[Goosee]

Bumble has been great to use as a college student, especially during covid.

I know a lot of you are married so let me put this out here: I (and most young people) will not put their romantic life on pause cause of a virus. Every dating app got an influx of people due to bordem from lockdowns.

I'm biased towards (investing in) bumble because it has anecdotally acted as the best dating 'middleman' compared to tinder/hinge. I've had only great experiences taking bumble girls on dates.

Compared to tinder, bumble has more serious people looking to date. The system is set up so girls message first and matches will expire after 24 hr. When a girl messages you first, she is already more invested in getting to you know than when a guy using a cheesy pickup line on tinder.

I've always loved the philosophy bumble took to the dating scene compared to the apps part of $MTCH.

[verst]

> Compared to tinder, bumble has more serious people looking to date. The system is set up so girls message first and matches will expire after 24 hr. When a girl messages you first, she is already more invested in getting to you know than when a guy using a cheesy pickup line on tinder.

This is an overly optimistic take that I cannot confirm.

The first messages received on Bumble are either "hey/hi" or a GIF that is typically a waving bear with the word "hello". That is despite profile text and images with dozens of things that could spark a conversation or question. In fact, most people never read my thoughtfully crafted profile - there certainly is no investment in getting to know me. Instead my reply is expected to be creative/funny or the conversation will end, essentially making this conversation no different from Tinder. In my experience the typical Bumble user in major metro areas wants to date, but not with long term in mind. If that isn't important to you, fair enough. As an aside, I also find that Bumble has less diversity than other apps - racially, socioeconomically etc

Given Tinder and Bumble I vastly preferred Tinder. Tinder has far more users of every kind of background with every imaginable kind of intention. The key is to be intentional in your profile or your first messages about what you are looking for and move on if it is a mismatch. I know how to identify a Tinder profile that is a good mutual match for me, but I definitely will get tendonitis from swiping left in the process of locating such a profile. If you save your free daily super like for that person and assuming you are introspective enough to accurately assess whether this person will be interested in you you have a high chance of being seen and matching.

If you would like to date seriously without it feeling forced or desperate I highly recommend Coffee Meets Bagel (if you are in an area where this app is being used). It never takes me long to find someone wonderful there that makes me want to quit all apps.

In my experience, no matter what you are looking for, Bumble isn't your best choice for any of those things.

[nikanj]

Their whole pitch is "Tinder, except women get to make the moves". Alas, it seems the most popular play for women is punting the ball back to the men's side of the field.

[elliekelly]

And what do you think the most popular opening message from men is? In my experience it’s usually some version of “hey”, “hi”, “hello” if you’re lucky. Or something slightly more creative but crass/disgusting if you’re not.

I don’t think it’s fair to characterize it as “women punting the ball back” so much as it’s just not usually worth the effort for a lot of people — no matter their gender — to think of something more original to say.

I don’t know why people complain about it though. It seems like the perfect way to really stand out in the crowd. Everyone wants to be recognized as a unique individual and when your inbox is full of “hey” all the way down then a message from someone who took the time to get to know you a bit is definitely going to be opened and replied to more often.

[mikevm]

Women tend to write things like "be more original than saying hi" or "I don't respond to 'hi'", but when the shoe is on the other foot, they send a "hi" anyway.

[raverbashing]

Men answer like this because of bots/spammers. Nobody is going to message something serious first

And every conversation starts with a hello. Sure, if it gets boring after then it's a diff issue

[stouset]

Men answer like this for the same reason women do: it requires essentially no effort.

Bots are generally easy to spot. Coming up with something at least semi-relevant the person’s profile is not much harder than a “hey” for the type of person who shows enough personality on their profile to be interesting in the first place.

Your success rate will easily shoot up 5x from the baseline of “hey” by saying something even remotely interesting.

