Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition • Hacker News Board

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#381

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:29 PM UTC

andrelayer wrote: post #332

I think a lot of people in this discussion are pitting the argument at people prioritizing their individual choices over the collective health of the community. I think that is a very singular framing from one side. A lot of people I know just believe that the virus itself is not as deadly as the reaction warrants. The infectious mortality rate of Covid is at best twice that of the normal flu, which isn't nothing and…

> It's pretty rational for someone to understand that and make personal choices without feeling like they're causing real danger to the community.

Discounting externalized costs to zero is rational, true; that's the source of the tragedy of commons (in the economics/game theory sense, not necessarily the somewhat disputed original example for which the effect is named.)

But that's a manner in which individual rationality is insufficient to address issues whose effects aren't limited to the individuals engaging in transactions.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#382

Post by spanhandler » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:29 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".

Yep. Dairy Queen, for instance, had lines of cars wrapping around the building and lining up in the street during the height of our "lockdown". Tons of things were still open in-person, too, like grocery stores, and there was no mask order and maybe 1/4 of people were wearing masks, at best, and almost no employees anywhere. Only exception is that a couple weeks in (IIRC) Costco started requiring them. We didn't get a mask order until a couple weeks after we ended our joke of a "lockdown". The police don't follow the order (sigh) but almost everyone else is, at least. But now everything's back open, more-or-less entirely.

It's no wonder we're still muddling along with this problem, months into it.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#383

Post by throwawaygh » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:29 PM UTC

showdeadtest wrote: post #226

throwawaygh wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> doesn't like giving up control after whatever "emergency" situation happens I genuinely don't understand this fear re: COVID. Why would governors want keep gyms and restaurants closed post-COVID? What do mayors gain by forcing people to wear masks post-COVID? It's in the government's interest, as an institution, to open things up ASAP. They're hemorrhaging money. The things I'd actually worry about -- using COVID t…

The way I see it, the issue is that the “as soon as possible” is being interpreted to mean “the time at which there is no risk to my political career,” not merely when it is prudent to reopen.

> the time at which there is no risk to my political career

Do you live in the US? The situation is exactly the opposite here.

Downplaying the significance of COVID is practically part of the GOP platform at this point. It's gotten to the point in the last 2 months where even extremely mild and all-volunteer public health measures are political suicide in the majority of US states.

But also, even in the small number of very left-leaning areas like mid-sized/large cities, mayors and governors are under intense pressure to get things back to normal.

Hell. Even universities, which take tons of heat for being hotbeds of leftism even relative to left-leaning cities, are pushing forward with campus openings despite contrary advice from public health experts.

As far as I can tell, being too prudent for too long would be an enormous political liability in literally every US jurisdiction. In fact, being prudent at all is a political liability in >25 states even with new cases hitting highs. Here in rural PA I get harassed for wearing a mask into the grocery store.

The "permanent COVID emergency" concern is ridiculously disconnected from political reality in the USA. So much so that it's more of an unhinged conspiracy theory than a legitimate concern.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#384

Post by dependenttypes » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:30 PM UTC

andrelayer wrote: post #332

I think a lot of people in this discussion are pitting the argument at people prioritizing their individual choices over the collective health of the community. I think that is a very singular framing from one side. A lot of people I know just believe that the virus itself is not as deadly as the reaction warrants. The infectious mortality rate of Covid is at best twice that of the normal flu, which isn't nothing and…

You have to also account for the people who will survive but end up with some sort of permanent health damage due to it.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#385

Post by matthewmacleod » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:30 PM UTC

eanzenberg wrote: post #314

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 would call the "proper authorities" Why? What harm is going on here? If you don’t like it, don’t participate. Leave us alone, narc.

The problem is, of course, that those same people in the gym—an environment which is naturally quite conducive to spreading infections—later go to their workplace, or their doctor, or their public transport, or a bar, and back to the gym. By doing that, they can carry an infection around to others, even if they aren’t themselves symptomatic.

This contributes to the general public health problem, increasing the infection rate among the population and meaning more people get sick or die. This applies whether they were in the gym, or just had the misfortune of interacting with someone who had been.

I don’t know who initially said it, but… I don’t know how to explain to you that you should care about other people.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#386

Post by bazzert » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:30 PM UTC

cowpig wrote: post #375

andrelayer wrote: post #332

I think a lot of people in this discussion are pitting the argument at people prioritizing their individual choices over the collective health of the community. I think that is a very singular framing from one side. A lot of people I know just believe that the virus itself is not as deadly as the reaction warrants. The infectious mortality rate of Covid is at best twice that of the normal flu, which isn't nothing and…

> It's pretty rational for someone to understand that and make personal choices... No, it's not; it's arrogant. All of the epidemiologists and experts seem to think otherwise. What do you know that they don't? So far 172,000 people have died in the US due to Coronavirus, directly[1]. The actual number of people who have died, if you factor in the effect of the virus on infrastructure and missed diagnoses is about dou…

>> We're approaching the total death toll of World War II[3].

assuming you mean the US death toll also bear in mind the median age of WW II casualties was something like 26; while the median age for covid victims is 75+. Not to diminish the latter but they are very different.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#387

Post by alistairSH » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:30 PM UTC

odnorazovyj wrote: post #312

Anyone dedicated enough to be still going to the gym is going to be healthy enough that they will have no problem with the coronavirus. The obese, diabetic etc will take any excuse to skip gym.

FFS, healthy people can catch COVID and have serious, life-impacting or deadly complications. Yes, it's more likely to kill older people. That doesn't mean it isn't still dangerous for younger and healthier people.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#388

Post by hoka-one-one » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:30 PM UTC

polmuz wrote: post #329

ehnto wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me preface: I've abstained from going to the gym since we went into lockdown, and even now that we are out of it here. I am looking into equipment at home, and I can at least keep my fitness, if not my strength, by going mountain biking. That said, there are many types of training you can't do without the right equipment, so it's at least a bit more than just wanting to be with others. Strength training/powerlift…

Kettlebells are doing the trick for me, you can start with just one.

post body

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#389

Post by mam2 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:30 PM UTC

dragosmocrii wrote: post #349

reaperducer wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I am neutral towards your comment, but I feel you're judging me for my beliefs and opinions, even though you don't know where I come from and what's important for me.

eh another incel here

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#390

Post by polote » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:31 PM UTC

cowpig wrote: post #375

andrelayer wrote: post #332

I think a lot of people in this discussion are pitting the argument at people prioritizing their individual choices over the collective health of the community. I think that is a very singular framing from one side. A lot of people I know just believe that the virus itself is not as deadly as the reaction warrants. The infectious mortality rate of Covid is at best twice that of the normal flu, which isn't nothing and…

> It's pretty rational for someone to understand that and make personal choices... No, it's not; it's arrogant. All of the epidemiologists and experts seem to think otherwise. What do you know that they don't? So far 172,000 people have died in the US due to Coronavirus, directly[1]. The actual number of people who have died, if you factor in the effect of the virus on infrastructure and missed diagnoses is about dou…

This is not the issue.

Best case in term of covid related death is to keep everyone at home, no freedom and get food delivery directly at the door

Worst case, is to do as nothing happened

There are a spectrum of possible responses. But we have to accept that some people are going to die if we want other to live.

Each group can put the cursor where it wants, but you can't have, no death and complete freedom. Some people prefer that a few people die if the rest of people is free, then some other prefer everyone to be alive and restrict the freedom of everyone else. You can't put the cursor for other people than you