It's not about you. It's about everyone else.
How can someone be so selfish and self-absorbed that they think their "muscle mass" is more important than the health of hundreds or thousands of other people?
I know this question may violate some HN policy, but I can't help but ask: What's wrong with you?
There have been times in the past where I've made HN comments that were meant as constructive criticism to another HN user. But my accidental tone ruined any chance of my comment being helpful. @dang was gracious enough to provide me detailed feedback [0], and it seems to be working for me.
And let's be clear here: This isn't about the "health" of the gym-goers. It's about preserving their self-image.
Sadly, this is the source of your downvotes. For so many (even here on HN of all places), it's all about ME. My freedom. My choices. My comfort. My convenience. My need to eat at that restaurant or buy that ranch dressing. My absolute right to do squats next to some random person at a gym. Anything that gets in the way of my freedom to do every little thing I want to do any time I want to do it is bad.
We're not talking about genocide here or shredding the constitution. We're talking about sensible and temporary public health policy. But no, I just have to go get my hair done.
Also, I am not concerned how others perceive my beliefs because I know what works for me, so to each their own.
Is America really that filled with narcissists?
Home Depot - construction industry is essential
Walmart - groceries are essential
Liquor stores -- groceries are essential
Pot shops -- pharmacies are essential
Gyms -- recreation is not essential
Churches -- culture is not essential
Salons -- culture is not essential
Non-chain stores -- don't have groceries, therefore not essential
Political gatherings -- opposed by the opposite side, nothing has changed
But specifically we went from "avoid overwhelming the health system" to "let's do the things that stops people from continuing to die". And those things involve avoiding human contact unless it is essential, mask wearing, and social distancing. It's not crazy that our government is asking us to do things that make us less likely to die. You know, unless you're a seatbelt truther.
"The response wasn't perfect so shut down all current and future attempts to save lives."
Cool.
COVID inspired woke-scolding is more narcissistic.
> COVID inspired woke-scolding is more narcissistic.
I have a feeling you would say the same thing with or without a deadly virus ravaging your country.
i.e "egocentricism", as mentioned. Are you arguing about the perception of a narcissist, or your own? I'd rather not bite, thanks.
"Symptoms include an excessive need for admiration, disregard for others' feelings, an inability to handle any criticism, and a sense of entitlement."
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-...
I get that you enjoy splitting hairs to confuse an otherwise simple discussion, but I don't.
That's the first article that shows for googling [covid-19 vascular disease].
Basically my understanding of the current understanding is that COVID-19 is better thought of as a disease that can cause blood clots, particularly in several organ systems, particularly in the lungs -- you start getting blood clots in your lungs and consequently can't breathe very well.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/opinion/covid-19-heart-di...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2020/08/17/covid-...
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.
The "economy" is just our way of measuring what people do for themselves and others all day. "Some artisan dog biscuit company" is someone else's lifelong work and dream, not just a number in a spreadsheet. Minimizing may make you feel better about selfishly demanding everyone turn their lives off, but it's not an accurate representation of the world.
It's not just about you
If muscle mass or fitness is a concern, work out at home. Or outside. Ride a bike, go for a run, do some pushups. Pick up large rocks. Buy a squat rack or rowing machine. Go climb a mountain.
Access to a gym is absolutely not required to maintain fitness.
I fear that after this every time there's a bad flu season we will see this same shit again because "think of the most vulnerable among us, you're literally killing them!!"
My coworker has been told he may never taste or smell again as he "recovers" from covid.
There's evidence that COVID survivors might have long term heart conditions https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas...
Think of the most vulnerable among us. You are killing them.
None of this is new! This coronavirus is a novel coronavirus, not a magical one. It has effects that are in line with other viral illnesses in humans. It's just a bit more virulent than them. It's a matter of quantitative difference, not qualitative difference.
There is a qualitative difference as well. The lingering side effects of the Lyme-causing bacteria is on a level apart from what happens when you get food-poisoned.
So it's all perfectly fine then? Because there are other viruses that do harm, we should allow this virus to run rampant.
Guess how I know you're not a doctor.
2. Sweden tried this route. They now have the deaths plus the economic fallout (-6% GDP, just like the locked down neighbours Denmark and Norway), mostly due to the international interconnectedness (collapsing supplier chains etc.)
The US tried something a little like this with forgivable loans to pay businesses' paychecks, but the trouble is they did this after rolling out an unemployment boost that left less well-paid people better off than if they were employed, so it was a little difficult to convince business owners who didn't want their employees to try and murder them in their sleep to take it up.
