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

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#941

Post by auganov »

p1necone wrote: post #808
notassigned wrote: post #787

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What do you think you're accomplishing by posting easily debunked misinformation? The data on Sweden is clear, they are down to near zero covid deaths per day in a country of over 10 million people. Can't see how that can be debunked. And how are they significantly worse? They are living normal lives. Also, if something is 'easily debunked' then just do it.

Sweden has had many more deaths than neighboring countries. The death rate slowing now is not going to bring those people back to life. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries Sort by deaths/million - Sweden is even higher than the USA. I'm not going to reply to you any more, don't think you've won just because you gish gallop on to another falsehood in your reply.

You're just picking who to compare Sweden to. There's no reason why we should only compare it to neighboring countries.

Sweden had no lockdown and did about as bad as worst performers many of which had a heavy lockdown. This is absolutely a significant piece of information. If we had a no lockdown country getting the absolute worst result perhaps we could settle the debate. Would UK or some of the other bad performers be worse off without a lockdown? We don't know. There is no example to point to.

If UK could have had no lockdown and replicated Sweden's result then the lockdown was a huge waste.

I'm not saying that you cannot compare it to Norway, nor am I necessarily saying that Sweden couldn't get a better result with a lockdown. But even if that were to be true it doesn't mean Sweden isn't an interesting data point casting doubt on the effectiveness of lockdowns in some countries.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#942

Post by drran »

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…

Solutions are found already. They must be scaled out to whole world: vaccine, contact tracing, masks in public buildings and public transport in case of outbreak, air and surface disinfection at constant rate, vitamin supplements, etc.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#943

Post by aktenlage »

lambda-11235 wrote: post #934
ItsAlwaysMe wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>nobody successfully proved to these people (me included) >sacrificing is the worst solution for everyone >this is not your fault if they [high risk people] catch it >we stop everything for the rest of our lives This is nothing more than a tantrum. Nobody can "prove" it. Humanity is still learning about COVID-19. No model is going to predict the outcome of closing the economy. It has not been done in modern times at…

It is important to differentiate terminology here. According to DDG (which closely aligns with Google's results) the case fatality rate, the ratio of deaths to confirmed case, is 3.5%. For the death rate, the ratio of deaths relative to population size, is 0.01%. Confirmed Cases: 21,991,954 Deaths: 777,018 World Pop.: ~7,800,000,000 Case Fatality Rate = Deaths/Confirmed Cases = ~3.5% Death Rate = Deaths/World Pop. =…

It would be ridiculous to assume the Deaths/World Population figure is the risk for yourself.

That's similar to claiming that, because only 93% of all humans ever born have died so far, your risk of dying is 93%. It may be mathematically sound, but completely ignores the context of the problem: That for the living/not-yet-infected the result is still outstanding.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#945

Post by DanBC »

BurningFrog wrote: post #541
gmanley wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still surprised there is so much misinformation about this. There are two categories of masks. The first category only prevent you from spreading the disease. These include paper surgical masks, cloth masks and those blue disposable paper masks. These are only made to prevent you from spreading droplets in the air from your moth and nose. If someone with covid isn't wearing a mask this category won't do anything…

> I believe the main reason for this was, not that they didn't believe it was effective, but that they were worried about a shortage for health care professionals. Yeah, but instead of saying that they lied and said masks don't work. I wonder how much of the current anti-mask sentiments arise from these lies.

> Yeah, but instead of saying that they lied and said masks don't work.

That's not a lie, it's fact.

It's really easy for you to prove it's a lie: post a link to your best quality evidence that shows masks work.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#946

Post by imtringued »

polote wrote: post #278
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. Maybe because nobody successfully proved to these people (me included) that this sacrifice is useful. You can't tell to people, you have no risk of dying (0.5% death rate for population, much much lower for healthy and young people), people who are at risk of dying can protect themselves even around sick people (wearing a mask, staying at hom…

Masks protect people who aren't sick yet. Their primary mode of operation is making it harder for the virus to spread. But since we don't know when people get sick they have to wear a mask before they get sick for masks to be effective.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#947

Post by austhrow743 »

duderific wrote: post #594
cloakandswagger wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As most authoritarian-collectivist movements go, the "Stay the fuck home" crowd took no time at all in destroying all goodwill towards their worldview. Had its tone been more educational and pleading instead of arrogant, shaming and outright threatening they could have avoided polarizing the conversation and creating a contrarian counter-movement that resists even sensible compromise.

Lives are at stake here, so the "Stay the fuck home" crowd, as you put it, has a right to express feelings that may be stronger than "educational and pleading."

Lives are at stake for every single large scale event or decision. McDonalds changing the price of their fries, in either direction, has lives at stake.

If you can't calmly and dispassionately discuss "lives at stake" situations you have no business in any conversation of importance.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#948

Post by austhrow743 »

mdparker89 wrote: post #396
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…

Assuming that the probability of being hit by lightning is higher than the probability of dying from COVID under 30, it does not follow that one should take the similar levels of precaution for both. Lightning does not present systemic risk. Me getting struck by lightning doesn't change your odds of being struck.

A relevant factor for countries that have largely controlled covid, or back in March when it was uncertain what direction which countries were going in. For ones that have just let it rip though, the people who were going to get it from you are just going to get it from someone else if you isolate.

If I as an Australian have covid and go to a gym and infect a bunch of people, I've given covid to people who otherwise wouldn't have caught it. If an American does the same, they've given covid to people who would have just caught it next week or next month. They've also given it to less people because a lot more people in that gym have already had it than in my Australian one.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#949

Post by Peepootoler »

aktenlage wrote: post #943
lambda-11235 wrote: post #934

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is important to differentiate terminology here. According to DDG (which closely aligns with Google's results) the case fatality rate, the ratio of deaths to confirmed case, is 3.5%. For the death rate, the ratio of deaths relative to population size, is 0.01%. Confirmed Cases: 21,991,954 Deaths: 777,018 World Pop.: ~7,800,000,000 Case Fatality Rate = Deaths/Confirmed Cases = ~3.5% Death Rate = Deaths/World Pop. =…

It would be ridiculous to assume the Deaths/World Population figure is the risk for yourself. That's similar to claiming that, because only 93% of all humans ever born have died so far, your risk of dying is 93%. It may be mathematically sound, but completely ignores the context of the problem: That for the living/not-yet-infected the result is still outstanding.

Unfortunately your risk of dying is 100%.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#950

Post by johnwalkr »

nradov wrote: post #879
johnwalkr wrote: post #831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Look at Asian cities, they generally set criteria, and open and close activities in stages based on the criteria. I live in Tokyo and without much of a lockdown (I’d argue for a bit more action myself), things are OK. Right now bars are supposed to close at 10pm and people are going out less. But they’re still going to work (with masks).

Obviously the political situation and what’s feasible is different, but I hope restrictions on group sizes and a small number of activities is not infeasible. They are not “lockdown”, they are the way to avoid lockdown.

Post reply on HN