Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition • Hacker News Board

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#181

Post by throwaway0a5e » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:12 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #132

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.”

I think "tolerable enough to our constituents that most of the people here are still here after the next election" is the threshold most state legislatures were trying not to cross.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#182

Post by throwawaygh » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:12 PM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #165

ashtonkem wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. I'm sure the legislature will have no problem forgoing a game of golf with lobbyists in order to vote to extend a bill that gives government more power. They have no problem doing that every time the Patrio…

Pray tell, what powerful special interests have long-term incentives to force people to wear masks and stay out of restaurants? Like, are you actually suggesting that Big Mask and Big Pre-Cooked Meal Co. are going to take mayors or lawmakers golfing? I genuinely don't understand this theory.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#183

Post by jayd16 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:12 PM UTC

jcomis wrote: post #3

While trying to buy workout equipment off craig's list I was solicited twice to join "speakeasy" gyms. They had ads for a bunch of gear and when I inquired they sent me a detailed response on working out in their private gym. One was a large neighborhood garage that offered solo time by the hour, one was a shutdown normal gym. Pretty expensive too!

Are these speakeasy gyms? Seems like a solo room and a much less crowded gym would both adhere to distancing policies. Seems rude to existing customers to set up a new private gym in an existing gym space, though.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#184

Post by ryandrake » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:12 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #131

reaperducer wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

The wording was problematic from the start. It probably would have been better to classify businesses into "risky" and "not-risky" or some sliding scale of risk, rather than using the "essential" label that comes with moral baggage. Close or restrict risky businesses (indoor, large crowds, etc.), keep open not-risky ones.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#185

Post by WD-42 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:13 PM UTC

hammock wrote: post #135

MiroF wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What kind of logic is this? Spraying bullets into a crowd is a victimless crime unless someone gets hit, so we shouldn't prosecute otherwise? That's some serious mental gymnastics.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#186

Post by btilly » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

hammock wrote: post #61

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).…

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?

Risk of transmission goes up indoors, with heavy breathing, and being exposed for longer than 10 minutes. People who exercise, are going to breathe heavily. People on equipment or in a class stay longer than 10 minutes. And gyms are indoors and often not well-ventilated.

The result is that gyms are an excellent space for spreading COVID-19. And measures that reduce the spread for things like walking around a store are not sufficient to reduce it to a safe level in a gym.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#187

Post by hammock » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

jayd16 wrote: post #166

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?

Those are big ifs. The reason businesses were shut down is because policy was put in place to enforce distancing and the business could not meet those policies.

My if's are not about the place of business with respect to its patrons, they are about personal responsibility.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#188

Post by vharuck » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

hammock wrote: post #75

Ansil849 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't have to go if you don't want to. Are you implying that the people going to these speakeasy gyms are then self-quarantining and not interacting with people who did not go to the gym? Because if not, then this is a non sequitur of a response. > Surely your indignation would be better directed at employers, schools and others who are requiring in-person attendance. Except OP is not about employers, schools a…

Interacting with other people is a two-way street. If you are afraid someone across from you might have been to one of these gyms, then walk away from them.

Because of community networks and a contagious disease, that's effectively asking me to quarantine all the time.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#189

Post by s1artibartfast » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

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?

This is a poor analogy that I find often steers the discussion to useless reductio ad absurdum

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#190

Post by nitrogen » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #78

dragosmocrii wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. The last couple months has done more damage than good to me. I'm that type of person who'll lose muscle quickly if stops working out for mote than 2 weeks. I also played a couple games of volleyball and tennis, and I'm so clumsy I'm embarrassed I lost control of my body. Meanwhile, thr local gyms havr silly rules to restrict people's access...

The last couple months has done more damage than good to me. I'm that type of person who'll lose muscle quickly if stops working out for mote than 2 weeks. It's not about you. It's about everyone else. How can someone be so selfish and self-absorbed that they think their "muscle mass" is more important than the health of hundreds or thousands of other people? I know this question may violate some HN policy, but I can…

It's been a while since I've seen mention of actuarial analyses of the pandemic vs lockdowns. Could millions of people with muscle atrophy cause more economic harm?