Calorie Counter

Message Boards Debate: Health and Fitness
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

How does Covid-19 affect Obesity epidemic?

14567810»

Replies

  • kushiel1kushiel1 Member Posts: 28 Member Member Posts: 28 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kushiel1 wrote: »
    I don't think that cases would have increased exponentially if instead of a lockdown they imposed social distance restrictions - limiting how many can be in a business, encouraging people to practice social distance, encouraged the high risk group to shelter in place, encouraging masks in public - I think those measures would have helped slow the curve (which was the whole point in the first place, then it grew into something else). And if after a few weeks that was not the case they could have went to more restrictions like asking people to shelter in place. I don't think the leap was necessary at first and I think many more people would have complied if that is the route we took - at least here in the US. It's the unending restrictions that are causing some to rebel against the restrictions. Yes there is a lot we don't know about the virus, but our best hope short of a vaccine is herd immunity which we can't get if we are all isolated from each other - not to mention we lose our herd immunity to other diseases if we are all isolated from each other.

    Many of the news articles I read are designed to keep people afraid of the virus and to keep them in their homes. Not saying that people aren't suffering and dying to this disease - but a huge number of those infected show no symptoms at all, and the majority of those who do show symptoms show minor symptoms. Yes it can kill some but that's no different than the flu and we don't shut down for that (in no way am I saying it's ok people are dying, it's not. And I certainly try to wear a mask in public and don't think that is unreasonable at all to ask of the general public, but I also want things to open back up as my son needs new shoes and as his last pair were tight don't want to just order online like I normally would because I'm not paying $100+ for shoes that won't fit and I'd have to return so we need to go into a store). Plus domestic abuse, depression, suicide attempts (and successes) are on the rise due to this lockdown - this can't go on indefinitely.

    That's not how herd immunity works. Herd immunity is only possible with a vaccine. The point of herd immunity is to help protect vulnerable people from getting sick, not to get all the illness and death over with so we can declare herd immunity because there are no at risk people left.

    There are approx 328 million people in the US. The number of immune people required to get herd immunity is still a guess for Covid-19, but most contagious diseases require anywhere from 55% to over 90% of the population to be immune. If you use the absolute best case scenario of only 55%, that would mean 180,400,000 Americans would need to get/develop immunity. If the fatality rate is 1% (which again is just a starting estimate) that would mean 1.8 million Americans would die of this before we get anywhere near the best case scenario for herd immunity. Considering the requirement for herd immunity will probably be a bit higher than 55%, it will probably require 2 mil or more deaths to get there without a vaccine or treatment.

    And 2 million people dying, not to mention hundreds of thousands of people getting sick, spending weeks in ICU, declaring bankruptcy due to unpaid medical bills, or continuing to shelter at home because they are high risk, is going to torpedo the economy and a ton of families lives all the same.

    I'm sure you'll be able to get out to the store and get your son shoes soon. But if people had been more scared in the first place, we'd be doing much better. Countries that locked the country down early and immediately are in much better shape right now than we are.

    So. Much. This.

    Also, @kushiel1 - why not simply go online and order the same shoes that are getting tight on your son but just one size larger?

    Boom. Done.

    Because I can't tell if he needs one size up or 2. I thought he was done at size 12 but apparently not. With how they fit I can't tell if he needs a 12.5 or a 13. He's also autistic and has very definite opinions on how he wants shoes (or clothes) to fit/feel. He will only wear certain things and wears them until they pretty much fall apart and refuses to have multiple pairs of shoes even...and generally it's not an issue as we can just pop out if needed.He also likes a specific type and style but every so often they change the shoe and we have to start all over again to find one he likes and will wear without a fight.
  • Nony_MouseNony_Mouse Member Posts: 5,355 Member Member Posts: 5,355 Member
    kushiel1 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kushiel1 wrote: »
    I don't think that cases would have increased exponentially if instead of a lockdown they imposed social distance restrictions - limiting how many can be in a business, encouraging people to practice social distance, encouraged the high risk group to shelter in place, encouraging masks in public - I think those measures would have helped slow the curve (which was the whole point in the first place, then it grew into something else). And if after a few weeks that was not the case they could have went to more restrictions like asking people to shelter in place. I don't think the leap was necessary at first and I think many more people would have complied if that is the route we took - at least here in the US. It's the unending restrictions that are causing some to rebel against the restrictions. Yes there is a lot we don't know about the virus, but our best hope short of a vaccine is herd immunity which we can't get if we are all isolated from each other - not to mention we lose our herd immunity to other diseases if we are all isolated from each other.