[raverbashing]

Women could also answer first, if they were interested

[conformist]

Yes, but the slightly increased effort for the woman still adds value in my experience, due to the weird asymmetries in average (western?) human behaviour. The male user can assume that she is at least somewhat interested and he doesn't need to come up with a spammy/funny line to elicit interest.

[exolymph]

Women on dating sites are looking for reasons to disqualify prospects because there are too many. Men are in the opposite situation.

[oxygenjoe]

In 2017 when I was single I got vastly more matches and responses when I changed my bio from actual information to a stupid joke about phil collins

[randycupertino]

Geeze man, you can't post this and then not tell us the Phil Collins joke!

[volkk]

yep. me too. i think it's a demographic thing, but i remember when i stopped taking it seriously is when i had the utmost success. i guess that's just the moral of living in general

[verst]

Dating styles are very informed by upbringing and culture. For example with my German upbringing but living in the US I am very long term oriented and do not shy away from addressing serious topics early. While this is considered "very intense" in the US, it is very common in many other countries.

If your goal is dating to establish a healthy romantic relationship then number of matches isn't what you want to optimize:

Accept who you are, how you think and feel. No need to hide the real you. No need to please the masses. You can find people who will appreciate you the way you are. And I can't emphasize this enough: *Respect the other person* - everyone is equally looking for (and entitled to find) what is right for them.

With experience it gets easier to quickly identify people who think and feel like you, who share similar values and lifestyle.

[stephencanon]

Vastly more matches, but what was the quality of the matches? Dating is weird in that lots of matches is an anti-feature (at least for some users, I wouldn’t know, I’ve been married for a decade and never really online dated)—-one _good_ match is much more valuable than any arbitrary number of less good matches.

[pjm331]

Here’s my anecdata: met my wife on bumble and my profile was a paragraph of lorem ipsum.

IMO no one likes writing dating app bios and no one likes reading them. People are gonna match based on looks anyway. You’ll learn about someone on the date, not by reading some painstakingly crafted autobiography

[giovannibonetti]

On the other hand, I met my wife on Tinder and she said I stood above the crowd because of my well-crafted message "look, someone that knows how to write well!"

[baccheion]

Maybe you are seen as more attractive by women? I don't really get any matches, something said to be a common situation. Unsure if true.

[actuator]

Surprising. Out of the three you mentioned I like Hinge to be the neatest one in terms of idea, although the worst app out of the three. The prompt/photo comments approach allows for a better conversation starter than bios IMO. Also, being able to see who is liking you by default is much better.

Way back when I used Bumble, a lot of girls used to drop 'Hi!'(double standards), and never bothered to reply to my reply which felt very annoying to say the least.

I would wish every dating app to add a simple feature, if the other person is active on the dating app and isn't responding to you, just unmatch the pair say after two/three days of the last message. I don't understand what's the purpose of just being a name/chat on someone's list.

[ralston3]

> just unmatch the pair say after three days of the last message.

This is a good point. However, some women (due to men spamming them) don't have notifications turned on, so genuinely don't get around to seeing a message until they have time to sit down and scroll through the pile

Also (as I'm sure you know), anything that can be used as a "measure of cool" will be used as just that. And having a huge list of matches can be a huge self-esteem boost to some.

I agree with your point though. It can be tiresome to have to periodically clean out matches every so often

[actuator]

> However, some women (due to men spamming them) don't have notifications turned on

That's why I wrote "if the other person is active on the dating app and isn't responding to you, just unmatch the pair say after"

> anything that can be used as a "measure of cool" will be used as just that.

Agreed. I have been guilty of this as well, though I also do realize that it is still a human being at the other end and giving a closure by unmatching is much better than leaving it hanging.

> It can be tiresome to have to periodically clean out matches every so often

I think more than cleaning out the matches, if you were interested in someone and were having a conversation with them and suddenly they disappear, you don't know if that's just because of being busy. The delay might be just anxiousness for the other person.

