Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#301

Post by mindslight »

dublin wrote: post #200
mauflows wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Where is that money going to come from, if we've destroyed the engine of the economy? Small business is the engine of the economy, and since they can't afford FAANG's Irish Double Dutch sandwich tax dodges, they actually pay most of the taxes. With small businesses and their employees gone and not paying taxes, there is quite simply no money to spend. History shows that you can only print your way out of such a situa…

Yet the printing press has had no problem running to keep interest rates low and the wall street casino bubblin'. We're getting the worst of both worlds. Many small businesses wouldn't be going bankrupt if there weren't a debt black hole expecting to consume much of their surplus via rent.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#302

Post by ceejayoz »

polote wrote: post #278
readingnews wrote: post #211

There is a crossfit gym that I pass by every morning on the way to work. It is full, and never stopped during this pandemic. Even at 7AM, it is full of patrons. I would call the "proper authorities", but since there is a State Police car parked outside every morning, and he is in there working out, just like before the pandemic, I doubt calling anyone would do anything. Adding to the post, I read it earlier... it is…

> I find it amazing we can not see short term sacrifice for long term gain. Maybe because nobody successfully proved to these people (me included) that this sacrifice is useful. You can't tell to people, you have no risk of dying (0.5% death rate for population, much much lower for healthy and young people), people who are at risk of dying can protect themselves even around sick people (wearing a mask, staying at hom…

> Maybe because nobody successfully proved to these people (me included) that this sacrifice is useful.

> people who are at risk of dying can protect themselves even around sick people (wearing a mask, staying at home, washing hands, ...)

This makes it clear "nobody successfully proved" really means "I didn't bother to listen". The messaging on masks has long been "they reduce transmission by infected people", not "they prevent you from getting it".

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#303

Post by muffinman26 »

moftz wrote: post #240
sushshshsh wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Totally illegal underground makeshift hair place" I'm confused, if the participants wear a mask, will the virus be transmitted or not?

Masks aren't 100% effective so being in close contact with someone for such a long time (a haircut for women can take much longer than a typical trim for men) carries a high risk of transmission from an asymptomatic carrier.

I find this to be one of the funniest supposed differences between genders.

I'm trans male, so I've gotten both female and male haircuts. Female haircuts generally took much less time. Put the hair in a ponytail, one snip, tidy up a little. Even a buzz cut takes a little bit longer. It's also much easier to cut long hair yourself than short hair, and people with long hair can go much longer between hair cuts. It took me a while to realize that men's haircut needs to be cut every 2-3 months instead of the once or maybe twice a year I was used to.

Hair dying definitely takes longer, but it seems that can be done at home easily as well.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#304

Post by michaelt »

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.

We could also let people carry hand grenades on planes, as there would be no victims at the time the plane took off.

I'm not expecting society to follow that line of reasoning any time soon, though.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#305

Post by hammock »

btilly wrote: post #186
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?

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 ar…

Curious, is there a documented case of community spread through a gym that you can point to?

Here is some evidence in the NY Times that counters your argument: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/health/coronavirus-gyms-f...

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#306

Post by ceejayoz »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #300
ceejayoz wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We are now on month 7 of being told to not socialize... "Keep your distance, wear a mask, and stick to small groups" is not the same as "do not socialize".

Considering most states have been in full on shelter in place lock down mode, there aren't many places people can socialize anyways. All of the normal places where you see people socialize have bee closed or went out business. Restaurants, bars, night clubs, sporting events, live music (festivals and stadiums) and many, many others. It would be one thing to conform to what your saying, but its become hard if not impo…

Parks? Backyards? A walk around the neighborhood? Outdoor dining?

If you can't socialize outside a bar, that's on you.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#307

Post by slg »

gowld wrote: post #244
slg wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't attend J-school, but that sounds like a questionable practice ethically. A person has a right to be anonymous, but it should be noted they are anonymous. Making up a name for someone without disclosing that fact is questionable.

Using their first name to pretend they are both anonymous and non-anonymous is worse than both endpoints of spectrum.

It is ethical and expected for a journalist to obscure facts to protect their sources. It is unethical for a journalist to fabricate facts to protect their sources.

Also as someone with experience being anonymously quoted by journalist before, it seems to be standard practice for the journalist to defer any decisions on how they would like to be referred to the source. Odds are Evelyn is the one who decided to just go by Evelyn. She probably doesn't care too much about absolute anonymity, but she also wants plausible deniability.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#308

Post by bluGill »

hammock wrote: post #125
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…

Do you plan to avoid COVID forever? Do you believe you will never get it? Do you expect to isolate yourself until an effective and reliable vaccine is available to you? How long can you do that for? Are you most concerned with not getting it yourself, or with reducing the overall death count by not overloading the healthcare system?

I'm most concerned with my family not getting it. I have no interest in attending another funeral for a child in my life and I would not want my kids to grow up missing a parent. We miss friends dearly.

I'm hoping that the early vaccine trials go well and are approved. There is promising progress there but who knows.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#309

Post by vharuck »

Swizec wrote: post #241
Jommi wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well I’m not out there licking their face. Isn’t distancing, the plexiglass screens, and mask wearing supposed to fix my risk to others? If memory serves, the probability of transmission is under 1% with those measures.

For the sake of an example, allow me to assume (a) there are 10 people in your class, (b) each of you has an average of one other "risky outing" (shop at a store, one meeting with coworkers, visit another household) a day, and (c) each outing has a 0.5% risk of transmission assuming the boxer's infected.

If anyone in your group gets infected, there's a good chance you'll all catch it (you seem to acknowledge this). In that case, in one day of infectiousness, there's a 0.995^10 = 95.111% chance nobody else gets infected. So a 4.889% chance of infecting. That's low.

But if you all remain infectious for 14 days, there's now only a (0.995^10)^14 = 49.571% chance nobody new is infected. So the odds are your group spread it to at least one other person. And this process will probably repeat through those new infections.

Obviously, these numbers are arbitrary. It's a terrible model for an infectious disease. My point is to show how probability is very hard to reason about. It's unrealistic to expect average citizens to do this.

Post reply on HN