    Many of the news articles I read are designed to keep people afraid of the virus and to keep them in their homes. Not saying that people aren't suffering and dying to this disease - but a huge number of those infected show no symptoms at all, and the majority of those who do show symptoms show minor symptoms. Yes it can kill some but that's no different than the flu and we don't shut down for that (in no way am I saying it's ok people are dying, it's not. And I certainly try to wear a mask in public and don't think that is unreasonable at all to ask of the general public, but I also want things to open back up as my son needs new shoes and as his last pair were tight don't want to just order online like I normally would because I'm not paying $100+ for shoes that won't fit and I'd have to return so we need to go into a store). Plus domestic abuse, depression, suicide attempts (and successes) are on the rise due to this lockdown - this can't go on indefinitely.

    That's not how herd immunity works. Herd immunity is only possible with a vaccine. The point of herd immunity is to help protect vulnerable people from getting sick, not to get all the illness and death over with so we can declare herd immunity because there are no at risk people left.

    There are approx 328 million people in the US. The number of immune people required to get herd immunity is still a guess for Covid-19, but most contagious diseases require anywhere from 55% to over 90% of the population to be immune. If you use the absolute best case scenario of only 55%, that would mean 180,400,000 Americans would need to get/develop immunity. If the fatality rate is 1% (which again is just a starting estimate) that would mean 1.8 million Americans would die of this before we get anywhere near the best case scenario for herd immunity. Considering the requirement for herd immunity will probably be a bit higher than 55%, it will probably require 2 mil or more deaths to get there without a vaccine or treatment.

    And 2 million people dying, not to mention hundreds of thousands of people getting sick, spending weeks in ICU, declaring bankruptcy due to unpaid medical bills, or continuing to shelter at home because they are high risk, is going to torpedo the economy and a ton of families lives all the same.

    I'm sure you'll be able to get out to the store and get your son shoes soon. But if people had been more scared in the first place, we'd be doing much better. Countries that locked the country down early and immediately are in much better shape right now than we are.

    So. Much. This.

    Also, @kushiel1 - why not simply go online and order the same shoes that are getting tight on your son but just one size larger?

    Boom. Done.

    Because I can't tell if he needs one size up or 2. I thought he was done at size 12 but apparently not. With how they fit I can't tell if he needs a 12.5 or a 13. He's also autistic and has very definite opinions on how he wants shoes (or clothes) to fit/feel. He will only wear certain things and wears them until they pretty much fall apart and refuses to have multiple pairs of shoes even...and generally it's not an issue as we can just pop out if needed.He also likes a specific type and style but every so often they change the shoe and we have to start all over again to find one he likes and will wear without a fight.

    Order both sizes and return the ones that don't fit?
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 5,287 Member Member Posts: 5,287 Member
    Nony_Mouse wrote: »
    kushiel1 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kushiel1 wrote: »
    I don't think that cases would have increased exponentially if instead of a lockdown they imposed social distance restrictions - limiting how many can be in a business, encouraging people to practice social distance, encouraged the high risk group to shelter in place, encouraging masks in public - I think those measures would have helped slow the curve (which was the whole point in the first place, then it grew into something else). And if after a few weeks that was not the case they could have went to more restrictions like asking people to shelter in place. I don't think the leap was necessary at first and I think many more people would have complied if that is the route we took - at least here in the US. It's the unending restrictions that are causing some to rebel against the restrictions. Yes there is a lot we don't know about the virus, but our best hope short of a vaccine is herd immunity which we can't get if we are all isolated from each other - not to mention we lose our herd immunity to other diseases if we are all isolated from each other.

