171–180 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its likely you're getting down voted for being a snitch. Normally, I'd down vote you for this (as people down vote my posts which disagree with their opinions regardless of facts presented), but I take great joy in seeing how many down votes I can get ruffling feathers. Others aren't like me.
/r/iamverybadass
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.
But I like going to the gym, partying, and maximizing the profits of my business! I'm fine with helping, but asking me to make sacrifices is just too much. Isn't what I prefer most important? /s
I've also contrived some sympathetic-sounding reasons to justify the choices I already wanted to make, so it's pretty clear that if you disagree with me, you're obviously wrong. /s
I don't get it. Unless you're training for a very specific purpose (like an MMA fight or football season), why do you need specific indoor gym equipment? Shelter in place orders are largely lifted, so you can workout outside: run, do pull ups on a tree branch, ride a bike, lift a heavy stone, do an outdoor yoga class, etc. Hell, you only need maybe a 6' x 6' area for a perfectly effective body weight routine, even in…
"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…
I am not, It must be very hard, to take away something you love and trained.
Society is asking you to sacrifice a big thing for something that may not benefit society at all. The chances of you catching and then spreading are ~ 1/1000. Assuming a 1% mortality. We are asking 100,000 people to give up something they love to save one loved one.
My own value system is that my enjoyment is not worth 1/100,000 of a person life. I would say in the order of 1/1,000,000. Based upon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALARP is where I get my figure.
I am interested which figure you think is reasonable - 10^5 or 10^6 or between or higher or dismiss the risk entirely ?
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 probabl…
No one is arguing whether the virus is on our clock. The argument is whether we’ve granted our governments the right to indefinitely extend their emergency authorizations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. On an individual level, I have no doubt you're right. The health benefits from exercise would definitely outweigh the risk of COVID-19 (assuming the individual's not over 65 or has a majorly risky health condition). But this is a pandemic, so decisions are made on the community level. Th…
This isn't new in any way; just look at how we've treated at-risk populations previously (e.g., homeless folks, the foster system, etc). The difference with the pandemic is that there was a rapid increase in who's considered "at risk".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 ?
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.
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…
It may last for a longer term than most emergencies; but still operates on a smaller timeline than legislatures are used to operating. The only analogous situation I can think of is wars, and those are already given special treatment (and have seen a steady growth in executive authority over the past decades).
Additionally, I am not aware of any executive (within the US) that has suspended or directly contradicted the legislative branch. If your issue is that the situation has gone on for too long to be dealt with using emergency authority, then your complaint is with the legislatures that have failed to either issue the rules themselves, or override the executive orders.
I could see an arguement for updating the various authorizations for executive orders to allow them to be repealed by a simple majority vote not subject to veto; or even by a minority vote. However, as far as I am aware, there has not been a major conflict at the state level where these powers would be relevant.