Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition • Hacker News Board

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#261

Post by TheCoelacanth » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

paganel wrote: post #147

reaperducer wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Both firefighters and doctors are a relatively recent “invention”, I’d say 100-150 years old (with the medical profession being re-invented after a first stint back in Antiquity). As such there’s nothing “essential” about them, you could say that bakers, fishermen or even sex-workers are more essential than doctors and fire-fighters.

And people died because of them lack of them.

It's a pretty twisted definition of "essential" to include only the things that are definitely going to kill you if you go without and not to include the things that just might kill you.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#262

Post by vharuck » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

pyronik19 wrote: post #243

elliekelly wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd love to see you try and add all that up in micromorts of personal risk and show me that it's actually a bad rational decision. Isn't that the whole reason public health is necessary? Because a large group of individuals making rational health decisions alone can, collectively, make poor health decisions for the group? It's kind of like polluting or littering. Yes it's perfectly rational for me to throw my trash…

I'd argue that the insistence of public policy to impose such draconian limitations on individual rights has a larger negative health and well being outcomes, but we have made the cost collectively born so we are all miserable, broke, and in bad health to prevent to save a marginal number of people who were already in poor health status. We are practicing socialism but applied to health and wellbeing, with the same r…

You say that like, if governments didn't impose restrictions, a new and highly contagious virus that can send you or loved ones to the ICU would not make people avoid crowds, spend less, and overall feel miserable.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#263

Post by showdeadtest » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:42 PM UTC

compscistd wrote: post #227

sushshshsh wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because the landlord still expects rent to be due.

I believe the parent comment isn't bemoaning the business practices of these landlords but instead addressing the unethical behavior of its patrons.

I think few are willing to sustain a COVID-free lifestyle indefinitely. Using induction some people probably conclude that they might as well not bother.

I see the reasoning and don’t think the ethics of our pandemic behaviors have been fully discussed.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#264

Post by foolinaround » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:42 PM UTC

compscistd wrote: post #227

sushshshsh wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because the landlord still expects rent to be due.

I believe the parent comment isn't bemoaning the business practices of these landlords but instead addressing the unethical behavior of its patrons.

> the unethical behavior of its patrons

the patrons apparently don't believe that their behavior is unethical, and in fact, think that the dictates of their rules are unethical, and potentially illegal too.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#265

Post by clairity » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:43 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…

> "...the existence of gray market gyms and parties is at least understandable..."

much of what you say is reasonable, but those two examples are actually quite different, and it's important to be careful with generalized pronouncements because of those important differences.

folks going to a gym can still distance properly, and so can still reasonably curtail transmission. the primary purpose of the gym is a personal workout, not sharing indoor airspace with others for prolonged amounts of time with abandon.

most (large) parties on the other hand are willfully defiant and reckless, with no intention of containing transmission.

gyms are fine, small get-togethers are likely fine, all-night ragers are overwhelmingly unlikely to be fine.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#266

Post by reaperducer » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:44 PM UTC

sushshshsh wrote: post #213

reaperducer wrote: post #63

It's not just gyms. It's underground bars, hair salons, hot stone yoga joints, and all kinds of things. While the hair salons were closed, my wife's hairdresser was texting her every three days to get her into her underground makeshift totally illegal hair place. And slightly realated, quarantines don't work when people aren't actually quarantined. There was an article in the newspaper last week or the week before ab…

"Totally illegal underground makeshift hair place" I'm confused, if the participants wear a mask, will the virus be transmitted or not?

I'm confused, if the participants wear a mask, will the virus be transmitted or not?

For some, it's not about whether the virus is transmitted or not, it's about the moral implications of deliberately violating the law.

But considering these underground places aren't licensed, regulated, or inspected, I expect they're more risky than a regular place. There's very good health and sanitation reasons that hair cutting places are regulated in the first place.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#267

Post by 0-O-0 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:44 PM UTC

throwawaygh wrote: post #156

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…

> 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…

> Why would governors want keep gyms and restaurants closed post-COVID?

A completely corrupt mayor could use this newfound power to solicit some political donations. There are plenty other possibilities, like the need to be seen responding to the crisis or "tough on the virus".

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#268

Post by lolbrels » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:44 PM UTC

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…

If they are taking required precautions what is the problem? They've done this at my gym and I have continued to go throughout the "pandemic". Easy to sit on your high horse here and state your disbelief and amazement that people want to continue living their lives, why not just leave them alone? You choose how to live your life and we will choose ours.

Thanks.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#269

Post by ehnto » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:44 PM UTC

That's fascinating, and I had wondered if it were happening. I guess I was right. Due to the timing of the last 6 months or so, I haven't been making it to the gym as much. I started focussing more on mountain biking, I broke my hand, then my clavicle, traveled to Japan, and then the pandemic showed up.

With all this more focused time during lockdown, I was tempted to buy my own equipment and toyed with the idea of letting some friends come use it, it got me thinking about the legalities and liabilities of that kind of thing.

If we go back into lockdown, I'll definitely be buying my own equipment. I do powerlifting, so bodyweight and a few dumbells don't really cut it.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#270

Post by ww520 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 5:45 PM UTC

I can certainly understand people’s need to continue their exercise routine. This is for their physical and mental health. As long as they keep the precaution in place, whip down and clean up and social distancing.

For me I’ve canceled the gym membership and taking up biking. It has been working out great. Discovered a lot more biking trials around the area. Got plenty of sua shine and vitamin D along the way.