Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition • Hacker News Board

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#151

Post by munificent » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:00 PM UTC

Enginerrrd wrote: post #53

Ansil849 wrote: post #29

This seems incredibly dangerous. Are the speakeasy gyms requiring negative COVID tests? Are they doing temperature screenings upon entry? How diligently are they sanitizing equipment? How well ventilated are these various areas? Why are people ignoring all of these risks, what kind of threat model do they have?

I'd guess the threat model is something like: relatively low local disease prevalence rate, the likelihood that infected people show up to workout is lower than other activities like office-work, and relatively low likelihood of personal adverse outcomes in someone healthy enough to be going to an underground gym. Further, there are major benefits to psychological state, social/emotional state, mental acuity, health,…

I'd like to believe that the scientific and medical authorities who are being consulted by local and state leadership have done exactly that calculation... and that result was states mandating that these businesses be shut down.

Why do randos think they understand the threat model better than the CDC and state medical authorities?

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#152

Post by fortran77 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:01 PM UTC

I know of one "secret gym" that's extremely well ventilated, everyone wears masks, and everyone is socially distanced. They don't do things that require spots, etc. I think it's pretty safe. Only 6 people are allowed in at one time.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#153

Post by kbenson » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:02 PM UTC

henriquez wrote: post #79

adolph wrote: post #14

Unlike actual prohibition, the social agreement behind "lockdowns" is subject to time contingencies. The activities considered "essential" grow as time passes. While there are nominal categories of "essential" defined by community/political leaders, that contract depends on agreement. Since each person's conception of "essential" is different, as time passes "essential" grows exponentially instead of linearly.

An extension of this is the notion of emergency authorities and people’s perception of the weight they carry. An emergency is an emergent situation, which must be new, evolving, and carry the risk of serious harm. Emergency orders are based upon the idea that executive authority must be wielded to quickly mitigate an emergency situation. But a key attribute of an emergency (by definition) is “new” - if emergency powe…

> But a key attribute of an emergency (by definition) is “new”

I think perhaps a better attribute for what you are going for is temporary, and temporary is relative. The changes due to the emergency of COVID-19 are temporary, but longer lasting that some other emergencies, like a fire for example. Although I've now gotten used to fire emergencies lasting weeks, which is entirely new as of the last few years.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#154

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:02 PM UTC

slumpt_ wrote: post #101

danilocesar wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of answer shows why covid is hitting so hard in america. "I do whatever I want, you do whatever you want" it's not about the individual, what he wants or do. It's about this individual spreading the virus to the community later on.

It makes me sad seeing a community I’d otherwise regard as intelligent being so profoundly ignorant. But I also acknowledge this is a western culture issue more than one of intelligence alone. Discouraging nonetheless. We’ve really messed up.

It seems terribly unfair to call it profound ignorance. As you say, it's a values difference. If you remember learning about "individualism", that's what it means; it's the idea that the collective doesn't have unbounded authority to tell individuals what to do.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#155

Post by _pd19 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:02 PM UTC

hammock wrote: post #135

MiroF wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is a reckless driver endangering you, if you are driving safely?

Off topic, and there are some who would argue reckless driving or even drunk driving is a victimless crime. The victimization occurs when (or if, since the vast majority of intoxicated driving incidents result in no damage) actual damage is caused to person or property.

By some, you basically mean libertarians right?

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#156

Post by throwawaygh » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:03 PM UTC

dx87 wrote: post #109

henriquez wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An extension of this is the notion of emergency authorities and people’s perception of the weight they carry. An emergency is an emergent situation, which must be new, evolving, and carry the risk of serious harm. Emergency orders are based upon the idea that executive authority must be wielded to quickly mitigate an emergency situation. But a key attribute of an emergency (by definition) is “new” - if emergency powe…

> Now we have a lot of governors issuing decrees based on emergency authorities that they’ve been using for six months. This is quite simply a conflict with our basic notion of democracy. We do not have rulers, yet our governors are issuing rules purportedly carrying the weight of law with no oversight from legislature. That was my biggest issue with the whole situation in the USA. All of these emergency measures wer…

> 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 to justify suppressing protests and speech, for example -- aren't happening even now.

The only way this theory makes even the remotest bit of sense is if elected officials are malevolent villains hell-bent on literally any arbitrary form of control even in cases where it undermines their own self-interest and happiness. Believe it or not, governors and mayors enjoy eating out, some go to the gym, and no one enjoys wearing masks.

