Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition • Hacker News Board

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#391

Post by throwawaygh » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:31 PM UTC

0-O-0 wrote: post #267

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…

> 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".

> A completely corrupt mayor could use this newfound power to solicit some political donations.

...dear god, from who? The Big Mask Cabal? Sorry, this makes no god damn sense.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#392

Post by grugagag » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:31 PM UTC

mitjak wrote: post #357

grugagag wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re an exception and you are more than welcome to join a secret gym. I was just pointing out to others that outdoors is a good option for exercising, at least during the summer. If you want to look like an ogre you probably don’t want to be seen outdoors anyways.

i find ogres attractive, maybe don't shame people for having different preferences from you?

People are free to do whatever they want and look however they want, I agree with that. I am not shaming anyone for striving to look like an ogre, it's their preference but I still think it is an unhealthy thing to do to your body and a fad. I have 2 friends who bulk up and are actually in a very bad shape mobility wise, their arms are so big that they can't reach arms behind their backs and stuff like that. Plus that they can lift big weights but don't have much endurance and tire easily.

Sure, adding a bit of shape to your body is not a bad thing but exaggerating it doesn't lead to good outcomes

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#393

Post by polote » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:32 PM UTC

jurassic wrote: post #378

polote wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then lets lockdown and force people who are less healthy to take all the steps to protect themselves, and leave alone the healty ones ?

Vulnerable people have needs that are supplied by the broader community (food, medicines, medical care, etc) so it's impossible to fully isolate vulnerable populations.

let's do like, china and directly deliver food to them. Every citizen of the us has been sent a 1200 check, US is able to fund a service like that also

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#394

Post by briffle » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:32 PM UTC

jdhn wrote: post #364

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…

I'm tired of hearing about "the new normal". This is NOT normal, and the weak attempts to make it normal is just disgusting. Like you said, this isn't as deadly as people first thought it was, but it seems that those in charge don't want to admit that they're wrong, and as a result everybody is suffering from this even if they really wouldn't suffer from COVID.

When the virus hit China, it had around a 4% death rate. Now, in the US, we have 5.6M confirmed cases, and 175k deaths. That is 3% death rate. (although, deaths lag behind diagnosis) You're right, its less than they first feared, but not much. And still 30 times the death rate of the flu. There have been some groups that keep looking at the number of deaths, and compare it to the population as a whole, to make the numbers look much smaller. But those are purposefully deceptive.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#395

Post by mam2 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:32 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #230

nitrogen wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been a while since I've seen mention of actuarial analyses of the pandemic vs lockdowns. Could millions of people with muscle atrophy cause more economic harm?

Could millions of people with muscle atrophy cause more economic harm? Who cares? Why is "economic" harm so important? I'm really tired of people saying "But what about the economy?" I really don't care. I care about my health and the health of my family members. If some artisan dog biscuit company goes out of business, so be it.

people need money to eat. 60% of americans have 0 savings.

It's not just about you

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#396

Post by mdparker89 » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:32 PM UTC

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.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#397

Post by throwawaygh » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:33 PM UTC

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…

> 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 would they have to? It certainly wouldn't be in their electoral self-interest.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#398

Post by abduhl » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:34 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #230

nitrogen wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been a while since I've seen mention of actuarial analyses of the pandemic vs lockdowns. Could millions of people with muscle atrophy cause more economic harm?

Could millions of people with muscle atrophy cause more economic harm? Who cares? Why is "economic" harm so important? I'm really tired of people saying "But what about the economy?" I really don't care. I care about my health and the health of my family members. If some artisan dog biscuit company goes out of business, so be it.

I'm really tired of people saying "But what about my health?" I really don't care. I care about my job and the businesses of my family members. If some work from home keyboard jockey gets sick because they left their house instead of locking themselves inside, so be it.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#399

Post by bluGill » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:34 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.

Note that those who argue that line also argue that the decision to drive while drunk makes it a planned attack if you do kill someone and so you are looking at first degree murder charges if you do happen to kill someone.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#400

Post by dredmorbius » Wed, Aug 19, 2020, 6:34 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…

There can be long emergencies.

There is also the sense of an ongoing crises, in the sense of a threat in which there is a very real likelihood of either a very bad, or very positive outcome. The Covid situation strongly resembles this.

Too there is the situation that even after the immediate onset of some emergency has passed, dealing with consequential effects carries great significance. To call on one of my preferred nonmedical disaster scenarios, in the 1975 Banqiao Dam failure (China), 170,000 people ultimately lost their lives. "Only" 25,000 or so drowned in the initial deluge. Over 150,000 perished due to an inadequate, ineffective, or incompetent rescue, recovery, and relief operation, due to starvation and disease.

Historical epidemics, even within the past century and certainly prior to it, have lasted years to decades. Come to think of it, the HIV/AIDS, TB (including TDR variants), MRSA, and hepatitis outbreaks also match this description.

The notion that six months is an excessively long response window fails any experiential comparison. It does howevee reflect failures of education, communication, leadership, and comprehension.