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

751–760 of 1001 posts

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#751

Post by nradov »

johnwalkr wrote: post #543

Wow with these comments. You going to the gym is not saving the economy. Yes, we can't shut everything down but you'd think the article was about shutting down grocery stores or the stock market. And by not doing your part, your whole community could be stunted for 2 years. Also congratulations for not caring about a 1 in 200 chance of death (pretty high by the way) because you're healthy and passing on the risk to s…

Those measures are obviously not sustainable indefinitely. What is the exit criteria?

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#752

Post by strogonoff »

donor20 wrote: post #548
ceejayoz wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 "t…

And you are the one not listening. In EVERY other country you can buy masks, and they were strongly encouraged, that prevented YOU from getting sick. South Koreas KF94 masks come to mind, very good coverage and fit (3 parts including one under chin). And despite the lies basically posted by you and plenty of others including health authorities (don't wear masks if you are "healthy", masks can't protect you from covid…

Such KF94 masks are non-washable, and must be handled with much care since you will be breathing whatever particles get on it from your hands, hair and environment. Accidental mask contamination is an issue and really negates the whole idea of masks for self-protection, so please be careful.

Much less pathogen is needed to get you sick if it is stuck to something covering your breathing pathways on every breath.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#753

Post by alicemaz »

so many comments arguing about what everyone in aggregate is morally obligated to abstain from or morally permitted to partake in. meanwhile the article itself is just about what people end up doing. "the government closed the gyms. lots of people want to exercise together and/or with expensive bulky equipment so they make illegal gyms." no amount of ethics lawyering is going to change this

honestly I think the phased reopenings are partly to blame, once you say "this is important enough, that isn't" everyone wants to do their things and disparage other people's things. if they closed the gyms here again, I'd find an illegal one. if they closed the restaurants, or the churches, or the schools, I wouldn't care. but for the people who derive existential fulfillment from their religion, or can't tolerate taking care of their children 24/7, or [insert reason why people care about restaurants, I honestly don't understand the upside anymore], my desire to go to my gym is selfish and wrong but their need for their thing is inherently good and right

not to mention the fact that most of the country isn't locked down, and there's no internal borders, and most people didn't take lockdowns seriously after the first month or two of kumbaya we're all in this together stuff anyway. so your individual actions wouldn't even move the needle. there's a continuum between the hypervigilent closed societies where one person gets it and they shut down the city, and the endemic countries where it's already everywhere anyway so the best you can do is mitigate risk to a tolerable level and go on with your life. new zealand, south korea, taiwan vs. mexico, india, brazil. we're with india and brazil

and I don't think it could have gone any other way. americans are suspicious and callous toward their countrymen and deathly allergic to being told what to do. for better or worse, it's just in our blood. gotta make the best of it

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#754

Post by p1necone »

polote wrote: post #618
michaelmrose wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people like you wont wear a mask or social distance and the portion that are asymptomatic pass it around you will help it spread far and wide maximizing the chances that even careful people will become ill eventually. Wearing a mask is mostly about keeping the respiratory droplets of the ill, including the 40-50% which don't have obvious symptoms from spreading around. If only the vulnerable wear masks they wont b…

I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to sacrifice a lot of my freedom to prevent unhealthy or old people to die. You could tell me that I'm wrong, but as far as I know, I'm the only one able to know how I want to live my life

Oh come on. How is just wearing a mask or working out at home during a global pandemic that's literally killing millions "sacrificing a lot of my freedom". You're selfish, and kids in history classes are going to look back on people like you forever and question why people were so selfish and stupid.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#755

Post by objectivetruth »

showdeadtest wrote: post #651
roughly wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody thinks those things are trivial, but they do think stopping the pandemic is more important. If I told you to leave your house because it was on fire, would you accuse me of trivializing your daily routine?

It’s more like somebody else’s house is on fire, I thought my taxes paid for firefighters, but it turns out those firefighters never bothered to purchase firefighting equipment, so you’re forcing me to spend months putting out other people’s fires using cups of water from my own kitchen while firefighters shout on TV that this is the only possible way things can be.

When someone else's house is actually on fire, it IS in your best interest to help them put it out. Two good reasons: a) so the fire doesn't spread to your house, and b) so all the other people in the neighborhood will help you if your house does catch on fire.

Now, I'm presuming you're an American here, so the blame is pretty clearly on the one fire chief who swears the house isn't on fire at all. Maybe just a little spark that'll put itself out any day now. THAT is why you have to keep running those cups of water out there.

(Also, comparing a viral pandemic to "somebody else's problem" is a little naive, unless you are very sure that you and your loved ones somehow have a solid immunity to this novel virus and that it won't ever affect you.)