    Many of the news articles I read are designed to keep people afraid of the virus and to keep them in their homes. Not saying that people aren't suffering and dying to this disease - but a huge number of those infected show no symptoms at all, and the majority of those who do show symptoms show minor symptoms. Yes it can kill some but that's no different than the flu and we don't shut down for that (in no way am I saying it's ok people are dying, it's not. And I certainly try to wear a mask in public and don't think that is unreasonable at all to ask of the general public, but I also want things to open back up as my son needs new shoes and as his last pair were tight don't want to just order online like I normally would because I'm not paying $100+ for shoes that won't fit and I'd have to return so we need to go into a store). Plus domestic abuse, depression, suicide attempts (and successes) are on the rise due to this lockdown - this can't go on indefinitely.

    That's not how herd immunity works. Herd immunity is only possible with a vaccine. The point of herd immunity is to help protect vulnerable people from getting sick, not to get all the illness and death over with so we can declare herd immunity because there are no at risk people left.

    There are approx 328 million people in the US. The number of immune people required to get herd immunity is still a guess for Covid-19, but most contagious diseases require anywhere from 55% to over 90% of the population to be immune. If you use the absolute best case scenario of only 55%, that would mean 180,400,000 Americans would need to get/develop immunity. If the fatality rate is 1% (which again is just a starting estimate) that would mean 1.8 million Americans would die of this before we get anywhere near the best case scenario for herd immunity. Considering the requirement for herd immunity will probably be a bit higher than 55%, it will probably require 2 mil or more deaths to get there without a vaccine or treatment.

    And 2 million people dying, not to mention hundreds of thousands of people getting sick, spending weeks in ICU, declaring bankruptcy due to unpaid medical bills, or continuing to shelter at home because they are high risk, is going to torpedo the economy and a ton of families lives all the same.

    I'm sure you'll be able to get out to the store and get your son shoes soon. But if people had been more scared in the first place, we'd be doing much better. Countries that locked the country down early and immediately are in much better shape right now than we are.

    So. Much. This.

    Also, @kushiel1 - why not simply go online and order the same shoes that are getting tight on your son but just one size larger?

    Boom. Done.

    Because I can't tell if he needs one size up or 2. I thought he was done at size 12 but apparently not. With how they fit I can't tell if he needs a 12.5 or a 13. He's also autistic and has very definite opinions on how he wants shoes (or clothes) to fit/feel. He will only wear certain things and wears them until they pretty much fall apart and refuses to have multiple pairs of shoes even...and generally it's not an issue as we can just pop out if needed.He also likes a specific type and style but every so often they change the shoe and we have to start all over again to find one he likes and will wear without a fight.

    Order both sizes and return the ones that don't fit?

    Seems like an easy option.
  • earlnabbyearlnabby Member Posts: 7,987 Member Member Posts: 7,987 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Nony_Mouse wrote: »
    kushiel1 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kushiel1 wrote: »
    I don't think that cases would have increased exponentially if instead of a lockdown they imposed social distance restrictions - limiting how many can be in a business, encouraging people to practice social distance, encouraged the high risk group to shelter in place, encouraging masks in public - I think those measures would have helped slow the curve (which was the whole point in the first place, then it grew into something else). And if after a few weeks that was not the case they could have went to more restrictions like asking people to shelter in place. I don't think the leap was necessary at first and I think many more people would have complied if that is the route we took - at least here in the US. It's the unending restrictions that are causing some to rebel against the restrictions. Yes there is a lot we don't know about the virus, but our best hope short of a vaccine is herd immunity which we can't get if we are all isolated from each other - not to mention we lose our herd immunity to other diseases if we are all isolated from each other.