I do believe there's a very real danger of emergency powers being extended indefinitely in general. But not in the case of health orders related to COVID. Because the powers being exercised aren't the sort of things even the most power-hungry person would want to enforce indefinitely. There's just no motivation to do so. And, for anyone not experiencing a literal and extreme psychotic break, lots of even completely self-interested incentives to get things back to normal.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#157

Post by derekp7 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:03 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #118

stagger87 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do essential workers all have to be valued on an equal basis as firefighters, doctors, etc? How are you measuring value?

Why do essential workers all have to be valued on an equal basis as firefighters, doctors, etc? Because that's what the word "essential" means: Things you can't do without. Not "things I really really really like." How are you measuring value? People who save lives > people who don't save lives.

There could be a couple different usages of "essential" in this case. There is the services that are needed to keep people alive, then there are services needed to keep people healthy (including mental health), and finally services needed because taking them away would induce a large amount of non-compliance with the public.

Then there is the twisting of "essential" -- the home center needs to say open because if a pipe busts in your house you need to get replacement parts to fix it. But most people go to the home center to pick up materials for home projects that they can now do because they suddenly have a large amount of at-home time on their hands.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#158

Post by nitrogen » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:04 PM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #150

dx87 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now we have a lot of governors issuing decrees based on emergency authorities that they’ve been using for six months. This is quite simply a conflict with our basic notion of democracy. We do not have rulers, yet our governors are issuing rules purportedly carrying the weight of law with no oversight from legislature. That was my biggest issue with the whole situation in the USA. All of these emergency measures wer…

I have never understood the demand for timelines. Pandemics do not care about calendars, and expecting our response to a pandemic to have an expiration date struck me as both folly and hubris of a lethal variety. Now if we expected our government to set conditions of the lock down ending, that would be better. Something based around the pandemic itself, such as new infections per day and test positivity would probabl…

Timelines can have milestones instead of dates, as you say. It's still a "timeline" because it's a sequence of events ordered by (indeterminate amounts of) time.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#159

Post by Jommi » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:04 PM UTC

Swizec wrote: post #91

Ansil849 wrote: post #29

This seems incredibly dangerous. Are the speakeasy gyms requiring negative COVID tests? Are they doing temperature screenings upon entry? How diligently are they sanitizing equipment? How well ventilated are these various areas? Why are people ignoring all of these risks, what kind of threat model do they have?

I go to a boxing class in the park. We meet 2x/week and train together. You can’t distance while boxing. Here’s my threat model: - we’re all young, healthy, and in good shape - we all wear masks during normal life, some of us even while training - we all social distance and follow the right protocols outside of boxing - it’s always the same group of people - 2x/week seems like low enough frequency that exposure won’t…

It seems like an acceptable level of risk to me as well.

But is it an acceptable level to all the people you counteract with say within a week?

Is the cashier at your supermarket, that lives with their 6+ family members, ok with you doing this?

Is your elderly neighbour that also uses your elevator OK with this?

This is the moral and societal conundrum we are in.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#160

Post by cik2e » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:04 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #20

dfxm12 wrote: post #6

I don't get it. Unless you're training for a very specific purpose (like an MMA fight or football season), why do you need specific indoor gym equipment? Shelter in place orders are largely lifted, so you can workout outside: run, do pull ups on a tree branch, ride a bike, lift a heavy stone, do an outdoor yoga class, etc. Hell, you only need maybe a 6' x 6' area for a perfectly effective body weight routine, even in…

"Lift a heavy stone"? That's a joke, right? Barbells and dumbbells are appropriately ergonomic (handles, balance, etc.) and won't ruin your back if you use proper technique. Lifting a heavy stone is a recipe for injuring yourself severely . People need specific indoor gym equipment if they lift, which is a very valid form of exercise. Or, you know, if it's raining or thunderstorming or a humid 100°F outside. And body…

> People need specific indoor gym equipment if they lift, which is a very valid form of exercise. Or, you know, if it's raining or thunderstorming or a humid 100°F outside.

I've been lifting for 15 years, mostly in the gym. The last couple of years though, I've realized how much you can do with bands. You can't beat them on cost and convenience in the realm of home gym equipment. The only thing you can't reasonably do with them are squats. Deadlifts can be substituted with pull-throughs which are a better posterior chain movement anyway. Yea, you might have to do more reps. That's infinitely better than nothing.

Unless you're a competitive strength athlete, or trying to be one, not having access to a gym is frankly an excuse. In my younger days I used to have a very rigid mentality when it came to strength training which eventually led to burnout and extended vacations from the gym. Having mental flexibility instead of striving for some notion of perfection is what's kept me in this game long-term.

EDIT: typo