Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

Post by Swizec » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:34 PM UTC

Jommi wrote: post #159

Swizec wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I go to a boxing class in the park. We meet 2x/week and train together. You can’t distance while boxing. Here’s my threat model: - we’re all young, healthy, and in good shape - we all wear masks during normal life, some of us even while training - we all social distance and follow the right protocols outside of boxing - it’s always the same group of people - 2x/week seems like low enough frequency that exposure won’t…

It seems like an acceptable level of risk to me as well. But is it an acceptable level to all the people you counteract with say within a week? Is the cashier at your supermarket, that lives with their 6+ family members, ok with you doing this? Is your elderly neighbour that also uses your elevator OK with this? This is the moral and societal conundrum we are in.

Post by pyronik19 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:34 PM UTC

elliekelly wrote: post #148

Enginerrrd wrote: post #53

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. 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…

Post by Enginerrrd » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:35 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #151

Enginerrrd wrote: post #53

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 like to believe that the scientific and medical authorities who are being consulted by local and state leadership have done exactly that calculation... and that result was states mandating that these businesses be shut down. Why do randos think they understand the threat model better than the CDC and state medical authorities?

Post by roywiggins » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:35 PM UTC

gizmo686 wrote: post #180

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…

Covid strikes me as a unique situation that doesn't come up that often. It is a longer term threat than most "emergencies", but still fundamentally a temporary concern. One way or another, it will be resolved within a few years (hopefully sooner); and the facts on the ground still change relatively quickly. It may last for a longer term than most emergencies; but still operates on a smaller timeline than legislatures…

Post by pyronik19 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:36 PM UTC

bmsleight_ wrote: post #174

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. 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 somethin…