If we are spending hundreds of times as much mitigating a virus five times as bad as common illnesses (yes a once in a century event) are we now going to spend dozens of times more money/effort mitigating the flu every year? If yes then we will see lockdowns like this regularly going forward. If no, then the vast majority of the response to COVID is an emotional overreaction, not rational risk mitigation/pricing in externalities.
I will say in mid-March, when things looked quite different based on our limited knowledge of the virus, that the response wasn't entirely unwarranted. But we've known for months that this isn't nearly as bad as feared. It isn't the second coming of smallpox. Yet we still have most of the restrictions and shaming from March, even to this day.
how do you quantify "five times as bad" ? if I run my car into a brick wall at ten miles an hour, vs. 50, one event damages my car the other kills me. is that "five times as bad"?
> are we now going to spend dozens of times more money/effort mitigating the flu every year? If yes then we will see lockdowns like this regularly going forward.
no, why would we? the flu does not overwhelm hospitals [edit: the 2018 flu season comparison is a counterpoint but there is no argument this is anything on the scale what covid has done in places like NYC], cripple the entire medical system such that thousands of patients are left to die in hallways and parking lots, and spread exponentially to kill hundreds of thousands of people within just a few months.
> If no, then the vast majority of the response to COVID is an emotional overreaction, not rational risk mitigation/pricing in externalities.
you have made no argument to support this case.
> I will say in mid-March, when things looked quite different based on our limited knowledge of the virus, that the response wasn't entirely unwarranted.
what exactly "looked quite different" ? the main things that were known in march, e.g. spreads exponentially, r0 is something like 2 or 3 if steps aren't taken, has a 20% hospitalization rate, has a high death rate for those hospitalized which has improved somewaht but that is predicated on the fact that hospitals are availble, are still true.
There were a lot of tweets from people who work in public health about the argument you're making. "If people said we overreacted, then we will know we did our job". That's how it works when you prevent a horrible thing from going out of control. People who for whatever reason don't seem to understand what happened will crow about how unnecessary that was. Can you see how this looks to anyone who is actually trained in this area?
yes it does https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...
flu may not kill as much as covid or spread as fast as covid but still thousand of people die every year, so somehow that is acceptable without lockdown ?
https://www.contagionlive.com/news/why-comparing-flu-covid-1...
>there was not a global lockdown for the 2018 flu season
Yes, so despite that there are thousand of death due to flue and hospital overwhelmed, somehow is was acceptable to not have lockdown back then?
Due to lockdown the hospital are furloughing, lying off nurse, freeze hiring.
Just look at Sweden where they didn't lockdown.
Doesn't mean I say we should not take any step. Step to make vaccine still has to be done, improving treatment still have to be done, increasing health care capacity still have to be done.
I would hope economists would make judgements based on more than aping what happened "in recent memory," but somehow I'm not surprised. IIRC the last time we had major pandemic like this, gathering places were closed (like now), social distancing was done (like now), masks were worn (like now), and some people chafed against the restrictions and decided that it was better to endanger others (like now).
Lockdowns are killing the most vulnerable among us. We need to take them into account too.
I'm an athlete myself so I get it. Working out is important. But people are reporting that they are not back to 100% even _months_ after the primary symptoms of COVID are gone. And health professionals are saying that it's very possible to lose things like lung capacity PERMANENTLY. Honestly that scares me more than the idea of being badly sick for 1-2 months. I worked hard to make my lungs strong.
Also, of course, the whole concept of responsibility to our communities in a global pandemic is even more important, but an appeal to self-interest is there as well.
Yes, there are possible outcomes that are absolutely terrible and potentially even permanent! Nobody is debating this.
However, what we need to have a real and fact-based discussion is that how prevalent these outcomes are, what are they based on, and what groups are most affected.
Then we as a society can come together and choose what the appropriate response is.
Of course this all breaks down when you have a country of 382M people that refuses to even attempt the creation of smaller, more manageable communities.
I don't understand that comment. I keep up to date on the latest scientific papers on the coronavirus pandemic, and the one thing I wouldn't call it is obvious. We repeatedly see things happening that run contrary to what the consensus expectation was. Obviously some of this is due to improvements in our understanding over time, but we are still very much in the dark about how it is currently spreading, who is most likely to suffer fatal or severe consequences, how we best treat the disease, etc.
Charitably, it is neither as bad as we feared nor as innocuous as some hoped, but that was bound to be the case and easily predictable. I don't feel at all confident predicting what comes next, however.
The fact that we are still following the same guidelines as we did in February makes it pretty obvious that governments are not really working with the new data currently coming out, but instead still trying to scramble to put a cap on any possible downside COVID has.
