Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 1001 posts

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#131

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

reaperducer wrote: post #118
stagger87 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do essential workers all have to be valued on an equal basis as firefighters, doctors, etc? How are you measuring value?

Why do essential workers all have to be valued on an equal basis as firefighters, doctors, etc? Because that's what the word "essential" means: Things you can't do without. Not "things I really really really like." How are you measuring value? People who save lives > people who don't save lives.

That's a reasonable definition of "essential", but at least in the US the term isn't used this way. Takeout restaurants, Starbucks, etc. have always remained open as "essential businesses".

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#132

Post by closeparen »

adolph wrote: post #14

Unlike actual prohibition, the social agreement behind "lockdowns" is subject to time contingencies. The activities considered "essential" grow as time passes. While there are nominal categories of "essential" defined by community/political leaders, that contract depends on agreement. Since each person's conception of "essential" is different, as time passes "essential" grows exponentially instead of linearly.

Essential depends on your goal. “Minimize disease at all costs until the vaccine arrives” is different from “intercept this acute spike” is different from “find a new normal we can live with for the long haul.”

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#133

Post by ls612 »

komali2 wrote: post #104
ls612 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This same argument can be made about any infectious disease season. The only difference is a matter of degree. This virus is probably ~5 times as bad as the flu so we should spend ~5 times as much to mitigate the externalities. Not ~500 times as much like we have. I fear that after this every time there's a bad flu season we will see this same shit again because "think of the most vulnerable among us, you're literall…

Are you only comparing death rates? My coworker has been told he may never taste or smell again as he "recovers" from covid. There's evidence that COVID survivors might have long term heart conditions https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas... Think of the most vulnerable among us. You are killing them.

There are rare long-term side effects from many infectious viruses. Anyone who gets pneumonia from anything will be down for the count for a while, but they'll get better, and that isn't unique to this virus. And myocarditis (the heart inflammation people are talking about) is a side effect of all sorts of viral and even bacterial infections (wikipedia lists basically every common human virus as a cause), it will normally get better on its own, although in rare cases it can cause issues.

None of this is new! This coronavirus is a novel coronavirus, not a magical one. It has effects that are in line with other viral illnesses in humans. It's just a bit more virulent than them. It's a matter of quantitative difference, not qualitative difference.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#134

Post by parliament32 »

Ansil849 wrote: post #117
parliament32 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are doing exactly zero of those things, because of prohibition. That's the whole point of the article -- if you prohibit something, it'll happen anyway but quality will go down. A much better approach would be to require the things you mentioned (like my area did) by law instead of a blanket ban.

Yes, I agree. Which area are you in which does this? It would be a good counterpoint article.

BC, Canada. Details: https://www.worksafebc.com/en/about-us/covid-19-updates/covi...

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#135

Post by hammock »

MiroF wrote: post #120
hammock wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Downvoting because it's none of your business. Honest question - and if you choose to downvote me I'd ask you extend me the same courtesy you asked for - how is a gymgoer endangering you, if you are staying 6ft from all others, wearing a mask, washing your hands and not touching your face?

How is a reckless driver endangering you, if you are driving safely?

Off topic, and there are some who would argue reckless driving or even drunk driving is a victimless crime. The victimization occurs when (or if, since the vast majority of intoxicated driving incidents result in no damage) actual damage is caused to person or property.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#136

Post by liability »

komali2 wrote: post #104
ls612 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This same argument can be made about any infectious disease season. The only difference is a matter of degree. This virus is probably ~5 times as bad as the flu so we should spend ~5 times as much to mitigate the externalities. Not ~500 times as much like we have. I fear that after this every time there's a bad flu season we will see this same shit again because "think of the most vulnerable among us, you're literall…

Are you only comparing death rates? My coworker has been told he may never taste or smell again as he "recovers" from covid. There's evidence that COVID survivors might have long term heart conditions https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas... Think of the most vulnerable among us. You are killing them.

Any flu that clogs your lungs and gives you a fever can give you long term lung or neurological damage. I've seen little to nothing that suggests covid is uniquely dangerous in this regard.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#137

Post by cowboysauce »

grugagag wrote: post #85

I see a lot of outdoor gyms in parks and what not. Outdoors is not only safer but also more pleasant. And if it rains a bit running through the rain will give an extra feat you don’t find in regular gyms. Ok, kidding about the rain but I prefer doing my workouts outside the gym when the weather permits. Calistenics aka exercises with the weight of your body are quite efficient and don’t make one look like an ogre

>Outdoors is not only safer but also more pleasant.

Speak for yourself. I live in a hot and humid place and exercising outside is incredibly unpleasant. It's 10 times worse if you're standing in direct sunlight.

>Calistenics aka exercises with the weight of your body are quite efficient and don’t make one look like an ogre

What if I want to look like an ogre?

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#138

Post by DoofusOfDeath »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #102
DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #31

Did the "shutdown normal gym" mean that patrons would be violating whatever policies forced the gym to shutdown in the first place? If so, that really bothers me. Any excess contagion would endanger everyone, not just the gym users. Please consider reporting the details to the appropriate authorities. EDIT: If someone is inclined to downvote this comment, I'd be very grateful for a clarification why (comment or DM).…

on HN it is common practice to downvote when you do not agree with someone, but don't have any new information to add that is worthy of a comment. So basically don't worry about votes. If you start getting flagged that is a different story.

I appreciate the advice! I've made peace with HN's unexplained downvotes in general. Still, I'm trying hard to improve my communication style, so any feedback I can get regarding bad/good tone in my comments is super helpful.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#139

Post by matz1 »

strbean wrote: post #81
hammock wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Downvoting because it's none of your business. Honest question - and if you choose to downvote me I'd ask you extend me the same courtesy you asked for - how is a gymgoer endangering you, if you are staying 6ft from all others, wearing a mask, washing your hands and not touching your face?

> how is a gymgoer endangering you Perhaps they are an essential worker, and don't have the option to stay at home? Perhaps they have medical issues that leave them immunocompromised and may require hospitalization, putting them at a high risk of death from exposure to COVID patients? Perhaps they are unemployed or at risk of unemployment due to pandemic restrictions, and the irresponsible behavior of people who are…

All of these risk exist in the past with flu and other diseases, should we then always shutdown ?

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#140

Post by qppo »

iancmceachern wrote: post #77

I saw an engineering services company I know of post a new job position for a "care coordinator" to babysit their employees kids, at work, while the employees work. My first thought was, isn't that a daycare? How is it different in the eyes of the law? Edited- spelling

Since about April I've seen a daycare go on a daily walk with the kids every morning and 3-4 adults supervising them.
Post reply on HN