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

471–480 of 1001 posts

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#471

Post by TheGrim-888 »

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…

You could make the same argument about the normal flu, pre-covid, which kills many tens of thousands of people in the US every year. The normal flu has killed many multiples the number of people that WWII did. And we never completely locked down the country for the flu. We never explicitly destroyed the economy for the flu.

What about how many people other infectious diseases kill? What about how many people other sources of preventable deaths kill? Why haven't we thrown away our civil liberties in the past, or destroyed our economy, to tackle those problems?

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#472

Post by Alupis »

ceejayoz wrote: post #277
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 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".

> "Keep your distance, wear a mask, and stick to small groups" is not the same as "do not socialize".

Ok, but then we have people doing solo activities, all by themselves, minding their own business -- getting arrested by lunatics[1] because we said no beach allowed during Covid[2]!

How do we reconcile that?

[1] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-03/paddle-b...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpsaSfoqUtU

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#473

Post by throwawaygh »

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…

> Working off of different information is a different matter.

Moral theories that do not demand intellectual character are broken. Sincerely believing in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion does not excuse anti-semitism. Sincerely believing whatever nonsense is coming out of a youtube recommendation k-hole does not excuse ignoring the advice of public health experts.

Moral character does not exist without intellectual character.

> They also never claimed that covid is comparable to lightning

Yes they did.

> just that if you’re under 30 you’re more likely to be struck by lightning than die of covid.

That is a comparison.

> (I cant speak to the statistical truth of this, but that’s beside the point).

~50 deaths due to lightening strikes across all age groups. We were already close to 1000 confirmed COVID deaths for folks under 34 in mid-June.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#474

Post by dredmorbius »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #206
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 problem is, what's post-COVID? The virus won't be eradicated any time soon, even after a vaccine arrives; most experts predict a timeline of decades to never. I doubt many mayors are supervillains who want to keep people miserable just for the sake of it - but I worry that quite a few might feel like they have to as long as cases are being detected. (Why do we still have strict TSA restrictions, even though every…

Long-term, what you might expect to see are structuraal changes rather than prohibitions.

Disease transmission is a communications and network problem -- there are the unobserved opportunities for infection, the known observed cases, the transmission rates, incubation and course-of-illness periods, acquired immunity, mortality, morbidity.

In periods of outbreak you need hightened disease surveillance, increased blocking of transmission, and reduced opportunities for infection. Barriers, reduced crowds, improved sterilisation and surface cleaning, fewer shared-touch interfaces (from touchscreens to bannisters), and the like.

These will likely be instituted through building and health codes, not so much activity restrictions. Some high-contact activities (bars, nightclubs, theatres, amusement parks) may well be subject to temporary closures. But expect these to be contingent on infection levels.

Do expect to see massive changes in office/work, retail, and transport designs, hoever. Possibly travel and quarantine restrictions.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#475

Post by aspaceman »

recursive wrote: post #451
alistairSH wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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?

If people listened.

There's a genuine culture difference in America, call it American Exceptionalism if you want, that's caused all sorts of normal preventative measures to be ignored or actively rejected. Many businesses actively rejected the idea of requiring masks, today some businesses still refuse service if you're wearing a mask. That's pretty ridiculous if you ask me.

Moreso in this thread you have hundreds of comments hemming and hawing, nitting and picking at every detail of proposed lockdowns and mask requirements. People hate this stuff and they call it an imposition on their freedom.

In other countries people just put on masks and stayed home. They didn't make nearly as much of a fuss about it all.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#476

Post by stinkytaco »

just-juan-post wrote: post #442
cowpig wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does your figure include people who couldn't get medical attention because the health system is completely overwhelmed? Is it possible there are other issues you're not aware of, and that the people who spend their lives studying and preparing for these situations are?

> Does your figure include people who couldn't get medical attention because the health system is completely overwhelmed? Do you have any articles about people being turned away from hospitals due to lack of capacity?

Explicitly being turned away? I have not seen those. The New York Times did an analysis of the overall death rate, however, and setting aside COVID deaths, it is up. It's not an unreasonable assumption to assume at least some of those are lack of medical care for whatever reason.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronav...

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#477

Post by ceejayoz »

Alupis wrote: post #472
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".

> "Keep your distance, wear a mask, and stick to small groups" is not the same as "do not socialize". Ok, but then we have people doing solo activities, all by themselves, minding their own business -- getting arrested by lunatics[1] because we said no beach allowed during Covid[2]! How do we reconcile that? [1] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-03/paddle-b... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpsaSf…

> April 3, 2020

You'll find California (and everywhere else) has loosened up substantially on outdoor activities, as we have substantially more information in recent months on outdoor versus indoor transmission. We've learned a lot since April about COVID-19.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#478

Post by LorenPechtel »

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're falling for the right wing deception here. This is a lot more deadly than the flu and the flu usually only kills those who would have died soon anyway. And even under 30 your odds of dying of Covid are worse than your odds of dying of a traffic accident. And even if you survive you might be damaged for life. It is not rational to fall for a scam.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#479

Post by scottlocklin »

wiseleo wrote: post #463
scottlocklin wrote: post #428

The responses here are precious. Gym dudes: "leave me alone." Non gym dudes: "you're going to kill us all by doing deadlifts." FWIIW in the interests of full disclosure, I am thoroughly a gym dude, but have my own equipment and a terrible case of misanthropy, so I've been working out at home for years. I wonder how the paranoiacs who think deadlifters are going to cause mass death mentally deal with the facts on the…

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200813/swedens-no-lockdown... This from last week, cites studies. Short version: Sweden was wrong.

Your source (by some dimwit reporter) still says 4x as many Massholes as Swedes died per capita; thank you, drive through. It is otherwise a non-sequitur.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#480

Post by strbean »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #189
MiroF wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is a reckless driver endangering you, if you are driving safely?

This is a poor analogy that I find often steers the discussion to useless reductio ad absurdum

People seem to think reductio ad absurdum is a fallacy just because it is Latin, but it is a perfectly sound mode of argument.
Post reply on HN