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

451–460 of 1001 posts

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#451

Post by recursive »

alistairSH wrote: post #322
honkycat wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Introverts vs extroverts. Humans are social animals. Socialization is a basic human need. It is much harder for some people to stay inside and not socialize than others. We are now on month 7 of being told to not socialize or see or do anything. I continue to obey the orders, but I totally get why some people are starting to crack.

...We are now on month 7... And if people had actually sheltered in place back in March, we might be opening back up (or opening with fewer COVID clusters).

I don't understand this. Under what circumstances are you proposing that we'd be able to open back up? What's different now (or could have been) than it was when you claim we should be been locking down the first time? Certainly no amount of locking down would completely eradicate the virus, so what's the exit strategy?

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#452

Post by wiseleo »

diebir wrote: post #352

I could never understand the point of a gym. Just a pair of running shoes. Some dumbbells. I picked up slacklining and bosu ball training during the lockdown. Why does one need a "gym" ??

A circuit workout maximizes efficiency. Machines isolate muscle groups. Similar results can be achieved with free weights, but that requires paying attention to form, which is difficult at exertion limits. It is difficult to break form on a machine. Hence, machines can enable you to overtrain but they are also excellent at preventing injuries.

If you regularly lift truly heavy weight, you need a squat rack and a rubber floor capable of sustaining equipment drops.

Going from a dedicated machine to another dedicated machine is faster than reconfiguring a universal machine like a Bowflex. Pace matters in a workout. Rests are regulated.

I own variable weight equipment. Someone sold me a set of Turbobells, which scale from 5 to 60 pounds per hand. It is a great system similar to Bowflex Selectech. My workouts require using 3 progressively heavier weights. It is a common body building technique.

So, for my arms I need 10, 12.5, and 15 pounds. Some exercises are 15, 17.5, and 20 pounds. My legs are stronger, so I use 35, 40, and 45 pounds. If I didn't have an adjustable set, this would be a lot of free weights and good luck finding fractional sizes in a store.

Gyms usually have good air flow, at least at the gyms where I am a member. Many have amenities like swimming pool, whirlpool, massage chairs and so on.

Dropping weights at a gym is annoyance. Doing so in an apartment above neighbors is evictable.

People whose goal is to lose weight do not need a gym.

Completing my workout with a set of dedicated weights at 2am when I have the gym to myself is at least 20 minutes faster than with my adjustable weights. So, using a gym also saves time.

Costs to replicate a gym: 1. 8x4 1" gym mat - about $150, weighs over 100lb - just looked into this last week. 6x3' horse stall mats are decent also. 2. Free weights - a few hundred all-in 3. 8' Mirror - not cheap and yes they are necessary 4. Adjustable bench - over $100 5. Gym-like variable height adjustable treadmills are not cheap

All of this takes space to store. If you do not have excess space, that adds to setup and teardown time.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#453

Post by abduhl »

dredmorbius wrote: post #422
abduhl wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This post highlights my favorite part of the keep everyone home argument: "get food delivery directly at the door." Who delivers the food if we keep everyone home? There is a subtle classist underpinning to the entire "Stay The Fuck Home" message which really shows how little people value others, especially lower-class (food delivery) or blue collar (food supply) workers. Everyone needs to stay home, except for the d…

Delivery and food prep are far lower-exposure activities than indoor sit-in full-service dining. People do need to eat. They don't necessarily require takeaway, but on a balance of risks this isn't unreasonable.

This line of reasoning evades the real problem by trying to recast the issue as a balancing of risks rather than an undervaluing of a segment of our society. Let's return to the original poster's argument: there exist two extremes with one being "everyone stays at home" and the other being "no change due to COVID." Even in the extreme of "everyone stays at home" there is an implicit assumption that not everyone stays at home, just people with white collar jobs. That is the issue that I am calling out with my "subtle classist underpinnings" statement.

Additionally, it is worth noting that the risk-based analysis you use is 1) an exercise in line drawing (giving everyone their own office while at work is certainly equal or less exposure than food delivery as long as people don't socialize at work) and 2) an after the fact justification for a policy that is undeniably inequitable across class, race, and sex lines.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#454

Post by saiya-jin »

horns4lyfe wrote: post #407
cowpig wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 a gross mischaracterizatuon of the posters argument. They are claiming that, based on the information they provided, the people they’re referring to are making a rational choice. Working off of different information is a different matter. They also never claimed that covid is comparable to lightning, just that if you’re under 30 you’re more likely to be struck by lightning than die of covid (I cant speak to t…

Making a rational choice from what angle? If you consider death of your fellow countrymen just a statistic, maybe.

