4 ms·

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

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, and maintenance/progression of physical capacity. 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. I suspect it would be very marginal for your argument at best, and most likely neutral or positive. That's all to say it's probably rational decision making, though certainly selfish thinking.

dqpb 6y ago
Most people don’t know how to monitor the local disease prevalence rate.
- Enginerrrd 6y ago
  Within a certain range on the lower end, definitely. Above that range, I disagree strongly. People generally know when there's "a bad cold/flu going around" or "a stomach bug" or w/e. There's some good intuitive reasoning there, but I'd agree that they aren't very good at it within a regime where it's prevalent enough to matter, but not quite prevalent enough to see/feel out intuitively.
vharuck 6y ago
>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. On an individual level, I have no doubt you're right. The health benefits from exercise would definitely outweigh the risk of COVID-19 (assuming the individual's not over 65 or has a majorly risky health condition). But this is a pandemic, so decisions are made on the community level. The disease spreads. Healthy people don't live in separate cities from those at risk. Even if everyone is careful, mistakes happen: an unexpected sneeze, unconsciously rubbing your eyes, getting caught in a crowd. We're trying to minimize the number of mistakes (especially the more likely ones). That's not too say whatever policy is current in your area is right. But if you think things can be done safely, consider reaching out to your representatives with a plan backed up by medical research. I know my state desperately wants to reopen businesses; the government doesn't benefit from closures.
- graerg 6y ago
  The ugly truth is that a large fraction of the population just doesn't care about at-risk people (that is to say, they may care to some degree, but not nearly to the same degree as proponents of quarantine). It's pretty gross. This isn't new in any way; just look at how we've treated at-risk populations previously (e.g., homeless folks, the foster system, etc). The difference with the pandemic is that there was a rapid increase in who's considered "at risk".
- Enginerrrd 6y ago
  I actually emphatically support the decisions of local public health authorities, OP just asked for some idea of what the people going to gyms were thinking. Empathy =/= agreement.
- dopylitty 6y ago
  It's not true to say that Covid is only risky for the elderly or folks with pre-existing conditions. Many many young people have been hospitalized and even those who caught the disease and were not hospitalized are finding they have long term health impacts such as difficulty breathing, strokes, and heart problems that can lead to sudden death. It's extremely dangerous to give people the impression that the disease is only serious for those over 65 or with pre-existing conditions. That sort of impression is why people are engaging in risky behavior such as going to gyms.
elliekelly 6y ago
> 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 on the ground because it's cheap and convenient but when everyone acts "rationally" then everyone is worse off compared to when we coordinate.
- pyronik19 6y ago
  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 results as economic socialism... everyone is miserable.
  - Ansil849 6y ago
    > the insistence of public policy to impose such draconian limitations on individual rights If people gave a damn about other people, they would be following best practices voluntarily, which would make policy limitations a moot point. But they do not, so here we are.
  - vharuck 6y ago
    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.
munificent 6y ago
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?
- wittyreference 6y ago
  > Why do randos think they understand the threat model better than the CDC and state medical authorities? This is HN. We get a post on at least a weekly basis to the effect of: medications shouldn’t require prescriptions, anyone with an internet connection and a couple brain cells can manage their own care. HN: home of “no one in management can possibly understand the technical complexity of software” and “who needs doctors, obviously I can easily understand that other enormous technical field.”
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- Enginerrrd 6y ago
  You are conflating multiple issues here. One, OP's question was about the threat model of underground-gym-goers not the CDC and state/local medical authorities. Two, public health authorities don't do "exactly that calculation" because they are looking at interventions on the population level. Their job is to mandate things that would be individually irrational for the collective good. They have their own calculus about what the acceptable trade-offs are, that I'd suspect ultimately relates to the same monetary value of a human life that FEMA uses, but I'm not sure. I generally trust them to do their job correctly though.

dqpb 6y ago

Most people don’t know how to monitor the local disease prevalence rate.

Enginerrrd 6y ago
Within a certain range on the lower end, definitely. Above that range, I disagree strongly. People generally know when there's "a bad cold/flu going around" or "a stomach bug" or w/e. There's some good intuitive reasoning there, but I'd agree that they aren't very good at it within a regime where it's prevalent enough to matter, but not quite prevalent enough to see/feel out intuitively.

vharuck 6y ago

>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. On an individual level, I have no doubt you're right. The health benefits from exercise would definitely outweigh the risk of COVID-19 (assuming the individual's not over 65 or has a majorly risky health condition). But this is a pandemic, so decisions are made on the community level. The disease spreads. Healthy people don't live in separate cities from those at risk. Even if everyone is careful, mistakes happen: an unexpected sneeze, unconsciously rubbing your eyes, getting caught in a crowd. We're trying to minimize the number of mistakes (especially the more likely ones). That's not too say whatever policy is current in your area is right. But if you think things can be done safely, consider reaching out to your representatives with a plan backed up by medical research. I know my state desperately wants to reopen businesses; the government doesn't benefit from closures.

graerg 6y ago
The ugly truth is that a large fraction of the population just doesn't care about at-risk people (that is to say, they may care to some degree, but not nearly to the same degree as proponents of quarantine). It's pretty gross. This isn't new in any way; just look at how we've treated at-risk populations previously (e.g., homeless folks, the foster system, etc). The difference with the pandemic is that there was a rapid increase in who's considered "at risk".
Enginerrrd 6y ago
I actually emphatically support the decisions of local public health authorities, OP just asked for some idea of what the people going to gyms were thinking. Empathy =/= agreement.
dopylitty 6y ago
It's not true to say that Covid is only risky for the elderly or folks with pre-existing conditions. Many many young people have been hospitalized and even those who caught the disease and were not hospitalized are finding they have long term health impacts such as difficulty breathing, strokes, and heart problems that can lead to sudden death. It's extremely dangerous to give people the impression that the disease is only serious for those over 65 or with pre-existing conditions. That sort of impression is why people are engaging in risky behavior such as going to gyms.

elliekelly 6y ago

> 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 on the ground because it's cheap and convenient but when everyone acts "rationally" then everyone is worse off compared to when we coordinate.

pyronik19 6y ago
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 results as economic socialism... everyone is miserable.
- Ansil849 6y ago
  > the insistence of public policy to impose such draconian limitations on individual rights If people gave a damn about other people, they would be following best practices voluntarily, which would make policy limitations a moot point. But they do not, so here we are.
- vharuck 6y ago
  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.

munificent 6y ago

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?

wittyreference 6y ago
> Why do randos think they understand the threat model better than the CDC and state medical authorities? This is HN. We get a post on at least a weekly basis to the effect of: medications shouldn’t require prescriptions, anyone with an internet connection and a couple brain cells can manage their own care. HN: home of “no one in management can possibly understand the technical complexity of software” and “who needs doctors, obviously I can easily understand that other enormous technical field.”
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Enginerrrd 6y ago
You are conflating multiple issues here. One, OP's question was about the threat model of underground-gym-goers not the CDC and state/local medical authorities. Two, public health authorities don't do "exactly that calculation" because they are looking at interventions on the population level. Their job is to mandate things that would be individually irrational for the collective good. They have their own calculus about what the acceptable trade-offs are, that I'd suspect ultimately relates to the same monetary value of a human life that FEMA uses, but I'm not sure. I generally trust them to do their job correctly though.