> how is a gymgoer endangering you

Perhaps they are an essential worker, and don't have the option to stay at home?

Perhaps they have medical issues that leave them immunocompromised and may require hospitalization, putting them at a high risk of death from exposure to COVID patients?

Perhaps they are unemployed or at risk of unemployment due to pandemic restrictions, and the irresponsible behavior of people who are too cool to do body weight exercises at home could directly harm them by lengthening the time these restrictions are necessary?

"It's none of your business if other people break the law in a way that harms others."

The risk exists of getting impaled with a piece of rebar falling from a construction site. So how dare you criticize people for stabbing others?

I'm criticizing the decision to shutdown, so we should ban rebar ? ban construction ?

Sorry, I was fixated on the grandparent comment ("It's none of your business if people...")

Given that difference between flu and covid is generally known at this time, trying to use flu as analogy is awfully bad faith argument.

The infectiousness and lifeline of this virus is pretty uniquely long, for the record.

Risk of transmission goes up indoors, with heavy breathing, and being exposed for longer than 10 minutes. People who exercise, are going to breathe heavily. People on equipment or in a class stay longer than 10 minutes. And gyms are indoors and often not well-ventilated.

The result is that gyms are an excellent space for spreading COVID-19. And measures that reduce the spread for things like walking around a store are not sufficient to reduce it to a safe level in a gym.

Curious, is there a documented case of community spread through a gym that you can point to?

Here is some evidence in the NY Times that counters your argument: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/health/coronavirus-gyms-f...

In https://www.vox.com/21296067/coronavirus-covid-symptoms-supe... you will find the following passage indicating that community spread doesn't merely happen in gyms, but gyms are actually a prime location type for it to happen:

Researchers have been tracking many superspreading events around the globe, and there seem to be recurring locations no matter what the country. In addition to those we have heard most about, like prisons, food processing plants, and elder care facilities, there have also been numerous large superspreading events at bars, churches, offices, gyms, and shopping centers.

(Note gyms are on the list.)

How is a reckless driver endangering you, if you are driving safely?

Off topic, and there are some who would argue reckless driving or even drunk driving is a victimless crime. The victimization occurs when (or if, since the vast majority of intoxicated driving incidents result in no damage) actual damage is caused to person or property.

What kind of logic is this? Spraying bullets into a crowd is a victimless crime unless someone gets hit, so we shouldn't prosecute otherwise? That's some serious mental gymnastics.

It is a victimless crime if there are no victims. Maybe shooter should be prosecuted for intent to kill someone in the crowd, but that's debatable.

??? Shooter could easily be prosecuted for reckless endangerment without intent, and rightly so.

Note that those who argue that line also argue that the decision to drive while drunk makes it a planned attack if you do kill someone and so you are looking at first degree murder charges if you do happen to kill someone.

By some, you basically mean libertarians right?

We could also let people carry hand grenades on planes, as there would be no victims at the time the plane took off.

I'm not expecting society to follow that line of reasoning any time soon, though.

This is a poor analogy that I find often steers the discussion to useless reductio ad absurdum

And yet somehow the GP managed to reply defending drunk driving as victimless instead. Sometimes analogies can be useful to reveal people's bizarre ideological commitments.

yeah, that is precisely what I was speaking of. It is good tactic for winning a absurd internet debate, but doesn't really further the original discussion, and certainly doesn't help educate anyone or build consensus.

To me it is a matter of goals, when posting.

I seek to learn something and/or share something, and think this is best achieved by replying to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.

I find that satisfaction of baiting a stupid post then refuting is short lived.

People seem to think reductio ad absurdum is a fallacy just because it is Latin, but it is a perfectly sound mode of argument.

It can be a useful mode of argument, but I am not sure I have ever seen it used productively in an internet discussion.

This post is a good case in point. I don't thinking drawing the analogy helped to educate anyone who read it or establish the appropriate moral obligations of an individual living in a society.

