Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition • Hacker News Board

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#141

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 4:57 PM UTC

juliansimioni wrote: post #130

ReptileMan wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It matters of course how many of how many are reporting that? 1/2 not worth it. 1/1000 - will take my chances. Covid seems to have flipped a switch in people's brains that make every probability 1.

I wouldn't take the 1/1000 chance, but even then. It's not an all or nothing choice. It's more like: - X/1000 chance for people who go to the gym, get sick, lose health permanently, probably infect others - 0/1000 chance of the same if you stay away from the gym and try to do some sort of similar workout at home, even if it's not ideal. Body weight exercises are great by the way Who cares if X is 1 or 999? Why would…

Many people simply aren't willing to indefinitely maintain a lifestyle that would protect them from the coronavirus, so the risk is already priced in. It's distributed over the times that I visit my family, my roommate visits his friends, I go to the cafe, etc.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#142

Post by jimbob21 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 4:57 PM UTC

dfxm12 wrote: post #35

crazygringo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Lift a heavy stone"? That's a joke, right? Barbells and dumbbells are appropriately ergonomic (handles, balance, etc.) and won't ruin your back if you use proper technique. Lifting a heavy stone is a recipe for injuring yourself severely . People need specific indoor gym equipment if they lift, which is a very valid form of exercise. Or, you know, if it's raining or thunderstorming or a humid 100°F outside. And body…

You can't just dismiss the fitness routines people have spent years choosing and refining and getting better at. That's incredibly arrogant. More arrogant than putting other lives at risk because you can't put your routine on hold, or alter it for a bit? No. It isn't. "Lift a heavy stone"? That's a joke, right? No, and it's part of strongman competitions. It's not dangerous if you have the right form and don't overdo…

"More arrogant than putting other lives at risk because you can't put your routine on hold for a bit? No. It isn't."

This is the part I'm confused about. If gyms were open, people who's lives were at risk still wouldn't go to the gym. Only people who didn't care would go. They are consenting to the risk that would inherently come with it. It isn't the type of place that at risk people HAVE to go, so why shouldn't we open it for people that are fine with the consequences? Also, restaurants are all completely open for dine-in in many of the places that gyms have yet to open. How does that make any sense? No one magically stops breathing for the hour+ they're in the restaurant.

I think quarantine should be down to the individual and the rules they'd like to implement on their private property (including their business), but you've probably already gotten that by now.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#143

Post by adolph » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 4:57 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #50

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.

Since each person's conception of "essential" is different There was someone on WGN-TV a few weeks ago lamenting that it was insulting for all of the hairdressers and manicurists and yoga instructors to be called "non-essential." I thought it was more insulting for that person to value the work of hairdressers and manicurists and yoga instructors on an equal basis with firefighters, doctors, paramedics, and actual re…

An irony of the "lockdown" is that all the activities that aren't "essential" are the reasons people have to live. "Essential" covers most of the basics in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In the absence of Maxlow's top line items, why bother with the "essentials?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#144

Post by rootusrootus » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 4:58 PM UTC

Jommi wrote: post #115

juliansimioni wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what would really cause you to lose muscle? Getting a bad (or even mild) case of COVID. I'm an athlete myself so I get it. Working out is important. But people are reporting that they are not back to 100% even _months_ after the primary symptoms of COVID are gone. And health professionals are saying that it's very possible to lose things like lung capacity PERMANENTLY. Honestly that scares me more than the i…

You're just again repeating this same unscientific fearmongering as everyone else. Yes, there are possible outcomes that are absolutely terrible and potentially even permanent! Nobody is debating this. However, what we need to have a real and fact-based discussion is that how prevalent these outcomes are, what are they based on, and what groups are most affected. Then we as a society can come together and choose what…

Something I've learned, which I definitely did not know before covid, is that a lot of common viruses do this kind of damage. Including the ones which cause colds, and definitely more serious viruses like influenza. Heart problems are definitely not unique to coronavirus, and in fact a lot of what we are seeing is par for the course. It's just that this is a very high profile pandemic and there is a huge amount of research being aimed at it.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#145

Post by mauflows » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 4:58 PM UTC

dublin wrote: post #56

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).…

You are making the fallacious assumption that the Wuhan virus actually endangers everyone. It doesn't - we know that many groups are only minimally affected. The way to get back to normal is to get back to normal. "Fifteen days to flatten the curve" has morphed into "as long as it takes to crush the economy". We are now at the point of no return for most small businesses, without which the economy of the modern world…

