Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition • Hacker News Board

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#281

Post by biztos » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

adolph wrote: post #176

Once one gets past the sexist language like "swole, maskless bros," there is an interesting idea in the article that a societal risk of long duration prohibitions is the development of shadow economies and contract enforcement mechanisms. I'm surprised to see such a libertarian POV from NPR.

Really, is every man who works out considered a "bro" now in America? That word is used six times in the article.

I go to a gym with a lot of bodybuilders, and I often forget how much of the world sees them as mindless thugs. And yet among us are at least two real-estate executives, a famous death-metal singer, a handful of computer nerds, a very famous (regionally) pop singer, a former Ambassador, at least one former Olympian, and a bunch of Hollywood stars when they happened to be in town. Plus, you know, ordinary men, women, boys, and girls who like to be fit, or are trying to get fit. Some are large, some are not. The oldest is 75.

Evelyn should swing by the Bay Club and do a bro count, see how that goes. Might offend a judge or two, especially if they're swole.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#282

Post by wiseleo » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:51 PM UTC

Working out in a mask is very tough. It is a difficulty enhancement. I dance in a mask at a pace similar to jogging and that is hard enough. I wouldn't want to try to do a full workout that way. That would be the first order to get ignored.

Is there a way to work out safely? Complete air replacement and surface disinfection. That can realistically only be done outdoors.

As a club kid who refuses to grow up, I bring my professional club lights and a mobile DJ speaker to the park to dance with a friend. She has a much harder time coping with isolation and it helps her. It is a system for events of 50-100 people, so it is loud enough to mimic the experience. I would actually be OK with us both wearing Bluetooth headphones like my JBL BT Reflect Mini, which are robust enough to wear while dancing and doing crazy head moves, but a club speaker sounds different because of the reverb from the surrounding environment.

We still wear masks despite not touching and being completely outdoors. We do not need to according to laws of physics, but not doing so would contribute to the attitude that masks are optional. They are not optional. As much as I trust my friend and she trusts me, there is no way to know with certainty we can not infect each other after a day of interaction with other people.

One way to setup a safe workout would be to use the gym's parking lot and set it up with gym flooring and 10x10' canopies. Portable patio heaters would keep the person warm when warm weather ends. They are expensive, but one way to solve that would be to setup a solar array and use electric heaters.

Another friend who is a Zumba instructor is hosting classes in a park's parking lot. That works for her and her students and it is safe.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#283

Post by Enginerrrd » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:51 PM UTC

dqpb wrote: post #93

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,…

Most people don’t know how to monitor the local disease prevalence rate.

Within a certain range on the lower end, definitely. Above that range, I disagree strongly. People generally know when there's "a bad cold/flu going around" or "a stomach bug" or w/e. There's some good intuitive reasoning there, but I'd agree that they aren't very good at it within a regime where it's prevalent enough to matter, but not quite prevalent enough to see/feel out intuitively.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#284

Post by gnusty_gnurc » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:52 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #207

kyleblarson wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to be Howard Hughes that's your choice. If someone wants to stay healthy through exercise that's their choice.

By all means, stay healthy. But don't endanger other people's lives to satiate your vanity. And let's be clear here: This isn't about the "health" of the gym-goers. It's about preserving their self-image.

How about we ship you to a deserted island, or you can confine yourself to your house indefinitely. The rest of society can carry on enjoying their life.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#285

Post by partyboat1586 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:52 PM UTC

hanniabu wrote: post #237

nitrogen wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Lockdown doesn't mean muscle atrophy. You can still do a lot at home even without equipment. Besides, if you want to continue to assume it causes muscle atrophy, then compare a population with muscle atrophy to a population with (likely) permanent organ damage due to a vascular disease (covid).

Have you got any sources on covid causing vascular disease? I haven't heard about that.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#286

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:52 PM UTC

dragosmocrii wrote: post #274

NullPrefix wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should start drinking heavy. It's more legal and essential.

Amusing how liquor stores were deemed essential service, at least here in Canada

It's not amusing; it's reflective of the fact that severe alcohol withdrawal can kill, or easily put you in the ICU, which isn't great when we need ICU capacity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_withdrawal_syndrome

> In the Western world about 15% of people have problems with alcoholism at some point in time. About half of people with alcoholism will develop withdrawal symptoms upon reducing their use, with four percent developing severe symptoms. Among those with severe symptoms up to 15% die.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#287

Post by TheNorthman » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:52 PM UTC

bityard wrote: post #224

sushshshsh wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because the landlord still expects rent to be due.

That's because the bank still expects the mortgage to be paid.

If this was true, we'd see landlords with paid-off mortgages waiving the rent. Since we don't see this on any major scale, we can only conclude that mortgages are inconsequential to landlords demanding rent-payments.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#288

Post by DoofusOfDeath » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:52 PM UTC

helaoban wrote: post #234

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're being down-voted because snitches get stitches. Don't be the neighborhood rat.

> You're being down-voted because snitches get stitches. Don't be the neighborhood rat.

That ethic is really counterintuitive to me. I'd be really interested if you want to expound on it a bit.

E.g., Are there limits to where you'd apply it? Does it apply to laws that you (personally) do want to have vigorously enforced?

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#289

Post by tengbretson » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:53 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…

If the income from teaching yoga is what feeds and shelters you then yes, teaching yoga is essential.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#290

Post by Dudenoso » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:53 PM UTC

helaoban wrote: post #234

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're being down-voted because snitches get stitches. Don't be the neighborhood rat.

And no one should report rapists, robbers or money launderers, amirite?