[Goosee]

Yeah the two things I liked about using hinge: 1. You can comment&like a pic/prompt that the other person will see 2. Girls can 'invite you' to initiate the conversation

Ultimately the types of girls to use bumble in my college, home town, and when traveling aligned with the types of girls I like. I know hinge is super popular in major cities like LA/NYC. But in the suburbs of SoCal 90%ish of hinge girls seemed socially awkward and I did not find their pics/writing prompts attractive.

Yeah girls do tend to drop 'hi! :)' on bumble. You just have to be clever when responding to it. I treat it as she is signaling me to make the 'opening move' which sets the tone of the whole conversation.

You can always unmatch (on any dating app) if the conversation stales. At least bumble unmatches if the guy does not respond to the girl in 24 hours.

[neurobashing]

> I know a lot of you are married so let me put this out here: I (and most young people) will not put their romantic life on pause cause of a virus.

I'm Gen X, I came of age the last time there was a virus going around that had potentially lethal repercussions if you got it.

We didn't stop dating. We took reasonable precautions. To be blunt, you didn't raw-dog someone you just met.

Only fools expect you to abstain for years. Only fools look at a person and think "well they _look_ healthy, I'm probably OK."

[Goosee]

Exactly, thank you for this. I should have been more clear. I view this as risk vs reward. I minimize unnecessary interactions so I can for example, go on a date and not be worried.

[polote]

> Compared to tinder, bumble has more serious people looking to date

Not really true, Bumble engages in less shitty behavior than Tinder, so they don't prevent you to match with the people who are compatible with you basically. Which is more likely to create a serious relationships. But the 24hr thing for matching doesnt work anymore, that just eliminates girls who only want more followers on insta.

But yeah overall the app works better than Tinder, because Tinder needs to capture as much money as possible from their user to be the most profitable as possible. Bumble doesn't have to, at least it didnt have to, now that they become public, they will become as bad

[adventurer]

Tinder is riddled with spam accounts for Insta and Snap. If you swipe through the women available you can then see the new accounts hitting the area. A lot of them are created in the middle of the night. Bio to Insta or being a FWB with a Snap account. The app stores should hold Match responsible for allowing them to lure dumb, lonely guys into fraud.

[bogomipz]

>"Not really true, Bumble engages in less shitty behavior than Tinder, so they don't prevent you to match with the people who are compatible with you basically."

Can you elaborate on this? What is Tinder doing in this respect? How does preventing matching compatible people allow them to capture more profit?

[polote]

The more a user match with compatible people the more likely they will settle in an exclusive relationship, and thus quit Tinder, and thus quit being a paying customer.

So if you want more recurring paying customers, prevent them to meet with compatible people ;)

What they do ? Show you attractive girls but don't show your profile to them. Keep a 90/10 ratio of men to women on the app. Make you feel like there is an endless list of people to meet and all better than others. Tell you you have 99+ waiting likes (when in fact thats only the girls who liked you but you didnt like). Dont limit the number of guys that a girls can match. Dont delete matches that are inactive (push you to collect matches). Almost force you to choose a long term membership instead of a month, ...

[bogomipz]

Wow, that's pretty rotten. So has Bumble taken the opposite approach that although they will lose customer who have successfully met someone on the app those same people are also likely to recommend Bumble?

[tristor]

I haven't been in the dating market for over 3 years, since I met my girlfriend on Coffee Meets Bagel, but I used a lot of different dating apps prior and in numerous cities around the world. My experience was that Bumble was exactly like Tinder, except that on Bumble I had a lower match rate, but a slightly higher rate of matches resulting in an actual conversation. I found no difference whatsoever in the "seriousness" of the people involved. Most people were using Bumble for hookups.

Maybe that's changed, but I honestly believe the only dating app currently available that's actually worth using if you want a relationship and not a hookup is Coffee Meets Bagel. I had more and higher quality dates, including meeting my now 3+ year girlfriend, on CMB than any other app.

[ryanlol]

Tinder on the other hand has been completely ruined in big cities thanks to this free “tinder passport” thing.