Or you know Congress could spend some money as the fed chairman has called for

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#146

Post by closeparen » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 4:58 PM UTC

throw0101a wrote: post #113

reaperducer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since each person's conception of "essential" is different There was someone on WGN-TV a few weeks ago lamenting that it was insulting for all of the hairdressers and manicurists and yoga instructors to be called "non-essential." I thought it was more insulting for that person to value the work of hairdressers and manicurists and yoga instructors on an equal basis with firefighters, doctors, paramedics, and actual re…

> I thought it was more insulting for that person to value the work of hairdressers and manicurists and yoga instructors on an equal basis with firefighters, doctors, paramedics, and actual real "essential" workers. Part of fairness is in treating equal things equally, and unequal things unequally. Even talking about non-first responders, the folks in supermarkets are more essential on this spectrum than beauticians…

When armies mobilize, they don’t carry supermarkets, but they do carry barbers.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#147

Post by paganel » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 4:59 PM UTC

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.

Both firefighters and doctors are a relatively recent “invention”, I’d say 100-150 years old (with the medical profession being re-invented after a first stint back in Antiquity). As such there’s nothing “essential” about them, you could say that bakers, fishermen or even sex-workers are more essential than doctors and fire-fighters.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#148

Post by elliekelly » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 4:59 PM UTC

Enginerrrd wrote: post #53

Ansil849 wrote: post #29

This seems incredibly dangerous. Are the speakeasy gyms requiring negative COVID tests? Are they doing temperature screenings upon entry? How diligently are they sanitizing equipment? How well ventilated are these various areas? Why are people ignoring all of these risks, what kind of threat model do they have?

I'd guess the threat model is something like: relatively low local disease prevalence rate, the likelihood that infected people show up to workout is lower than other activities like office-work, and relatively low likelihood of personal adverse outcomes in someone healthy enough to be going to an underground gym. Further, there are major benefits to psychological state, social/emotional state, mental acuity, health,…

> I'd love to see you try and add all that up in micromorts of personal risk and show me that it's actually a bad rational decision.

Isn't that the whole reason public health is necessary? Because a large group of individuals making rational health decisions alone can, collectively, make poor health decisions for the group? It's kind of like polluting or littering. Yes it's perfectly rational for me to throw my trash on the ground because it's cheap and convenient but when everyone acts "rationally" then everyone is worse off compared to when we coordinate.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#149

Post by matz1 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:00 PM UTC

juliansimioni wrote: post #130

ReptileMan wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It matters of course how many of how many are reporting that? 1/2 not worth it. 1/1000 - will take my chances. Covid seems to have flipped a switch in people's brains that make every probability 1.

I wouldn't take the 1/1000 chance, but even then. It's not an all or nothing choice. It's more like: - X/1000 chance for people who go to the gym, get sick, lose health permanently, probably infect others - 0/1000 chance of the same if you stay away from the gym and try to do some sort of similar workout at home, even if it's not ideal. Body weight exercises are great by the way Who cares if X is 1 or 999? Why would…

>Why would anyone choose the first option?

True if there is no downside, but I can easily think few benefit going to gym :

- some sports can't be done indoor

- some sports can't be done alone

- some sports require equipment that you don't have at home

- social benefit

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#150

Post by ashtonkem » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:00 PM UTC

dx87 wrote: post #109

henriquez wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An extension of this is the notion of emergency authorities and people’s perception of the weight they carry. An emergency is an emergent situation, which must be new, evolving, and carry the risk of serious harm. Emergency orders are based upon the idea that executive authority must be wielded to quickly mitigate an emergency situation. But a key attribute of an emergency (by definition) is “new” - if emergency powe…

> Now we have a lot of governors issuing decrees based on emergency authorities that they’ve been using for six months. This is quite simply a conflict with our basic notion of democracy. We do not have rulers, yet our governors are issuing rules purportedly carrying the weight of law with no oversight from legislature. That was my biggest issue with the whole situation in the USA. All of these emergency measures wer…

I have never understood the demand for timelines. Pandemics do not care about calendars, and expecting our response to a pandemic to have an expiration date struck me as both folly and hubris of a lethal variety.

Now if we expected our government to set conditions of the lock down ending, that would be better. Something based around the pandemic itself, such as new infections per day and test positivity would probably be best. But time? That’s not how this works.