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

791–800 of 1001 posts

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#791

Post by stjohnswarts »

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…

Everyone knows these things by now, why do people keep repeating it? you think the people going to the speakeasy gyms haven't heard it 100 times? The article points out that in general some people will always find a way.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#792

Post by [deleted] »

showdeadtest wrote: post #668
kimmeld wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social activities are most certainly trivial when compared to a pandemic. Right now my kid’s school is starting remote only primarily because teenagers and early 20’s somethings couldn’t stop going to parties over the summer. Actions have consequences.

I think we see the consequences of a plan that is idealistic and unrealistic. I don’t believe any amount of moral handwringing and shouting is going to make it work.

[deleted]

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#793

Post by countschnapps »

showdeadtest wrote: post #773
throw_away_321 wrote: post #757

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Our approach isn’t working for people. No amount of scolding is going to change that.

"isn't working for people?" that's what regulations are for. you don't get to choose what 'works for you' when lives are at stake.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#794

Post by DuskStar »

svnpenn wrote: post #783
eanzenberg wrote: post #729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU has twice the population? Are you including Russia?

Do you not know how to do even the most cursory internet search? > Population 746,419,440 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe > Population 328,239,523 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

EU population is 446 million, so evidently "yes, you were including Russia".

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#795

Post by countschnapps »

amiga_500 wrote: post #496
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.

Went to the gym 3 times a week, cycled 25k every weekday, ran on the weekends. Now I can only walk, after covid, which I got in early March. I'm hoping to try jogging again at some stage, after CT scans on my lungs, but I think it's a bit of a pipe dream. After 5 months the daily nausea has stopped. No prior conditions. Early 40s. edit: can't think of another site on the internet you'd get downvoted for the above, HN…

[flagged]

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#796

Post by majormajor »

seizethecheese wrote: post #617
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…

> 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 some vulnerable person (probably your parents or a school teacher) with a 1 in 10 chance of death. This is wrong and misleading. You're quoting the average fatality rate for "healthy" people, but the distribution doesn't look like that at all. Then, you cherrypick 10% out of now…

So something like a million+ people dying if we let this run without intervention - because our ability to control transmission is pretty limited even with dramatic measures - out of the US population only matters if they distribution is balanced age-wise?

Economic-cost-wise, why is this cost the one that gets people so riled up?

Is it because it also comes with personal inconvenience, and so much of the other ways we spend money fighting death - or trying to extract revenge for death like after 9/11 - doesn't?

Driving, for instance - the government makes us spend a lot more to have safer cars, but other than styles and types of car available as a result, we don't really get impacted by it. It just makes the cars more expensive, and few people care.

Or maybe we're just bad at dealing with adversity without having someone to blame? So we go reaching for "bad guys"?

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#797

Post by [deleted] »

ardy42 wrote: post #317
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 or see or do anything. What? That's a pretty exaggerated misrepresentation of what's actually being recommended. You can socialize and see or do plenty while still obeying the recommendations. For instance, my elderly neighbors regularly socialize with others -- they just put chairs out on the driveway or patio and maintain two or three times the distance as they…

[deleted]

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#798

Post by akeck »

dasudasu wrote: post #711
seizethecheese wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 some vulnerable person (probably your parents or a school teacher) with a 1 in 10 chance of death. This is wrong and misleading. You're quoting the average fatality rate for "healthy" people, but the distribution doesn't look like that at all. Then, you cherrypick 10% out of now…

True, but that's not as if death was the only bad outcome. Not that we can even pretend to know the long-term effects yet, but anecdotally it seems that some people are already experiencing them, which include lung scarring and neurological symptoms.

For example, in a recent study, 78% percent of recovered people had heart changes visible on a CMRI weeks after recovery.

COVID-19 is going to have a long tail...

[1] Outcomes of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients Recently Recovered From Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), Puntmann et al, JAMA Cardiology, 2020

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#799

Post by DuskStar »

rootusrootus wrote: post #705
djsumdog wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They still have not come clean for their initial mask guidelines that was blatantly wrong I don't think they were. There is a 2013 study that shows cloth masks would be ineffective at preventing spread of respiratory illnesses, and posts by UIC Health early on that said they weren't necessary (which they've added a notice to). I wrote about this here: https://battlepenguin.com/politics/secondary-effects/#masks-...…

> Masks have really torn everyone apart No. No, no no. Masks have torn nobody apart. They could have brought us together. One segment of the population embraced politics and decided that masks was the last straw among all of the rules they otherwise accept in their lives, and decided to turn it into a public statement. These people are the ones that have torn everyone apart and ripped up the social contract. The rest…

> One segment of the population embraced politics and decided that masks was the last straw among all of the rules they otherwise accept in their lives, and decided to turn it into a public statement.

Let's not pretend that there isn't a "wear masks because of politics" segment in the US, too. It's been turned into signalling on both sides, to the detriment of us all.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#800

Post by countschnapps »

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.

that didn't really work out for Nick Cordero did it?
Post reply on HN