    Many of the news articles I read are designed to keep people afraid of the virus and to keep them in their homes. Not saying that people aren't suffering and dying to this disease - but a huge number of those infected show no symptoms at all, and the majority of those who do show symptoms show minor symptoms. Yes it can kill some but that's no different than the flu and we don't shut down for that (in no way am I saying it's ok people are dying, it's not. And I certainly try to wear a mask in public and don't think that is unreasonable at all to ask of the general public, but I also want things to open back up as my son needs new shoes and as his last pair were tight don't want to just order online like I normally would because I'm not paying $100+ for shoes that won't fit and I'd have to return so we need to go into a store). Plus domestic abuse, depression, suicide attempts (and successes) are on the rise due to this lockdown - this can't go on indefinitely.

    That's not how herd immunity works. Herd immunity is only possible with a vaccine. The point of herd immunity is to help protect vulnerable people from getting sick, not to get all the illness and death over with so we can declare herd immunity because there are no at risk people left.

    There are approx 328 million people in the US. The number of immune people required to get herd immunity is still a guess for Covid-19, but most contagious diseases require anywhere from 55% to over 90% of the population to be immune. If you use the absolute best case scenario of only 55%, that would mean 180,400,000 Americans would need to get/develop immunity. If the fatality rate is 1% (which again is just a starting estimate) that would mean 1.8 million Americans would die of this before we get anywhere near the best case scenario for herd immunity. Considering the requirement for herd immunity will probably be a bit higher than 55%, it will probably require 2 mil or more deaths to get there without a vaccine or treatment.

    And 2 million people dying, not to mention hundreds of thousands of people getting sick, spending weeks in ICU, declaring bankruptcy due to unpaid medical bills, or continuing to shelter at home because they are high risk, is going to torpedo the economy and a ton of families lives all the same.

    I'm sure you'll be able to get out to the store and get your son shoes soon. But if people had been more scared in the first place, we'd be doing much better. Countries that locked the country down early and immediately are in much better shape right now than we are.

    So. Much. This.

    Also, @kushiel1 - why not simply go online and order the same shoes that are getting tight on your son but just one size larger?

    Boom. Done.

    Because I can't tell if he needs one size up or 2. I thought he was done at size 12 but apparently not. With how they fit I can't tell if he needs a 12.5 or a 13. He's also autistic and has very definite opinions on how he wants shoes (or clothes) to fit/feel. He will only wear certain things and wears them until they pretty much fall apart and refuses to have multiple pairs of shoes even...and generally it's not an issue as we can just pop out if needed.He also likes a specific type and style but every so often they change the shoe and we have to start all over again to find one he likes and will wear without a fight.

    Order both sizes and return the ones that don't fit?

    Seems like an easy option.

    I do that with a lot of things because I can be an odd size. Amazon even offers a service where you order, try on, return what you don't want, and don't even pay anything until you make your decision.
  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Member Posts: 7,849 Member Member Posts: 7,849 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kushiel1 wrote: »
    I don't think that cases would have increased exponentially if instead of a lockdown they imposed social distance restrictions - limiting how many can be in a business, encouraging people to practice social distance, encouraged the high risk group to shelter in place, encouraging masks in public - I think those measures would have helped slow the curve (which was the whole point in the first place, then it grew into something else). And if after a few weeks that was not the case they could have went to more restrictions like asking people to shelter in place. I don't think the leap was necessary at first and I think many more people would have complied if that is the route we took - at least here in the US. It's the unending restrictions that are causing some to rebel against the restrictions. Yes there is a lot we don't know about the virus, but our best hope short of a vaccine is herd immunity which we can't get if we are all isolated from each other - not to mention we lose our herd immunity to other diseases if we are all isolated from each other.

    Many of the news articles I read are designed to keep people afraid of the virus and to keep them in their homes. Not saying that people aren't suffering and dying to this disease - but a huge number of those infected show no symptoms at all, and the majority of those who do show symptoms show minor symptoms. Yes it can kill some but that's no different than the flu and we don't shut down for that (in no way am I saying it's ok people are dying, it's not. And I certainly try to wear a mask in public and don't think that is unreasonable at all to ask of the general public, but I also want things to open back up as my son needs new shoes and as his last pair were tight don't want to just order online like I normally would because I'm not paying $100+ for shoes that won't fit and I'd have to return so we need to go into a store). Plus domestic abuse, depression, suicide attempts (and successes) are on the rise due to this lockdown - this can't go on indefinitely.