Imo, it is effectively trolling, especially when presented in a one sentence post. Do you think it spawned productive discussion when reading the child discussions?

I mean, person A argued that it was none of person B's business if someone endangers others. I think it was an effective argument.

I think that depends on if you think they are strictly equivalent, on the same spectrum but a different by a matter of degree, or categorically different.

Once we start comparing and contrasting the two, it becomes a more interesting discussion. I don't think they are strictly equivalent, but am open to a difference of degree and exploring where the line is drawn and why.

Living in a world with other people involves risk, even without covid. Driving anywhere sober, for pleasure or work, puts yourself and others at some level of risk. This is legal and socially accepted, so we know there is some threshold.

Another interesting area of comparison is consent/ acceptance of risk. When I get on the road (or walk down the street) I accept the fact that another vehicle could careen out of control and kill me. In the case of the speakeasy gym, the members presumably are accepting the risk.

This brings up the last area of comparison, second order effects. Even if the two Speakeasy gym members consent to take a risk, what about 3rd parties that could be harmed. what are the chances a 3rd party is harmed, and how do we typically handle comparable 3rd party risks? Airborne particulate is estimated to cause 200k premature US deaths per year. How does the particulate from a road trip, flight, or web browsing compare?

If we were so inclined we could try to throw some numbers to these.

Thanks very much for explaining!

I'm not entirely sure which part of my comment you're arguing against:

> How is a gymgoer endangering you, if you are staying 6ft from all others, wearing a mask, washing your hands and not touching your face?

Are you saying that as long as the measures you listed are followed, any additional shutdowns required by the local/state government are unreasonable and are okay to ignore?

If instead you're saying that the measures you listed satisfy the local/state requirements for gyms, then I'm confused because I wouldn't expect the gym to be shutdown in the first place.

>Are you saying that as long as the measures you listed are followed, any additional shutdowns required by the local/state government are unreasonable and are okay to ignore?

Yes. How does a government shutdown help me, if I'm already isolated?

How isolated are you? You only eat food you've stored? You've been doing that the last 4 months?

If you go to the grocery store or receive deliveries, you're not isolated, and government policy that reduces viral spread benefits you.

Curious, is there a documented case of community spread of COVID via a grocery store or grocery delivery?

> The virus that causes COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly from person to person, mainly through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks. These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs. Spread is more likely when people are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet).

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html#Spread

What, without evidence of it ever spreading from one person to another in a grocery store, you believe it isn't possible? Is extrapolating the knowledge of how it spreads to the possibility of encountering that situation in a grocery store not viable here? Shall we wait for evidence of spread in every single possible permutation of leaving the house before we consider such an activity potentially dangerous?

I was challenging isolation. I go grocery shopping - I think it can be done safely. But, I wouldn't do it if I lived in some red state full of pandemic deniers with huge spread rates - it's too dangerous. In my area, everyone wears masks, everyone makes sure to social distance, so it's not as much of a risk. But I acknowledge that I'm not isolated, and that was the claim that was made.

>What, without evidence of it ever spreading from one person to another in a grocery store, you believe it isn't possible?

We have extensive contract tracing now in every state in the US, and around the world. I would think it wouldn't be that hard to show. Were you able to find any cases?

We don't have extensive contact tracing. I've never once engaged with a contact tracing application, nor anybody that I know.

You failed to answer my previous question: is it impossible to extrapolate knowledge of how the virus spreads, to judge risk of various scenarios?

Do you require evidence from every permutation of possible activity?

You want contact tracers to compile a database of the exact times every person with COVID was in a grocery store? This reeks of bad faith argument.

Maybe I don't understand what contract tracers do. Do they not (attempt to) map out every place and person contacted?

Those are big ifs. The reason businesses were shut down is because policy was put in place to enforce distancing and the business could not meet those policies.

My if's are not about the place of business with respect to its patrons, they are about personal responsibility.