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#756

Post by Open-Sourcery »

djsumdog wrote: post #666
svnpenn wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe has twice the population of the United States. Yet despite this, United States has 4 TIMES the cases per day. Europe can relax because they worked hard in the beginning to get everything under control. The US never did that, most states (like my home state of Texas) did a half-assed closing for 3 weeks, so the numbers never really got under control.

It varied and we're seeing more cases in the EU coming out of the lockdown. Hell, NZ went for total elimination and they got more cases (possibly due to freight?) When this is over, I bet the entire planet will have rates similar to Sweden. My theory is lockdowns delay the inevitable. We should protect the most at risk (95% of fatalities in the US are ages 55+), but we also need to realize there is no way to really s…

More cases in one region that has gone into [alert level 3](https://covid19.govt.nz/covid-19/alert-system/alert-system-o...) and the rest of the country into level 2. With more cases currently being low double digits active cases (almost all of which are in managed isolation) with single digit new active cases per day which is dropping.

New cases were expected, and planned for. There is active investigation into how the virus got into the community, and efforts to improve the resurgence plan. New cases coming from elimination can't really be compared to "we have community spread, but the cases went down so we are going to open up again".

https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/...

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#757

Post by throw_away_321 »

helaoban wrote: post #636
johnwalkr wrote: post #543

Wow with these comments. You going to the gym is not saving the economy. Yes, we can't shut everything down but you'd think the article was about shutting down grocery stores or the stock market. And by not doing your part, your whole community could be stunted for 2 years. Also congratulations for not caring about a 1 in 200 chance of death (pretty high by the way) because you're healthy and passing on the risk to s…

Spoken like somebody with no skin in the game. Go preach this nonsense to small business owners that have had their livelihoods taken from them and see how long you can keep your head above the parapet. > Support temporary benefits to your fellow citizens. What benefits? Support how? Prayers? Support that small business in your community with your wallet. > Also congratulations for not caring about a 1 in 200 chance…

go for a run. you don't have to go to a gym. there are plenty of ways to exercise outside and if you choose not to do them during a pandemic and instead choose to put the lives of others at risk so you can be inside a building, you're a jerk

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#758

Post by throw_away_321 »

squidlogic wrote: post #582
foolinaround wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the unethical behavior of its patrons the patrons apparently don't believe that their behavior is unethical, and in fact, think that the dictates of their rules are unethical, and potentially illegal too.

This is the logic: it's ok to riot in the streets, but going to the gym is considered unethical.

that's nobody's logic. the logic is: protests are outdoors. gyms are indoors.

is it so hard for you? lol

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#759

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

Khaine wrote: post #735
WD-42 wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s still whole numbers for anyone over 60, and significant numbers still for anyone below it. Have you ever seriously contemplated death? If you have, those numbers don’t seem very good, not at all. Not to mention these are stats for DEATH. Meaning these are the worst case scenario. Dead. The chances of getting seriously ill, like major suffering, are much higher. Would you want to experience that? Would you wish…

Sure, but how many of those people would have died from the normal flu? I know this is a morbid topic, but it gets to a fundamental truth. How valuable is a human life? Is it worth significantly damaging the future of the young through economic depression and increased social isolation and mental illness to extend the life old old people by a year, 5 years? There is no easy solution. We can hibernate as much of the n…

> Sure, but how many of those people would have died from the normal flu?

I’ve been comparing flu stats for Australia. 2019 a BAD flu season was over 400 deaths. A NORMAL season is roughly 150 deaths. I think 146 in 2018. 2020 has 36 deaths.

Melbourne deaths peaked at 25 for a single day. The current outbreak in VIC totally blows past the flu death rate for the entire country.

Total COVID deaths in Australia (450) already matches a bad flu season in a “locked down” environment and we still have 5 months to go for 2020.

Thankfully in Australia it’s possible to make mask wearing mandatory.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#760

Post by vondur »

enraged_camel wrote: post #747
cm2187 wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that clear that a lockdown helps. NY closed the earliest in the US but was the hardest hit nevertheless. It has now mostly reopened and cases aren't going up. Chances are we may have reached herd immunity there. I have seen recently that serology tests in Italy have shown the same outcome for people who were locked down than essential workers who were not locked down (and mortality stats in the UK told a sim…

>>It's not that clear that a lockdown helps. NY closed the earliest in the US but was the hardest hit nevertheless. It has now mostly reopened and cases aren't going up. Chances are we may have reached herd immunity there. No, this is absolutely wrong, every single sentence. Lockdowns definitely help. New York was hit hardest because, despite closing the earliest, they still closed way too late. Cuomo resisted calls…

How is this not true? It looks like NY city's cases are basically flat since July.
Post reply on HN