I had been going to legal gyms for two months. The intense focus on hygiene seems to be working since none of the 600 outbreaks inmy state has been traced to a gym.
Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition
871–880 of 1001 posts
Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition
#872Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think more and more people are tired of having their jobs, educations, and social activities toyed with like they are trivial things.
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.
What about when social isolation is linked to suicide?
https://www.amhf.org.au/social_isolation_increases_male_suic...
Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition
#873Earlier 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…
Age is not the only thing that could raise an individual's risk factor to 10%. There is no reason why individuals not in their 80s might, for some other reason, be in a category with higher mortality risk. Honestly, we don't know that much about this disease yet - but we do know that the outcomes for different people can be very diverse. One problem with age-based stats like this is that it gives the impression that…
> But what if the die was already rolled for some individuals?
Why does the timing of the roll matter?
Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition
#874Wow 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…
> not caring about a 1 in 200 chance of death
My chance of death is vastly less than that - probably on the order of 1-10% that.
Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition
#875Earlier 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.
> Europe can relax because they worked hard in the beginning to get everything under control. Where do you see that COVID19 is over? > under control A very steep second wave of infection is, to me, the opposite of "under control". Do you actually check data? https://covid19.who.int/region/euro/country/fr Also, just routinely mentioning: "No country knows the total number of people infected with COVID-19. All we know…
I'm curious about the death rates in the European countries on your WHO link; both France and Spain have clear resurgence in cases but very near zero deaths. Did they actually reduce the morbidity by 100x, or is there some other fundamental difference?
Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition
#876Earlier 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…
This is a general reply, not only to the parent comment. I’m indeed cherry-picking though I didn’t carefully check the numbers. My point is we need to sacrifice some of the more trivial things and make minimal efforts to ride this out, and by not changing our lifestyles, we are passing the risk on to others, some of whom may be vulnerable and some of whom don’t have any option to not go to work (for example) to reduc…
> we need to sacrifice some of the more trivial things
The "more trivial things" like normal social interaction, employment, and healthy exercise?
I've never seen a more pointed example of most people's abject inability to perform utilitarian reasoning than this pandemic. If you think causing at least tens of thousands of suicides since the start of the lockdowns, impoverishing millions of people for years to come, and drastically reducing almost everyone's quality of life is a reasonable tradeoff for buying (on expectation) an extra few months of life for geriatrics, you are not rational.
Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition
#877Earlier 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…
I live in Europe now.
The reason that the "second wave" (if that's what it truly is) is coming now is because of easing of restrictions more than anything else. This is summer, and Europeans religiously go on vacation during summer.
This second rise in Covid-19 is more related to groups moving between borders, and those borders having had their restrictions lifted, than some "lockdowns don't work" conclusion. If you looked at the data for different EU nations, a few weeks after moderate lockdowns were introduced, the curve did in fact flatten and cases began to plummet. And as countries open up their borders -- and gyms have reopened where I live -- cases go up.
I was in Greece a few weeks ago, and the cases in the entire nation were pretty OK. On the island where I was, it was pretty good. But their borders with their neighbors were open -- Croatia, Albania, etc. -- and the uptick came largely from their neighbors. Now, at least last time I checked, current cases are higher than from the "first" wave.
In total - I'd say it's more a result of the vacation mindset and opening of borders here in Europe that is resulting in this summer uptick than a failure of lockdown measures.
Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition
#878Earlier 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.
It's interesting that people are only applying this level of precaution to covid when (if they were consistent) they would probably apply it all the time to every novel viral strain. If the far-off chance of covid causing some crazy complications down the line is enough to warrant partially shutting down civilization, then we should probably all just live in hermetically sealed bubbles on account of the possibility of the hundreds of more obscure but (cumulatively) more dangerous viruses out there.
Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition
#879Earlier 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…
This is a general reply, not only to the parent comment. I’m indeed cherry-picking though I didn’t carefully check the numbers. My point is we need to sacrifice some of the more trivial things and make minimal efforts to ride this out, and by not changing our lifestyles, we are passing the risk on to others, some of whom may be vulnerable and some of whom don’t have any option to not go to work (for example) to reduc…
And how long are you expecting people to avoid the more risky activities? What are the exit criteria?
Obviously there is not going to be a total lockdown in the the US no matter what happens. Regardless of the potential benefits, that option isn't even remotely politically feasible. People simply won't comply, and there aren't enough police to enforce it.
Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition
#880Earlier 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…
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…
> Have you ever seriously contemplated death?
Probably deeper and in a more structured way than you, based on the way you're writing. If your "contemplation" in the context of disease management didn't involve risk analysis (that means multiplying probabilities by utilities), you were probably just mentally masturbating rather than coming up with useful insights.
> Suck it up and do some pushups for gods sake.
Thinking that "some pushups" is the same as a real gym routine also says a lot about you and your qualifications to speak about health management.