Browsing Tinder in Westminster with the search distance set to the lowest possible, half the people you see are 1000s of miles away.

[tomc1985]

What is even the point of tinder passport?

Unless you're ready to hop on a plane and go fuck your match halfway across the world why even bother? Is it for all the people hoping to hook up when they arrive at their vacation spot?

[WildGreenLeave]

I matched with a girl and am dating her. She lives in Amsterdam while I am on the other side of the country. Why? Because I am planning on moving there so why would I try to find a relationship at my current location.

Furthermore, I've used it plenty of times before traveling to set it to a country where I will be going. I am very clear about not wanting a hookup and just meet up with locals and that has been working quite well.

Not everything is about having a hookup.

[vmception]

For reference for anyone else, the farthest extreme of the mainland Netherlands from Amsterdam is 130 miles away, a 2 hour drive.

[randycupertino]

Per my single friend, there's a lot of people on there looking to cheat on their partners while they business travel. She's gotten so many hits from men visiting SF on business trips claiming to live there full time and/or be single and then sees their families on facebook. Kind of soured her on online dating.

[mandeepj]

> What is even the point of tinder passport?

Maybe long distance is not your thing. Some people have bigger intentions than just fucking on a first date.

[leetcrew]

okay, but that still raises the question of why you would go out of your way to match with people that will be inconvenient to meet in person. there are plenty of people where you live to chat with and not fuck on the first date.

[nikanj]

At least on my Tinder:

1) A small number of desperate people in poor countries trying to score a way out. Marriage is one of the rare ways for unskilled people from the 3rd world to get legal residence in the 1st world

2) Tons and tons of crypto scammers. So many crypto scammers. "I'm actually in Hong Kong right now. I made tons of money investing in $ponzi, and now I'm a free agent. You should make an account too, then we can travel together!"

[wolfretcrap]

Online dating has never worked for me. In a month i got 3 matches out of which 2 were looking for just friends and needless to say there was no relationship potential there.

After this I gave up and just accepted the fact I might be sooo ugly to get any matches on online dating websites.

And I don't approach women in real life either now because honestly if there's no common courtesy online and then I get no interest, in real life people just giving me response out of courtesy.

[ChrisIsTaken]

Unsolicited life advice:

People in middle age that choose to travel solo are open minded, a bit lonely, and are completely dissatisfied with all of the "normal" social bullshit.

[leetcrew]

it seems that as a man, online dating just doesn't work well unless you're very attractive and/or good at putting together an attractive set of photos (not the same thing!).

don't let that put you off talking to new people IRL though. dating sites tend to give you an unrealistically low impression of your attractiveness. before the pandemic, I used to go out to local bars a few times a month for dinner and a drink. I was mostly focused on eating, but more often than not whoever was sitting nearby would start a conversation with me, some of them very attractive women who I'm sure would have swiped left on me without a moment's hesitation.

keep in mind, all dating failures stem from one or both of the following: unreasonable expectations and simply not talking to enough new people. both are within your power to change.

[chrisseaton]

> but more often than not whoever was sitting nearby would start a conversation with me, some of them very attractive women who I'm sure would have swiped left on me without a moment's hesitation

I don't think these are the same thing. Swiping right is expressing a positive attraction and intent to go out for a date. Having a conversation in a bar is just... having a conversation. People do that with anyone and everyone. It doesn't mean any attraction at all.

[vegannet]

I agree wholeheartedly that Bumble is the dating app for relationships — and it’s the app I recommend! — but from a financials perspective: casual dating is much more profitable, Bumble will always be far behind Tinder on revenue — so as much as I love Bumble, I’d question the room for revenue growth it has vs. tinder.

[snarf21]

Bumble will be bought by PE and sold to MATCH. Anyone want to take that wager?

[tempsy]

lol it was already bought by PE and now going public

Blackstone owns it.

[polote]

If this legally possible, that will happen 100%, the match group business is to buy any significant competitor, and they tried in the past to buy Bumble.

