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

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#891

Post by thrav »

akeck wrote: post #798
dasudasu wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Mostly Ages 50+

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#892

Post by on_and_off »

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.

As somebody young and fit, I am not really scared of dying if I catch covid, but losing my taste or getting my lungs scarred (especially since my respiratory system is not that great to begin with) is definitely preoccupying.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#893

Post by [deleted] »

readingnews wrote: post #211

There is a crossfit gym that I pass by every morning on the way to work. It is full, and never stopped during this pandemic. Even at 7AM, it is full of patrons. I would call the "proper authorities", but since there is a State Police car parked outside every morning, and he is in there working out, just like before the pandemic, I doubt calling anyone would do anything. Adding to the post, I read it earlier... it is…

[deleted]

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#894

Post by [deleted] »

konjin wrote: post #860
readingnews wrote: post #211

There is a crossfit gym that I pass by every morning on the way to work. It is full, and never stopped during this pandemic. Even at 7AM, it is full of patrons. I would call the "proper authorities", but since there is a State Police car parked outside every morning, and he is in there working out, just like before the pandemic, I doubt calling anyone would do anything. Adding to the post, I read it earlier... it is…

> I find it amazing we can not see short term sacrifice for long term gain. The virus kills old people. Yes, it is very sentimental to let your grandmother die. But the savings in long term care alone will more than pay for any emotional distress you have in the short term.

[deleted]

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#895

Post by randomchars »

FourthProtocol wrote: post #681
randomchars wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question I've never found a reasonably answer for is this: Whats the exit strategy? What has to happen for this to end? For what I've read there's a good chance this virus will stay with us for the long term, just like the flu. Waiting for the vaccine is kind of like hoping for a miracle, as it might not even work. So when will all this madness end?

Right now there is no exist strategy. There are possibilities though. Assuming a vaccine doesn't appear, then we're left with herd immunity through community infection. There are problems with that though, because it's not yet clear whether infection with the COVID-19 virus even makes a person immune to future infection. Amidst all the uncertianty a vaccine is our best hope. Personally I'm assuming this will be with…

> it's not yet clear whether infection with the COVID-19 virus even makes a person immune to future infection.

If you don't become immune after getting the virus, how would you become so after vaccination? My understanding is that vaccines have a weaker version or a portion of the virus inside them, and your body needs to make antibodies. But if that doesn't happen?

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#896

Post by refurb »

mrslave wrote: post #734
dasudasu wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Heart scarring too https://www.smh.com.au/national/seizures-and-battered-heart-...

Just like the flu. Here is a nice paper that goes through all the cardiac, neurological, renal and other organ complications of influenza.[1]

[1]https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/irv.12470

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#897

Post by craydandy »

yryan wrote: post #688
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-...…

In your writing, you say: "A study publish in 2013 by the journal of Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness found that cloth masks wouldn’t be effective during an outbreak of a respiratory infection" However, the study you referenced states the opposite: "Both masks significantly reduced the number of microorganisms expelled by volunteers, although the surgical mask was 3 times more effective in blocking tr…

And from the same report:

"However, these masks would provide the wearers little protection from microorganisms from others persons who are infected with respiratory diseases. As a result, we would not recommend the use of homemade face masks as a method of reducing transmission of infection from aerosols."

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#898

Post by refurb »

esrauch wrote: post #875
ekianjo wrote: post #768

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

The most vulnerable died and now it's younger, less vulnerable people being infected and we have safety measures to protect the remaining vulnerable populations?

It will be interesting to see the death rate once this is all over. It might be much lower and the initial numbers were skewed by cases in the elderly.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#899

Post by throwout_covid »

helaoban wrote: post #701
rocha wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also congratulations for not caring about a 1 in 200 chance of death. >> Where's the data to back up any close to an assertion like this? Latest IFR estimates are between 0.5% and 1.0% (1 in 200 to 1 in 100). https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/estimating...

An almost meaningless number when not controlled for age, ethnicity, general health etc. I don't understand how this number can be reasonably used to say anything about basically anything. From the document you site: > Many such serological surveys are currently being > undertaken worldwide [10], and some have thus far > suggested substantial under-ascertainment of cases, with estimates of IFR converging at approxima…

You want controls for ethnicity, but cite a Swedish public health report.

You realize the impact in the US is dramatically greater amongst the black and brown population?

Possibly due to: the higher likelihood of being in essential jobs in areas with greater population density than Sweden.

Or, you need ethnicity controls because, eugenics?

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#900

Post by pdonis »

majormajor wrote: post #796
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…

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 w…

> our ability to control transmission is pretty limited even with dramatic measures

The ability of politicians to control transmission by making decrees, even dramatic ones, is limited, yes.

The ability of ordinary people to control transmission by taking obvious common sense precautions is not. And those obvious common sense precautions should include, yes, not engaging in activities that have a high risk of transmission.

Post reply on HN