Metroflex Gym Oceanside owner arrested - for opening his gym

[waterscholar]

I think this really cool visualization shows how one single "break" in transmission suppression can impact huge geographical areas:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1258109399073161216

 

[waterscholar]

I also want to be clear that I understand both sides of this issue and really don't know where I stand on this. Being quarantined really sucks...

 

[Rex Feral]

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.

 

[waterscholar]

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.

We also start entering into potentially dangerous territory with this as well - e.g., profiling etc.

 

[Rex Feral]

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.

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.

 

[MethodAir]

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.

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, **EDIT** LEAVE THE PERSONAL POLITICS AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES! BANS ARE COMING!! EVERYONE HAS BEEN WARNED OVER AND OVER!

 

[waterscholar]

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.

I'm simply trying to point out that it's more complicated than a pure black and white (dichotomous) perspective of opening up vs. not opening up.

Yes, I agree that the continued opening of costco and targets (which seem to be tremendously crowded all the time) is very much counterproductive. I don't know why they haven't implemented some sort of max capacity rules (maybe some have, I don't know). But this is where we get into essential and non-essential businesses which can be tough to differentiate in some cases. I guess what I'm pointing out (and maybe others in this thread) is that the question of opening up more places should be very well thought out and not based on rash and knee-jerk decision making. We know that the more places where people congregate, the higher the likelihood of spread both locally and non-locally (see video above). There are also going to be more risky places than others.

In response to your snarky comment above: it is absurd to think that a gym is less risky than _____ (insert a place where people aren't exerting themselves, perspiring, forgetting to wipe down equipment, etc). And we frankly do know that people don't obey or abide by simple public health rules all the time. Whether this has to do with stupidity is up to someone else to decide. I don't remember making a comment on this.

Also, I guess you were missing my point about the observable or unobservable component of co-morbid conditions. Yes, there are some places where there are going to be "healthier" people, but what about movie theaters? What about restaurants? This is where it gets tough

 

[waterscholar]

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.

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.

 

[MethodAir]

Yes, I agree that the continued opening of costco and targets (which seem to be tremendously crowded all the time) is very much counterproductive.

Dr. Wittkowski highlights the bio statistical reasons why immediately re-opening society, while increasing protective measures for the sick, is productive, particularly given the looming economic catastrophe.

 

[maldorf]

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

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.

 

[maldorf]

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.

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?

 

[maldorf]

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

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.

 

[maldorf]

I think this really cool visualization shows how one single "break" in transmission suppression can impact huge geographical areas:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1258109399073161216

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.

 

[waterscholar]

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?

Overall, yes. But per capita I'm not so sure:

https://healthpolicy-watch.org/covid-19-testing-trends-globally-regionally/

It appears that this has changed over time but it seems like they were slow compared to other countries: https://finddx.shinyapps.io/FIND_Cov_19_Tracker/

This is something I'm not quite sure about so take it with a grain of salt

 

[maldorf]

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.

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.

 

[waterscholar]

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.

Yeah, that's a good point. Like different colors corresponding to a higher density of traveling. I think it somewhat does that with brighter colors corresponding to more people who had traveled on that path, but different colors would make it "pop" more

Either way I think it's cool and it really shows how much people travel around. 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

 

[morefyah]

Where does it say in the constitution that we can do what ever we want? Where does it say you have a right to keep a business open during a health pandemic?

 

[waterscholar]

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.

It's just so tough to know what the right response is.

 

[maldorf]

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

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.

If someone sick works out in the gym for two weeks while they are sick with it, they are going to spread it to at least one other person but probably more. I don't think that is statistically a crazy assumption. People keep talking about how its more risky going to the grocery. Do you go to the grocery 5 times a week for an hour and a half each time, total of more than 7 hours a week? Are you breathing very heavy and moving a lot of air in and out of your lungs during that 7 hours? The rate of respiration is many times greater while you exercise and that will most probably raise your risk. I think that it is impossible that every member will wear a mask the whole time they are in the gym. That's not going to happen. Most of us wouldn't be able to breathe well enough to exercise. There will be people that take off their mask during their set or during aerobics.

Have people fill out a form where they say that:

1. ive not been out of the USA in the past 4 months
2. ive not had covid symptoms and im not sick now
3. ive not travelled extensively in the US in the past 3 months
4. I realize that im risking my health and the gym isn't responsible
5. I don't have any health conditions that put me at high risk, and list examples
6. Im under age 65

I had to do similar today when I got my teeth cleaned. THey also took my temperature before I could go in.

 

[maldorf]

It's just so tough to know what the right response is.

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.

Let the gyms open, people sign waivers, and see what happens. If they screw up and a bunch get sick then close it down. I cant imagine a gym opening up now without have a waiver to sign anyhow. Congress has not passed any legislation to stop people from suing over getting sick with covid, so it can happen and will happen I imagine. One side in congress is wanting to pass such legislation but I don't think there is a lot of interest on the other side. Gym owners better cover their ass the best they can. I don't know how much good a signed waiver in court will do anyhow, but its about all they can do now. My dentist did it today.