[mandeepj]

> the match group business is to buy any significant competitor, and they tried in the past to buy Bumble.

Bumble founder was an executive at Match group. She was sexually assaulted. Why she would sell it to them - only to go back to a horror show?

[smnrchrds]

Will the founder maintain a voting majority in the enterprise after it goes public? If not, she won't be able to prevent it, no matter how much she is against it.

[e15ctr0n]

There was a reality TV show on Netflix where people were looking to matchmakers to help them find someone to marry. The only participant who did end up getting married found her guy through Bumble.

[llampx]

You're taking that as data? A reality show?

[jxramos]

This is pretty fascinating, girls message first, girls take the initiative. Sort of changes the incentives for the guys to up their game and present a really solid profile or whatever and take silence as their feedback without dragging others into the mix having to be silent. Like the difference between targeted silence and anonymous silence. This just might work, apparently it does.

[jariel]

There's no reason ladies can't message first on Tinder.

The mechanism is still there.

[kjakm]

>> I know a lot of you are married so let me put this out here: I (and most young people) will not put their romantic life on pause cause of a virus.

Most people I know have put their dating lives on hold. Not all of course, but most. It’s like any of the rules people have been asked to follow during the past year: most people have followed them, it’s only a selfish minority that have not.

Edit: My point is not to excuse shitty behaviour by pretending everyone else is doing it. Consider the world doesn't revolve around you and that occasionally people need to work together for the greater good, each making a variety of sacrifices.

[actuator]

Although I agree with the sentiment, it is harsh to say this.

I am in my 20s as well and can see where he is coming from. I have not gone out on dates this past year and it feels bad. 20s are the prime dating years, it feels like a year was taken out where I aged but my life hasn't moved.

To make things worse, the whole staying at your home thing has made the desire of having a relationship even more strong as the alone periods do hit you hard.

Though to put things in perspective, a lot of people had it way worse than just their dating life/travel being disrupted.

[kjakm]

I understand - I'm also in my 20's. It sucks. A lot. But we're not the only people having to sacrifice and hopefully things get back to normal soon! It's tough but I don't think anyone will regret doing the right thing and hopefully we'll appreciate life a bit more afterwards.

[actuator]

Yeah, I agree. I think we are going to see changes in dating attitudes after this. At least in my circle of friends and extended circle, I have seen the desire for serious relationships go stronger in this period. Also, the appreciation for family for those who were able to live with them.

[philsnow]

> 20s are the prime dating years, it feels like a year was taken out where I aged but my life hasn't moved.

So yeah there are people who are choosing to go on dates, gather, party, etc. Those people are very visible. I get it, there can be FOMO. Why should you sacrifice when they're having fun?

Does it help to consider that there are lots of people (dare I say a majority) your age who are making the same sacrifice you are? If/when things return to the old normal, you'll have some sense of solidarity and shared maturity with them. Selflessness is a good quality in a potential spouse.

(Of course, unlike the "I voted" sticker, there's no "I stayed home" sticker, so in two years you're not going to be able to tell who did what now.)

> To make things worse, the whole staying at your home thing has made the desire of having a relationship even more strong as the alone periods do hit you hard.

I get this. My wife passed away 9 months before the pandemic hit full swing and I'm lonely af. I don't get to see adult friends really at all anymore.

> Though to put things in perspective, a lot of people had it way worse than just their dating life/travel being disrupted.

Exactly this. Every time you choose not to go to a party or whatever, you could be averting the death of a family member (yours or a friend's, or friend-of-friend's, etc).

[scarmig]

The issue as I see it is that a kind of social contract has been broken. The government executing a real quarantine for two months would be totally reasonable: everyone would have been back to relative normality long ago. But few governments committed to that: moreover, the most vociferous opponents of real lockdowns weren't the young, but the relatively old.