    That's not how herd immunity works. Herd immunity is only possible with a vaccine. The point of herd immunity is to help protect vulnerable people from getting sick, not to get all the illness and death over with so we can declare herd immunity because there are no at risk people left.

    Just want to expand on this. Smallpox outbreaks recurred frequently for centuries without "herd immunity" from previous exposures wiping it out. The disease would find new geographic pockets and new generations to infect. It took a vaccine nearly two centuries to wipe it out, because vaccination had to become widespread (both globally and as a percentage of population).

    Same with polio, for which there has only been a vaccine for a bit more than half a century, and which we're getting close to eradicating through widespread globally.

    The bubonic plague also had multiple recurrences over the centuries. Despite killing a million or more during a single year in any given country in Europe, there was no herd immunity that prevented it from returning a few years later.


  • GaleHawkinsGaleHawkins Member Posts: 7,770 Member Member Posts: 7,770 Member
    freda78 wrote: »
    Jaxsgma wrote: »
    I think it's a manner of the lesser of two evils right now.

    People who are already into health and fitness will, for the most part, continue to find ways to stay active and not overeat.

    Those who are not will likely end up gaining weight due to being a lot more sedentary, thereby attracting the negative consequences increased body weight brings.

    But keeping people as safe as possible from COVID has to be the main priority right now. I guess the world will have to deal with the fallout of a population forced to be more sedentary at some point down the road. But honestly, right now, we've all got bigger fish to air fry. ;)

    I agree, keeping people as safe as possible from COVID has to be the main priority right now.

    Personally I think there needs to be a balance as people dying due to the lockdown is just as bad as people dying from the virus - in my humble opinion.

    The rare death from wearing a seat belt is just as bad as one death from not wearing a seat belt, but there are many more of the latter.

    Since @freda78 has done a good job of pointing out the weakness of your analogy I do wonder why you think the lockdown concept was applied?

    Sorry. You're going to have to break this non sequitur down for me.

    I see what you are talking about.

    I should have asked what reason do you see for the initial lock down?

    I'm not sure where you are located, but I am unaware of a "lockdown" anywhere in the U.S. Italy, as I understand it, had lockdowns, where you weren't allowed to leave your home outside of limited allowed purposes and were subject to being stopped and ordered to return to your home. In the U.S., states, counties, and cities required some businesses to close and banned gatherings of larger than a certain size. In my own state, which falls on the stricter end of the U.S. spectrum in these policies, police have not been stopping people just to find out why they're out walking or driving and whether their reason falls within the limited reasons the government has said it's OK not to go outside. That is not a lockdown.

    In any case, I think governments imposed stay-at-home policies of various types to try to slow the increase of COVID cases so that medical institutions would not be overwhelmed.

    I agree. It seems some thought it was an effort to stop the spread of the virus. Thankfully the rate of spread has slowed so the hospitals now have free ventilators if needed.
  • snickerscharliesnickerscharlie Member Posts: 8,569 Member Member Posts: 8,569 Member
    NVM
    edited May 19
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Member Posts: 22,775 Member Member Posts: 22,775 Member
    freda78 wrote: »
    Jaxsgma wrote: »
    I think it's a manner of the lesser of two evils right now.

    People who are already into health and fitness will, for the most part, continue to find ways to stay active and not overeat.

    Those who are not will likely end up gaining weight due to being a lot more sedentary, thereby attracting the negative consequences increased body weight brings.

    But keeping people as safe as possible from COVID has to be the main priority right now. I guess the world will have to deal with the fallout of a population forced to be more sedentary at some point down the road. But honestly, right now, we've all got bigger fish to air fry. ;)

    I agree, keeping people as safe as possible from COVID has to be the main priority right now.