To put it in other terms, most world governments (and majority of their people in some cases!) are thinking like this currently, in terms of "amount of danger"
potential, currently unknown, negative outcomes related to COVID > millions without jobs, tens of millions stuck inside getting cabin fever and whole industries collapsing.
Who is "we"? My state went from "no one go anywhere, disinfect surfaces" to "wear masks everywhere, avoid groups of people indoors". We've gone through a lot of phases as more information became available, and while things are very much not yet back to normal, many restrictions have been lifted once it was apparent they weren't needed.
1/2 not worth it. 1/1000 - will take my chances. Covid seems to have flipped a switch in people's brains that make every probability 1.
It's more like:
- X/1000 chance for people who go to the gym, get sick, lose health permanently, probably infect others
- 0/1000 chance of the same if you stay away from the gym and try to do some sort of similar workout at home, even if it's not ideal. Body weight exercises are great by the way
Who cares if X is 1 or 999? Why would anyone choose the first option?
People choose the first option because they weigh risks differently. The risk of permanent health damage as a result of coronavirus disease in my age bracket with no pre-existing conditions is effectively nil.
True if there is no downside, but I can easily think few benefit going to gym :
- some sports can't be done indoor
- some sports can't be done alone
- some sports require equipment that you don't have at home
- social benefit
For now it seems like indoor gyms as we know them today are probably a bad idea. Hopefully due to a combination of better mitigations in the gym itself (sure put the squat rack in a giant bubble), decline in case counts, etc means the day where going back is not too far away (fingers crossed).
I'm hoping that the early vaccine trials go well and are approved. There is promising progress there but who knows.
There seem to be other nasty long term effects that are mostly unknown.
The idea that kids don't get or spread covid is not supported by evidence. They seem to get less symptoms, but there isn't enough evidence to say they don't get or spread it. Some studies suggest they are more likely to get and spread it, but there isn't enough to make strong statements yet
Of course, there always non zero probably of death for anything.
>There seem to be other nasty long term effects that are mostly unknown.
Of course, it could happen with any other diseases
>The idea that kids don't get or spread covid is not supported by evidence
Of course they may get or spread it but its very unlikely.
>but there isn't enough to make strong statements yet
Exactly, if there isn't enough evidence then don't close school.
Or do some 100m max effort hill repeats
Or jump squats
Or buy a futon and try moving that heavy and bulky mattress up a flight of stairs, alone.
There are hundreds of ways to get great workouts that do not require an indoor gym.
100m max effort hill repeats aren't really anabolic the same way squats are.
Jump squats aren't the same as pulling weight.
Your futon doesn't weigh as much as what I'm squatting and I'm much more likely to injure myself hauling it's awkward shape up stairs
There are hundreds of ways to get a workout but people go to the gym for good reasons
Great if that's what you want but not a replacement for proper weighted squats.
I'm not working out with buckets full of liquid or materials thats hard to clean up.
Dumbells, kettle bells, and weighted vests are all off topic on the reply given the person was talking about doing bodyweight exercises.
Jump squats are great but not the same thing as properly weighted squats.
Neuromuscular fitness all well and good, but how many months now? My nervous system is great, what I'm missing is load.
The exceptions are sport specific exercises which require certain movements that may require certain equipment.
The fact that push-ups exist refutes the false dilemma. The fact that gyms exist does not refute the idea that you can stay fit without a gym.
Me too. I live alone, and for the first 110 days of lockdown in the UK, I saw another human being that I know in person for 6 of those days. The toll that has taken on my mental health is huge.
Combine the lack of human interaction with the loss of everything that has value to me and my life outside of my job: restaurants, museums, sporting events, theatres, gyms, sporting activities, all of these things disappeared overnight, and most of them haven't returned still.
Instead, I've taken up volunteering (while still holding down a 60hr/week job) with local charities, helping those in the community around me who are more vulnerable and more in need than I am. Mostly helping out with food deliveries, which makes for good exercise, but often collecting drugs for them and delivering to them, which can make for decent cardio if the distances are right.
TL;DR: There are ways to achieve the goals you need for yourself, and simultaneously helping others rather than endangering them.
EDIT: watching the count on this post is amusing. Maybe it's worth being explicitly clear: despite the volunteering work, I am absolutely still depressed, and will continue to be until I can make meaningful changes to improve my life. There's no magic bullet when you sacrifice the things that give you meaning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_withdrawal_syndrome
> In the Western world about 15% of people have problems with alcoholism at some point in time. About half of people with alcoholism will develop withdrawal symptoms upon reducing their use, with four percent developing severe symptoms. Among those with severe symptoms up to 15% die.