from any personalities whatsoever and just looked at in that light.

But it doesn't take account of many, many cases, mostly those in which either the woman of the household ought to be self-protecting for health reasons anyway, and those in which men live on their own or in a household made up of only men -- those exist too. So there can never be a sensible arrangement which means there are no men on the streets or out shopping, and there will certainly never be an arrangement in which only men are not allowed to go out once a day to get exercise while women are allowed to do so.

Young women can go out. They're generally much more sensible. Young men are absolutely forbidden (14 -40.) If they are found leaving the house for no good reason then we can contain them, maybe put them to use I hear there is lots if fruit wants picking...

Men aged 40 - 70 maybe we can negotiate and let these ones out, under certain conditions I'm not a total monster.

We are working put such a good plans guys thanks for al the feedback. I am actually having quite a lot of fun engineering my perfect society I could get used to this...

Young women can go out. They're generally much more sensible.

So you have the data to show that young women aren't infected at the same rates as men, yes? Or are you just making this up?

You can't back track now. I think this is great. Have a 21 year old daughter and a 25 year old son, both living alone who I'm worried about plus my dh in a vulnerable group but who is having to still go out. However, under your plans all of those can stay home protected. I love that idea. That's great. So middle aged women can shop for all of us.

Men aged 40 - 70 maybe we can negotiate and let these ones out, under certain conditions I'm not a total monster.

So, you're basing the justification for men being forcibly confined to their homes upon their being more likely to die of Covid-19 then allowing the age group more likely to die outside? Ultimately, while sex is a risk factor, it's much less than other comorbidities.

On that note: an interesting paradox: should the overweight (of all bents) be imprisoned at home or should they be allowed (or even forced) to go outside for exercise if it contributes to them losing weight?

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Byrnes2/publication/232541633_Gender_Differences_in_Risk_Taking_A_Meta-Analysis/links/00b49514c47ab0f093000000/Gender-Differences-in-Risk-Taking-A-Meta-Analysis.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjGxpqCsd7oAhUBqXEKHca1ArwQFjANegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw3l2sH0i3O0P59aPOx7Ud8g" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Byrnes2/publication/232541633_Gender_Differences_in_Risk_Taking_A_Meta-Analysis/links/00b49514c47ab0f093000000/Gender-Differences-in-Risk-Taking-A-Meta-Analysis.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjGxpqCsd7oAhUBqXEKHca1ArwQFjANegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw3l2sH0i3O0P59aPOx7Ud8g

Interesting meta analysis looking at a variety of studies which show the same trend. Men take more risks than women...

So you have the data to show that young women aren't infected at the same rates as men, yes?

To add, this data would have to come from a cohort that had been randomly tested or screened, rather than tested based upon symptom presentation to be valid.

My arguments are based on 3 main elements

KEEPING MEN SAFE

1. men are more vulnerable than women

KEEPING EVERYONE SAFE

2. men engage in more risk taking behaviour and therefore less likely to follow proper safety procedures

3. men are more violent. With social tensions mounting and police forces busy elsewhere it would make sense to keep the class which commits the overwhelming majority of these crimes out of the public sphere where they cannot rob, rape or beat the innocent.

presumably you, Rufus, have brought yours up to have better manners

Ds2 especially is very very (almost weirdly) polite

On that note: an interesting paradox: should the overweight (of all bents) be imprisoned at home or should they be allowed (or even forced) to go outside for exercise if it contributes to them losing weight?

Well quite.

So we now have to shut away all men, anyone aged 21 - 40, overweight women plus everyone aged over 70 and of course all those who are shielding.

Well, sounds like you've really thought this out op - hmm hmm