And so we've pretty much burned a year of life for everyone. I know many, many people for whom 2020 has been the worst year of their life, in large part due to the lockdown. The people who have suffered least are the people who are basically at home anyway; professionals established enough in their careers to thrive during WFH; the already coupled; and those with kids. Although inconvenienced, they can still progress with their lives. But for many singles in their 20s or 30s, this has been a lost year. And that's very costly: particularly if you want to raise a family, losing a year or more of dating and socialization from your late 20s or 30s is incredibly damaging to those chances.

[philsnow]

I'm right there with you: completely, impotently furious at the lost year my school-age children have had, at the hands of selfish extroverts who just can't stay away from each other and gutless, toothless politicians.

> The people who have suffered least are the people who are basically at home anyway [...] and those with kids.

hol up. Not to downplay what you're saying (I personally know it can be tough wondering whether you're going to find somebody to spend the rest of your life with), but do you think raising kids is easy?

After this is all done, the world is going to be split between people who spent lockdown with one or more 2- to 4-year-olds, and those who have their sanity.

[scarmig]

> Not to downplay what you're saying (I personally know it can be tough wondering whether you're going to find somebody to spend the rest of your life with), but do you think raising kids is easy?

A year wasted versus a year spent raising a kid. For the latter, you'd be raising them anyhow regardless of quarantine. That's not to say juggling WFH and being around your kids 24/7 isn't difficult--I'm sure it is--but at the end of it, your year was spent on something meaningful. It's analogous to spending a year at a shitty intensive 80 hr/week job vs being a NEET living in your parents basement. Neither enviable, but at the end of the day most people would prefer to be the former.

> the world is going to be split between people who spent lockdown with one or more 2- to 4-year-olds, and those who have their sanity.

As opposed to people who spend months on end, devoid of any meaningful social contact at all? Neither situation is ideal, obviously, but at least with one you're accomplishing something.

[satyrnein]

Why would it be damaging to those chances, if everyone in the dating market is in the same boat? I would expect people in their 20s to be just fine. It's single women in their late 30s that could least afford to lose a year.

[shoguning]

It's not selfish to be out and about if you are young and healthy. The recovery rate for 20-30 YO is 99.99%+, and if you are healthy it's likely higher[1].

It's on the same order of risk as driving. Many young people die driving every year, yet we still do it plenty, with reasonable precautions. If you take reasonable precautions, are young and healthy, it is a risk worth taking to many.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0/figures/2

[tedsanders]

We also outlaw speeding because speeding increases the odds that you kill someone else. Catching COVID, even if you recover, increases the odds that you kill someone else through a chain of infections. Remember that R is above 1 in most locations in the world right now. Tens of thousands of people are dying a day right now because not everyone is taking the precautions they have been asked to take. In countries with high compliance, death rates are very low. Mass death is not inevitable.

Note that the OP said it was selfish to be out and about, not against self interest. So your statistic is irrelevant to the point made. Selfish means you're benefiting yourself while harming others. That's exactly what happens if you catch COVID, pass it on, and then recover. You're fine. Others may not be.

[shoguning]

> We also outlaw speeding because speeding increases the odds that you kill someone else.

We could go further and outlaw cars that don't have speed governors. That would save lives. Lower speed limits would save more lives as well. Now we have a balance between freedom and safety.

> Tens of thousands of people are dying a day right now because not everyone is taking the precautions they have been asked to take.

That was true during the flu season of 2018 as well. The excess deaths from COVID are higher, but not orders of magnitude higher (more like 3x) [1]. The response is off the charts, economically and culturally devastating. Not the right balance.

https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps

[tedsanders]

The reason excess deaths are only 3x higher is because of our precautions. If we let it burn through the US, millions would die and the ratio would be more like 100x (30,000 vs 3 million). Obviously depends on some hard-to-model assumptions. Your conclusion might be right, but your argument is terribly misleading.

(Plus, letting it burn through the whole population comes with downside risks of more mutations.)

[shoguning]

> The reason excess deaths are only 3x higher is because of our precautions.

