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

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#581

Post by auganov »

I'm no fan of lockdowns, but comparisons to the prohibition of alcohol in America are appeals to political mythology. You may argue it didn't work to the extent some have wanted it to, but it did produce "positive" results on almost every notable metric other than political satisfaction. By some measures alcohol consumption only recovered to pre-prohibition levels in the 1960s.

In the big scheme of things it's just not a good example of anything relating to effectiveness of government imposed restrictions.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#582

Post by squidlogic »

foolinaround wrote: post #264
compscistd wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is the logic: it's ok to riot in the streets, but going to the gym is considered unethical.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#583

Post by bluntfang »

rootusrootus wrote: post #509
lazide wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Best data I've seen is 6x (.63% IFR). And due to lack of existing immunity from the Flu which keeps the flu at less than 10% of the population/yr, we're looking at a dramatic death toll. That people don't want to believe it, without evidence to the contrary, just makes them solidly into the wishful thinking category - and likely spreaders that will inevitably get someone killed.

Even at 6x, it still very much comes up for debate. Most reasonable people can agree that a .01% IFR is not worth shutting everything down for, and that a 50% IFR is definitely worth shutting everything down for. Where you fall on this spectrum determines whether someone will call you a wishful thinker or not. Everyone believes their own opinion is the best.

>Most reasonable people can agree

Is this just a way of saying that people who don't agree with you aren't reasonable? What do we do with those people's opinions if they are the majority?

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#584

Post by shpongled »

polmuz wrote: post #329
ehnto wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me preface: I've abstained from going to the gym since we went into lockdown, and even now that we are out of it here. I am looking into equipment at home, and I can at least keep my fitness, if not my strength, by going mountain biking. That said, there are many types of training you can't do without the right equipment, so it's at least a bit more than just wanting to be with others. Strength training/powerlift…

Kettlebells are doing the trick for me, you can start with just one.

Where's my 405lb kettlebell for deadlifts?

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#585

Post by Raidion »

nradov wrote: post #488
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…

What specific long-term gain will we achieve with that short-term sacrifice? Sure we can keep most gyms closed for several more months, and that might marginally reduce the spread of the virus for a while. But the virus is now endemic and will be with us essentially forever. We have to reopen gyms eventually, and then we'll be right back where we started. As long as the curve has been flattened sufficiently and the h…

I think you answered your own question: "As long as the curve has been flattened sufficiently and the healthcare system isn't overwhelmed"

The difference between "overwhelmed" and "not overwhelmed" is pretty subtle. You can measure this in ICU beds and hospital capacity, but that's not sustainable. You have to start asking "How many hours are health care workers working?". You also have to ask, if we did have any setbacks/outbreaks, what buffer do we have in terms of people and PPE availability?

You can't run the system at the red line, it's not sustainable. And any distance between our current capactity and that red line is somewhat open to interpretation, but I bet that distance feels a lot smaller for our EMTs and Doctors than it does for the average person on HN.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#586

Post by kimmeld »

showdeadtest wrote: post #570
johnwalkr wrote: post #543

Wow with these comments. You going to the gym is not saving the economy. Yes, we can't shut everything down but you'd think the article was about shutting down grocery stores or the stock market. And by not doing your part, your whole community could be stunted for 2 years. Also 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 s…

I think more and more people are tired of having their jobs, educations, and social activities toyed with like they are trivial things.

Social activities are most certainly trivial when compared to a pandemic. Right now my kid’s school is starting remote only primarily because teenagers and early 20’s somethings couldn’t stop going to parties over the summer. Actions have consequences.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#587

Post by literallycancer »

polote wrote: post #360
ceejayoz wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe because nobody successfully proved to these people (me included) that this sacrifice is useful. > people who are at risk of dying can protect themselves even around sick people (wearing a mask, staying at home, washing hands, ...) This makes it clear "nobody successfully proved" really means "I didn't bother to listen". The messaging on masks has long been "they reduce transmission by infected people", not "t…

The head of the strategy of Sweden, keep repeating that he is not sure masks are working, how you can be so sure that he is wrong, and decides that's others who are not listening ? Of course it is clear that if someone has covid and wear a mask, the probability to transmit covid will decrease (I was actually encourage people to wear a mask 6 months ago), but will it stop ? no. people can still transmit it by touching…

Tegnell is a fucking idiot. Look at the numbers, look at how it spreads, look at the countries that were doing OK at first and why. That's Taiwan, South Korea, Iceland, Singapore. Look at what Sweden did (nothing). Look at Swedish GDP change compared to neighboring countries.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#588

Post by roughly »

showdeadtest wrote: post #570
johnwalkr wrote: post #543

Wow with these comments. You going to the gym is not saving the economy. Yes, we can't shut everything down but you'd think the article was about shutting down grocery stores or the stock market. And by not doing your part, your whole community could be stunted for 2 years. Also 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 s…

I think more and more people are tired of having their jobs, educations, and social activities toyed with like they are trivial things.

Nobody thinks those things are trivial, but they do think stopping the pandemic is more important.

If I told you to leave your house because it was on fire, would you accuse me of trivializing your daily routine?

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#589

Post by squidlogic »

alistairSH wrote: post #387
odnorazovyj wrote: post #312

Anyone dedicated enough to be still going to the gym is going to be healthy enough that they will have no problem with the coronavirus. The obese, diabetic etc will take any excuse to skip gym.

FFS, healthy people can catch COVID and have serious, life-impacting or deadly complications. Yes, it's more likely to kill older people. That doesn't mean it isn't still dangerous for younger and healthier people.

This response misses the point.

Yes, it is possible for young healthy people to have complications from COVID.

The thinking must go one step further: what is the likelihood of a deleterious outcome? Is it more than the likelihood than them getting in a crash while on the way to the gym (which we do not prohibit)?

A further question: is the mitigating response impacting other outcomes that are important?

In multi-objective analysis you must consider more than just one factor to arrive at an optimal state. I fear the analysis done by many laymen in this area only considers one factor (COVID infection), and even then, considers it without nuance.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#590

Post by asdff »

abeppu wrote: post #25
mbosch wrote: post #5

I started toying around with the idea of building something out for a gym sharing idea. https://gymlender.com

Related, I really don't understand why gyms in my city haven't turned to renting out their equipment. I know people that bought dumbbells, over paid, and picked from really limited inventory. Meanwhile, the gym a block away has a giant pile of weights not being used, and has basically no revenue right now.

just what we need, one guy hogging the 30lb dumbbells all pandemic
Post reply on HN