3 ms·

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, a

by Swizec 6y ago

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 add up - we stay home or even cancel class when someone feels off - we’re outside so it’s nice and windy - we keep distance when not punching each other and groups of 2 are kept far apart So far so good. It feels like an acceptable level of risk to me. Going to the farmer’s market (with masks) every week is probably way more risky than the boxing class.

Jommi 6y ago
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.
- Swizec 6y ago
  Well I’m not out there licking their face. Isn’t distancing, the plexiglass screens, and mask wearing supposed to fix my risk to others? If memory serves, the probability of transmission is under 1% with those measures.
  - Jommi 6y ago
    Its supposed to reduce it, but we don't know how much. We also don't know how well those standards are adhered to. Could you link the study that backs the 1%? How is that statement better than just coming up with a number?
    - Swizec 6y ago
      Here’s the best I can find. The 1.5% comes from a viral image of why masks are important. CDC says the numbers “show the right idea” but we don’t yet have studies that yield a specific percentage. https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/verify-viral-image-about-masks-gets-the-numbers-wrong-but-the-idea-right/507-ff915e39-5a79-483d-86b7-98ecc796c8e5 https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/verify...
  - vharuck 6y ago
    For the sake of an example, allow me to assume (a) there are 10 people in your class, (b) each of you has an average of one other "risky outing" (shop at a store, one meeting with coworkers, visit another household) a day, and (c) each outing has a 0.5% risk of transmission assuming the boxer's infected. If anyone in your group gets infected, there's a good chance you'll all catch it (you seem to acknowledge this). In that case, in one day of infectiousness, there's a 0.995^10 = 95.111% chance nobody else gets infected. So a 4.889% chance of infecting. That's low. But if you all remain infectious for 14 days, there's now only a (0.995^10)^14 = 49.571% chance nobody new is infected. So the odds are your group spread it to at least one other person. And this process will probably repeat through those new infections. Obviously, these numbers are arbitrary. It's a terrible model for an infectious disease. My point is to show how probability is very hard to reason about. It's unrealistic to expect average citizens to do this.
    - Jommi 6y ago
      Thanks for putting this thought experiment into numbers, even if they are arbitrary. It really helps to form some estimation of a mental model, and shows how goddamn complex all of this is.
- VLM 6y ago
  For some, its very easy to get consent of all the people they interact with in a week. I have no supermarket cashier to request consent of; amazon fresh contactless delivery. I live a pretty wealthy lifestyle away from the coasts, no shared elevators here.
  - Jommi 6y ago
    Yes for some very small and rich minority. Good point!
    - VLM 6y ago
      Well, everyone who doesn't live on the coasts isn't that much of a minority. The quality of life is just better here.
Ansil849 6y ago
I think there are quite a number of safe(r) things you're doing which speakeasies don't seem to be - you're meeting in an outdoor space with a continuous group you know. Based on other anecdotes it seems that there are people more or less literally renting out their garages and basements to strangers.

by Swizec 6y ago

Jommi 6y ago

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.

Swizec 6y ago
Well I’m not out there licking their face. Isn’t distancing, the plexiglass screens, and mask wearing supposed to fix my risk to others? If memory serves, the probability of transmission is under 1% with those measures.
- Jommi 6y ago
  Its supposed to reduce it, but we don't know how much. We also don't know how well those standards are adhered to. Could you link the study that backs the 1%? How is that statement better than just coming up with a number?
  - Swizec 6y ago
    Here’s the best I can find. The 1.5% comes from a viral image of why masks are important. CDC says the numbers “show the right idea” but we don’t yet have studies that yield a specific percentage. https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/verify-viral-image-about-masks-gets-the-numbers-wrong-but-the-idea-right/507-ff915e39-5a79-483d-86b7-98ecc796c8e5 https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/verify...
- vharuck 6y ago
  For the sake of an example, allow me to assume (a) there are 10 people in your class, (b) each of you has an average of one other "risky outing" (shop at a store, one meeting with coworkers, visit another household) a day, and (c) each outing has a 0.5% risk of transmission assuming the boxer's infected. If anyone in your group gets infected, there's a good chance you'll all catch it (you seem to acknowledge this). In that case, in one day of infectiousness, there's a 0.995^10 = 95.111% chance nobody else gets infected. So a 4.889% chance of infecting. That's low. But if you all remain infectious for 14 days, there's now only a (0.995^10)^14 = 49.571% chance nobody new is infected. So the odds are your group spread it to at least one other person. And this process will probably repeat through those new infections. Obviously, these numbers are arbitrary. It's a terrible model for an infectious disease. My point is to show how probability is very hard to reason about. It's unrealistic to expect average citizens to do this.
  - Jommi 6y ago
    Thanks for putting this thought experiment into numbers, even if they are arbitrary. It really helps to form some estimation of a mental model, and shows how goddamn complex all of this is.
VLM 6y ago
For some, its very easy to get consent of all the people they interact with in a week. I have no supermarket cashier to request consent of; amazon fresh contactless delivery. I live a pretty wealthy lifestyle away from the coasts, no shared elevators here.
- Jommi 6y ago
  Yes for some very small and rich minority. Good point!
  - VLM 6y ago
    Well, everyone who doesn't live on the coasts isn't that much of a minority. The quality of life is just better here.

Ansil849 6y ago

I think there are quite a number of safe(r) things you're doing which speakeasies don't seem to be - you're meeting in an outdoor space with a continuous group you know. Based on other anecdotes it seems that there are people more or less literally renting out their garages and basements to strangers.