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?

Damn, that's a very scared 18 year old! I'm glad she's on the mend.

It's an interesting idea to bat about

Yes...

Damn, that's a very scared 18 year old! I'm glad she's on the mend

Thanks

Sending flowers I hope she is mending well

Thank you DJ

I can't believe, on a feminism board, the OP is advoctating women skivvying around after men, doing their shopping.

Alll the while ignoring the fact that men are being told to stay at home currently.

I think the other problem with the amateur statistics is that, if for example a healthy 30year old man is 3 times (or whatever) times more likely to die if he gets it than a healthy woman the same age, a 3x increase on a tiny risk is still a small risk and he is still at less risk than a 69 year old woman who’s basic risk is much higher than his to begin with.

Also, looking at onward transmission to the most at risk groups, women are over represented in nursing and caring, so should they stay at home to avoid catching it to pass forward to others more likely to die from it?

Answer comes back to shield the vulnerable, social distancing for everyone else until we can work out a better way of doing this.

I agree lippy. Then when the men have got used to being confined, we can give some exams on responsible penis use before they are allowed out. Or if that's going too far, a curfew.

I think it's quite hilarious how outraged some people are at the suggestion that men, as they are more vulnerable, should have more restrictions.

I'm not outraged, it's a great idea. Let's do it.

I am rather surprised that you're happy to make women run around and put themselves at risk in order to protect men though

Thing is hooves the virus isn't going to be dealt with until a majority have been infected (or we get a vaccine). It's better for that majority to come from low risk groups as they are less likely to die.
Governments around the world have been clear that lock downs are to prevent health services being overwhelmed, not to try to eradicate the virus.

I'm as happy to run around and put myself at risk for men as I am for the elderly or other vulnerable people. Why wouldn't I be?

I completely understand that this isn't going anywhere for a very long time.

That's why I think it's great that all of the vulnerable groups will be kept safe. Of course that means that it falls to all of the non vulnerable women to do all of the jobs and all of the running around for the entire vulnerable group, which will be very hard on them, but it's a great idea. Let me know where we can sign up and it's so good of you to volunteer to do it.

The data do not indicate that men are more or less at risk of catching it, so there is no reason to think men are more or less likely to infect anyone else with it.

If men get it badly they are more likely to die of it, but that is not relevant to whether or not they will catch it or be infectious.

I think this thread is in poor taste and was not started with the best of intentions.

If men get it badly they are more likely to die of it, but that is not relevant to whether or not they will catch it or be infectious.
Yes, so men catching it are more likely to be hospitalized.

The majority do not need to get infected. Even with our very lax government it is estimated only 10% of the population have had it. We do need a vaccine.
Also someone earlier said we already ignore seasonal flu. That is not true. We have an expensive annual vaccination programme for flu with reminders sent to those who need one. Flu is endemic in our population so we now can't eradicate it, but we certainly do not ignore it.

"If men get it badly they are more likely to die of it, but that is not relevant to whether or not they will catch it or be infectious."
Yes, so men catching it are more likely to be hospitalized.
That doesn't follow from that premise; more men may (do) die, but more women may be hospitalised and recover than men, with the same number of each sex having been hospitalised.

Incidentally, a figure or two from www.businessinsider.com/men-women-coronavirus-death-rates-by-country-worldwide-health-habits-2020-4?op=1&r=US&IR=T

Percentage of deaths in various countries divided male/female
Italy: 68/32
China: 64/36
Spain: 63/37
Germany: 63/37
Australia: 60/40
Sweden: 60/40
Iran: 59/41
Canada: 56/44
S Korea: 53/.47

But this is not percentages of each sex who are infectious, or who have had or who have the disease, or who have been, are or will be hospitalised.

The report here shows 72% of hospitalizations in the UK were males (www.icnarc.org/Our-Audit/Audits/Cmp/Reports)
So nice try, but men are more vulnerable, more likely to need hospitalization and more likely to die.

Women are regularly told not to be out after dark, not to walk alone etc to minimise risks to us. But we can't discuss or suggests increased risk to males. Why is that?

Of course we can discuss shielding men. It's a great idea. Let's do it.

What you seem to be refusing to acknowledge is that in shielding men you are forcing women to take all the risk and do all the work.

You seem to view shielding men as being a punishment for men of something but it isn't is it? Who is going to be affected in men are all sitting in doors? You'll have to have any non vulnerable women doing everything, all the jobs that can't be done from home, all the shopping, delivering medicines etc.

Sounds like an own goal to me but crack on.

Weird thing to be suggesting - shield and protect men at the expense of women. Are you sure you're on the right board?

I'm as happy to run around and put myself at risk for men as I am for the elderly or other vulnerable people. Why wouldn't I be?

As I said before. It's not at protecting men at the expense of women. It's me taking actions to protect a vulnerable group of humans, which is why we are all following lock down rules at the moment.

I'm a feminist because I want women to be valued as humans equal to men. Not because I want to punish men or I resent them.

I'm a feminist because I want women to be valued as humans equal to men. Not because I want to punish men or I resent them

I think some people struggle with this, the man hating trope is very strong

There was a thread on here recently saying that less women fo to hospital

I’ll see if i can find it as i may have got that wrong

But you are punishing women by doing this.

How does that work? You don't think it's punishing women to make them shop for households that are men only or a couple where the woman can't shop, plus all households of vulnerable women, plus do all of the jobs currently done by men, whilst all men stay at home on full pay?

Got it

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3874353-Covid-19-sex-based-differences-and-inequality

Let me get this clear. You are suggesting

All men are shielded
All vulnerable women shielded

So, all other women must run all services, provide every household with food and necessities? Is that right?

No, I'm suggesting that being male is considered a risk factor for shielding, probably in combination with things like age, weight, possibly ethnicity.

The government are considering "enhanced shielding" for vulnerable groups, why wouldn't you consider biological sex if that is shown to be a risk factor?