These are super-emotional topics, something on par with politics. My view is that even if it would be just out of respect of older generations who made the world we live today, raised us, protected us, guided us, we should be considerate.

Now we might end up in economical tragedy vastly worse then just letting them die, but that's a threshold we didn't yet cross according to most people here/out there. Hence all the reactions like closures and restrictions and vast majority complying with them.

Another aspect is utterly incompetent leaders, who's countries they mismanage seem to be, purely from rational point of view, currently holding premium places in covid charts. US, UK, Brazil, Russia etc. Seems like some pattern about how far lying and plain stupid ignorance can get you when confronted with something as little caring as virus.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#455

Post by raverbashing »

nradov wrote: post #365
wiradikusuma wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you know that you can be a carrier and infect less healthy people right?

Asymptomatic transmission, while possible, is rare. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-2671

If it was, we wouldn't be in this situation

(and the article doesn't say anything about asymptomatic transmission, only that 8% of secondary infected people were asymptomatic)

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#456

Post by plussed_reader »

esalman wrote: post #293
polote wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

US didn't have a federal strategy to deal with the pandemic. They shot at their own foot and didn't give themselves a chance to be successful. The rest of the (developed, and many underdeveloped) world dealt with it and are moving on. I'm watching Champions league finals on TV and Wuhan pool party clips on twitter, thinking wtf went wrong here.

>>US didn't have a federal strategy

They did at the outset of the current administration but chose to fire the people trained for 'reasons'. When the pandemic finally pressed on the country, the game plan handed down from the previous admin had been abandoned for years at that point by the current administration.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#457

Post by aflag »

bazzert wrote: post #386
cowpig wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Not sure if I follow your point? Are you saying this is less of a tragety because these people lived 50 years longer?

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#458

Post by jdminhbg »

esalman wrote: post #293
polote wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

US didn't have a federal strategy to deal with the pandemic. They shot at their own foot and didn't give themselves a chance to be successful. The rest of the (developed, and many underdeveloped) world dealt with it and are moving on. I'm watching Champions league finals on TV and Wuhan pool party clips on twitter, thinking wtf went wrong here.

> I'm watching Champions league finals on TV

The US also has spectator-less sports going on, I'm not sure how that's any different.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#459

Post by Digory »

throwawaygh wrote: post #156
dx87 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now we have a lot of governors issuing decrees based on emergency authorities that they’ve been using for six months. This is quite simply a conflict with our basic notion of democracy. We do not have rulers, yet our governors are issuing rules purportedly carrying the weight of law with no oversight from legislature. That was my biggest issue with the whole situation in the USA. All of these emergency measures wer…

> 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…

> It's in the government's interest, as an institution, to open things up ASAP.

Theories by which it is in a government's interest to delay reopening longer than optimal:

1. The Governor's political interests lie in "doing something," to contrast with "do nothing" political approaches. Ceasing to "do something" erases this advantage.

2. Masks and closure become a political symbol to certain classes -- almost a political advertisement -- and those classes tend to see the burdens as insignificant and a "community responsibility." Efforts to reopen, then, are seen as opposed to the good of the community.

3. Industries and activities that support the Governor will increase COVID cases, so the Governor decides other industries and activities are "nonessential," shifting costs from supporters to non-supporters.

4. The Governor is politically or legally risk averse, and defers to the most conservative health authorities to avoid responsibility for outcomes.

5. The Governor underweights economic impacts, because it believes the Federal Government should use tax policy or welfare to socialize the economic costs of the "required" costs.

Granted, these aren't fears the government will remain irrational forever, just that it will stay irrational longer than people can stay liquid.

I do think some people will swap roles after the US election, and they will rediscover a patriotic duty to muddle through, as our elected officials do the best they can.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#460

Post by mkolodny »

nradov wrote: post #365
wiradikusuma wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you know that you can be a carrier and infect less healthy people right?

Asymptomatic transmission, while possible, is rare. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-2671

"Of these 127 [COVID-19 cases], 8 (6.3% [CI, 2.1% to 10.5%]) were asymptomatic. Of the 119 symptomatic cases, 20 (16.8%) were defined as mild, 87 (73.1%) as moderate, and 12 (10.1%) as severe or critical."

6.3% of transmissions being asymptomatic doesn't sound rare to me.

Also, the 89.9% of people with mild or moderate cases may still not realize they have covid, and spread it.

Post reply on HN