Men and coronavirus

[QuentinWinters]

Young men more likely to break lockdown
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52587368

Men in all age groups more likely to be severely impacted and die.

Maybe it is time for male specific restrictions?

Thats interesting, I would have assumed it was linked to risk taking behaviour, or defiance.

Maybe it is time for male specific restrictions?

How's that going to work?

Not surprising. Women in general are more fearful.
Women on mn terrified of the virus, living in fear, disinfecting theings coming into the house.
I've never heard men talk like that.
Women are conditioned to be fearful their entire lives, men are not.
Plus, men in the 19-25 age group are the biggest risk takers.

Linked to depression and other MH issues as the article says. Not sure why you left that out of the OP.

You know the chances of surviving are more than 99.96%

Good for them.

Frightening if Covid Derangement Syndrome has even reached this board.

Women on mn terrified of the virus, living in fear, disinfecting theings coming into the house
I've never heard men talk like that

I haven't heard anyone in real life talk like that. It never occurred to me to disinfect things coming into the house or put parcels in isolation before opening them.

It's just really odd that you've used the fact men are more likely to die of CV (still a tiny risk unless aged over 70) and an article saying men aged 19-24 (extremely, tiny, tiny of risk of death from CV) as justification for male-specific restrictions.

It just doesn't make very much sense.

Men aged 19-24 breaking lockdown it should say.

I understand the terror that so many people must feel - I suspect that the whole country is experiencing unprecedented levels of anxiety and fear. But I have to stay away from the batshit paranoid threads for my own sanity. But I am following this thread which regularly makes me chuckle:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/3897293-Dementors-can-dement-but-well-keep-it-positive-here?msgid=96202779#96202779

And back to the OP: There's a great pleasure in seeing the BBC, the Guardian and all the other uber woke sources of so much drivel and mangling language about sex being forced into using clear accurate sex based language.

Young men more likely to break lockdown

I saw that story. It was just after the "water is wet" one and after "fire is hot" one.

Surely we didn't need a study to tell us that if we take the concept of dangerous behaviour, and overlay it onto a graph of age and sex, then young men would be most likely to engage in risky behaviour ?

Men aged 19-24 breaking lockdown it should say.

Even better, half of men aged 19-24 and a quarter of women.

I haven't heard anyone in real life talk like that. It never occurred to me to disinfect things coming into the house or put parcels in isolation before opening them.

Neither have I, but to a lot of people on mn, you are absolutely insane with a death wish if you don't.

My DD went for a walk yesterday and came back 4 hours later having snogged a boy! I just can’t get angry about it really.

I'd be making her quarantine for two weeks.

Yeah am liking the dementors thread

I'm not scared. Just logical.
I have several friends in the shielded group having a very hard time because they can't go out etc. Have thought for ages they should advise men over 50 to shield because of the increased risk to those men, in the same way asthmatics or immune suppresses people are advised to.

Now there is some evidence that men are also less likely to comply with restrictions. Which I expected but it's good to see evidence.

Odd timing for the article really - at the moment we're on the cusp of moving on from scaring people to ensure they respect the lockdown to reassuring them that the easing of lockdown restrictions is perfectly safe.

It would be interesting to see a wider range of age groups interviewed. For example, women/girls aged 13-18 were essentially as likely as men/boys aged 13-18 to comply (and both groups were more likely than women aged 19-24). The breakdown for older individuals (i.e. those at much greater risk) could show some interesting trends, especially towards the 60+ range, where the sex-based mortality risk shows its teeth.

The question used for the headline is rather broad (it specifies friends and extended family) so it would also have been useful to see a breakdown between social visits and providing assistance. This is somewhat explored in another question: women in the upper age group were much less likely to provide care to an elderly relative than men.

How's that going to work?

Presumably, all the rule breakers will start following the rules if they more specifically apply to them.

Maybe they should instruct men over 50 to shield. Still no one able to explain the impact on society of all of those men lost from jobs that we rely on though.

Maybe they should instruct men over 50 to shield.

In March, the death rate for men aged 50-54 was 21/100k compared to women at 12.5/100k but that jumps to 26.4/100k for women aged 55-59. Some argument could be made for lowering the age threshold for men to 65 from 70 but, below that, it's more dangerous to be a woman aged 70-74 than a man aged 60-64. It's almost like the current guidance is reasonably scientifically sound. I hate to think where the mind of someone who advocates for confining all men at home might go if they saw the socioeconomically adjusted racial death rates.

Just goes to show how ridiculous these threads are though doesn't it?

Just goes to show how ridiculous these threads are though doesn't it?

I think they're a great learning tool to illustrate confirmation bias.

Somewhat related, I've been filling in the 'zoe' app for corona symptoms for the pst few weeks.

Yesterday I got an extra two questions, asking me if I have or have ever had periods, and if I take hormones of any kind.

Is this someone trying desperately to correct their earlier bollocks 'what gender do yOu fEel BeSt desCribes your Inner Essence for our Science Project??!', I wonder?

No. They're looking at the effects of oestrogen and progesterone and whether they might have a protective effect. So, trans women taking them might well enjoy the protective effects too, whereas I guess post menopausal women might have lost their effects. They're trying to pin point risk factors and protective factors so need as much specific information as they can get. Just telling them your sex doesn't give that detailed information about hormones.