    Personally I think there needs to be a balance as people dying due to the lockdown is just as bad as people dying from the virus - in my humble opinion.

    The rare death from wearing a seat belt is just as bad as one death from not wearing a seat belt, but there are many more of the latter.

    Since @freda78 has done a good job of pointing out the weakness of your analogy I do wonder why you think the lockdown concept was applied?

    Sorry. You're going to have to break this non sequitur down for me.

    I see what you are talking about.

    I should have asked what reason do you see for the initial lock down?

    I'm not sure where you are located, but I am unaware of a "lockdown" anywhere in the U.S. Italy, as I understand it, had lockdowns, where you weren't allowed to leave your home outside of limited allowed purposes and were subject to being stopped and ordered to return to your home. In the U.S., states, counties, and cities required some businesses to close and banned gatherings of larger than a certain size. In my own state, which falls on the stricter end of the U.S. spectrum in these policies, police have not been stopping people just to find out why they're out walking or driving and whether their reason falls within the limited reasons the government has said it's OK not to go outside. That is not a lockdown.

    In any case, I think governments imposed stay-at-home policies of various types to try to slow the increase of COVID cases so that medical institutions would not be overwhelmed.

    I agree. It seems some thought it was an effort to stop the spread of the virus. Thankfully the rate of spread has slowed so the hospitals now have free ventilators if needed.

    Isn't that precisely what the restrictions were hoping to accomplish? <confused>

    I think Gale is making a distinction between restrictions designed to *stop* the spread of the virus and restrictions designed to *slow* the spread of the virus.
  • snickerscharliesnickerscharlie Member Posts: 8,569 Member Member Posts: 8,569 Member
    freda78 wrote: »
    Jaxsgma wrote: »
    I think it's a manner of the lesser of two evils right now.

    People who are already into health and fitness will, for the most part, continue to find ways to stay active and not overeat.

    Those who are not will likely end up gaining weight due to being a lot more sedentary, thereby attracting the negative consequences increased body weight brings.

    But keeping people as safe as possible from COVID has to be the main priority right now. I guess the world will have to deal with the fallout of a population forced to be more sedentary at some point down the road. But honestly, right now, we've all got bigger fish to air fry. ;)

    I agree, keeping people as safe as possible from COVID has to be the main priority right now.

    Personally I think there needs to be a balance as people dying due to the lockdown is just as bad as people dying from the virus - in my humble opinion.

    The rare death from wearing a seat belt is just as bad as one death from not wearing a seat belt, but there are many more of the latter.

    Since @freda78 has done a good job of pointing out the weakness of your analogy I do wonder why you think the lockdown concept was applied?

    Sorry. You're going to have to break this non sequitur down for me.

    I see what you are talking about.

    I should have asked what reason do you see for the initial lock down?

    I'm not sure where you are located, but I am unaware of a "lockdown" anywhere in the U.S. Italy, as I understand it, had lockdowns, where you weren't allowed to leave your home outside of limited allowed purposes and were subject to being stopped and ordered to return to your home. In the U.S., states, counties, and cities required some businesses to close and banned gatherings of larger than a certain size. In my own state, which falls on the stricter end of the U.S. spectrum in these policies, police have not been stopping people just to find out why they're out walking or driving and whether their reason falls within the limited reasons the government has said it's OK not to go outside. That is not a lockdown.

    In any case, I think governments imposed stay-at-home policies of various types to try to slow the increase of COVID cases so that medical institutions would not be overwhelmed.

    I agree. It seems some thought it was an effort to stop the spread of the virus. Thankfully the rate of spread has slowed so the hospitals now have free ventilators if needed.

    Isn't that precisely what the restrictions were hoping to accomplish? <confused>

    I think Gale is making a distinction between restrictions designed to *stop* the spread of the virus and restrictions designed to *slow* the spread of the virus.

    Thanks, Jane! I deciphered that fine distinction after I replied, which is why I edited it out. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.