It's a hard case to make. Sweden for example has had less excess death than harsher lockdown countries like Spain & UK.

Lockdowns have done little if anything in US states. New York and Florida have similar stats (worse in NY if anything).

[MereInterest]

From your statistic, I would conclude that it is not self-destructive for young people to be out and about. Whether it is selfish is another matter entirely. Taking an action that is beneficial to oneself, but harmful to others, is typically described as selfish.

Edit: To be fair, the same argument can be made in reverse as well, that it is selfish for older people to insist on universal lockdowns, which primarily benefit themselves. To that, I would argue (1) that death is not the only negative result from covid-19, and (2) that the relative magnitudes of benefits and harms need to be compared.

[usize]

> it’s only a selfish minority that have not.

It's rather entitled and judgey to imply that people who still have some human contact are bad. Assuming the worst of people basically.

[closeparen]

I'm a nonessential worker with no dependents. It would be a slight boon to the receptionist and the Instacart delivery worker, and not much else, if I were to die in my sleep tonight. In the past I would have taken this very seriously. But now I'm feeling something like, "come here and kill me yourself." Selfish? Absolutely. But I don't think this is an entirely terrible development. At some point people have to care about their own well-being.

[semistrict]

From the levels of spread in southern CA it's clear most people are not abiding by the stay-at-home order.

[tomp]

> most people have followed them, it’s only a selfish minority that have not.

Most people who have followed the rules are people who believed fake propaganda. Now even the staunchest supporters of lockdowns, e.g. NYC and Chicago mayors, are coming out against them.

[jnwatson]

I've agreed with most of the societal restrictions so far, but, imposing celebacy on a large subset of the population is a step too far. It is completely and absolutely unrealistic.

Trying to suppress life's prime imperative is always a losing battle.

[timr]

> it’s only a selfish minority that have not.

If there's one ugly thing about the Covid situation that I hope our society reflects on with great remorse in the future, it is this justification for moralizing the private behavior of others. Covid seems to have unleashed the self-righteous scolds of the world in a way that I haven't seen in my lifetime.

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. Catching a virus is not a moral act.

Obviously, people who interact with high-risk individuals should take special precautions. But if I am a healthy young person, live by myself and want to date someone else who is in the same situation, you can take your judgments and go pound sand.

[notJim]

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.

[jedberg]

> 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.

[timr]

> 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?

[jedberg]

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.

[dQw4w9WgXcQ]

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.

[closeparen]

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

[jedberg]

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

[dang]

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

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

[tedsanders]

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-...

[timr]

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.

[realityking]

> 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.

[closeparen]

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....

[closeparen]

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

[fasdf1122]

From my experience, as someone who is very active in the dating scene - almost no guys I know use bumble exclusively or even as their primary dating platform.

Most prefer Tinder/Hinge because it allows them more control over their dates/matches (i.e they can put in more time/work to get more dates) whereas Bumble is more of a passive experience. It's used as more of a "bonus" or "extra".

[tricolon]

I think it's highly dependent on where you are.

This is my experience of the three...

Hinge: I talk to people, and sometimes that leads to a date

Tinder: I talk to people, but no dates happen

Bumble: Nothing happens.

[3327]

So basically you are scoring and now Its covid so you can save the dinner money too!

what is The company worth?

[paul7986]

Per my experience..I agree about Bumble and I'll add Match as the only dating apps worth using! Apps where if both like each other there's a 80 to 90 percent chance you will actually start conversing, getting to know each other, talking offline and going on a date or dates.

In my experience...Facebook Dating is just a like factory in which people aren't seriously looking rather boosting their ego or have a huge list to filter through even if they liked you the conversations doesn't go far(I only continue a conversation if she asks about me too). It's definitely not a dating app to find women who are serious about dating.

Overall during Covid I've had more dates then usual. Women are out there looking and dating at least here in the suburbs/rurual areas of MD and PA; restaurants are open for outside and inside dining.