- Joined
- Jan 2, 2013
- Messages
- 337
I think this really cool visualization shows how one single "break" in transmission suppression can impact huge geographical areas:
Rex, you seem like a smart dude: why are you making the assumption that gyms are full of low-risk individual's? I think the issue related to containing this virus is that it is extremely hard to predict who is high-risk vs. low risk. I also think you might be conflating risk of transmission vs. risk of mortality and I don't think that bboy is talking about the latter. Really when we talk about huge policy shifts such as re-opening, it relates to trusting the judgement of other people to reduce transmission rates. This I think has been shown to be somewhat of an issue
Nothing could be further from the truth, 90% of deaths have at least one comorbidity so its actually extremely easy to tell. If we dug deeper the number would be closer to 95-98%. People with comorbidities have a personal responsibility to themselves not to go to the gym. This is common sense.
Rex.
I guess what's difficult is how many co-morbid conditions are observable or unobservable? That is, how likely is it that we can know just from looking at someone? I would argue that most are unobservable (heart disease is one example) and thus, it is dangerous to make low-risk and high-risk assumptions. Furthermore, one high-risk person can easily infect low-risk people if they are in close-proximity.
Nothing could be further from the truth, 90% of deaths have at least one comorbidity so its actually extremely easy to tell. If we dug deeper the number would be closer to 95-98%. People with comorbidities have a personal responsibility to themselves not to go to the gym. This is common sense.
Rex.
Are you trying to say that the gyms should remain closed for the few fools who don't know they have a comorbidity or the fools who do and decide to risk their health anyway? And yes exactly a high-risk person can easily infect a low-risk person if they are in close proximity, but you still haven't explained to me how a relatively sparsely populated gym is a greater threat to public health than a crowded Costco. This whole notion you have that people are too stupid to know that they have a comorbidity is actually absurd. Also, it's common sense that the gym population who exercises will be at lower risk than the general public at Costco. Your assertion as to "how do we know" is as absurd as your assertion that we cannot identify comorbidities.
Rex.
The eminent epidemiologist Knut Wittkowski noted that most governments did the opposite of what they should have done -- they failed to adequately quarantine high risk sick people with known comorbidities, while quarantining and social distancing low risk healthy people.
In addition, there is very limited antibody testing to determine who has developed immunity to the current CV strain, thereby supporting the arguably fascist Bill Gates/global elitist narrative to continue locking down society.
Yes, I agree that the continued opening of costco and targets (which seem to be tremendously crowded all the time) is very much counterproductive.
That's what I say too, and there could even be a rule one strike and youre out. Have a big outbreak at your gym and you have to close down until the epidemic is more under control.I see the arguments you both have and you’re both right in some ways.
My question is why can’t they just open and have a policy “enter at you’re own risk” and sign a waiver
The US also has done more tests than any other country in the world, and hence we have more cases than anyone else. Do you actually believe that China has fewer cases than the US?Interesting, I'll have to check it out. I think though that this requires testing who is sick and not-sick and we know how the US has done with that: close to the worst per-capita in the world.
Many gyms are full of at risk patrons. I bet the median age at my gym is about 60 years old. I cant see how the owner can open up and keep those people safe. I think he is going to lose a big majority of his customers. Hes been in business since the 80s I think, so he will probably survive I hope.Rex, you seem like a smart dude: why are you making the assumption that gyms are full of low-risk individual's? I think the issue related to containing this virus is that it is extremely hard to predict who is high-risk vs. low risk. I also think you might be conflating risk of transmission vs. risk of mortality and I don't think that bboy is talking about the latter. Really when we talk about huge policy shifts such as re-opening, it relates to trusting the judgement of other people to reduce transmission rates. This I think has been shown to be somewhat of an issue
They did a similar thing with kids coming home from spring break in FL. My only problem with it is that it takes just one person traveling someplace to light that pathway up. I think realistically for it to be dangerous it would take more than just one person traveling somewhere. I wonder if the maps they make have paths travelled by a lot of people brighter and ones with just one or a few more dim. Anyone know? If they did that then it would be better.I think this really cool visualization shows how one single "break" in transmission suppression can impact huge geographical areas:
The US also has done more tests than any other country in the world, and hence we have more cases than anyone else. Do you actually believe that China has fewer cases than the US?
Great points. In the bodybuilding community there are young people dropping dead from heart attacks. Those guys had no idea, or were just ignoring it and going to the gym. I think the vast majority of cases where someone has a risk factor it is going to be known, but there certainly are some people out there with risks of dying from the virus and don't even know it. I guess those people are just chalked up as another statistic, and being small in number they don't ring a bell.I guess what's difficult is how many co-morbid conditions are observable or unobservable? That is, how likely is it that we can know just from looking at someone? I would argue that most are unobservable (heart disease is one example) and thus, it is dangerous to make low-risk and high-risk assumptions. Furthermore, one high-risk person can easily infect low-risk people if they are in close-proximity.
We also start entering into potentially dangerous territory with this as well - e.g., profiling etc.
They did a similar thing with kids coming home from spring break in FL. My only problem with it is that it takes just one person traveling someplace to light that pathway up. I think realistically for it to be dangerous it would take more than just one person traveling somewhere. I wonder if the maps they make have paths travelled by a lot of people brighter and ones with just one or a few more dim. Anyone know? If they did that then it would be better.
That's what I say too, and there could even be a rule one strike and youre out. Have a big outbreak at your gym and you have to close down until the epidemic is more under control.
That's where it gets really expansive and spreads fast. One of those people from the meat packing facility takes a flight across the country and during that long flight they infect 5 people on the plane. Then those 5 people go to their destination and spread it more.This isn't even taking into account network connections either (ie who these people come in contact with): that would be super freaky to see how much we are really connected
I think that places of business now not deemed as essential should be allowed to open as long as the area isn't having rampant cases. This has gone on too long and needs to stop. Give them a chance, and if they screw up and a bunch of people get sick then they have to close down until a later date when it is safe again. I think some gyms might be able to pull it off, but others will not. Much depends on what kind of members they have and their willingness to follow the rules. Like Bboy said, a lot of gym punks wont even rack their weights right. I think it is a pretty big stretch to assume most are going to follow the rules. At a gym like I go to where the members are old, I think they would probably follow the rules pretty good but I don't think they should be there to begin with because of their age.It's just so tough to know what the right response is.