Calorie Counter

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

How does Covid-19 affect Obesity epidemic?

145679

Replies

  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Member Posts: 7,849 Member Member Posts: 7,849 Member
    freda78 wrote: »
    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.

    That would be a fine analogy if it was that clear a swing - tens of thousands of lives saved vs the death of one or two. And wearing a seat belt inconveniences no one of course, except for the very few who are exempt, so the benefits are free.

    Meanwhile, it remains to be seen how many will die because of the lockdown and at the moment, in the UK, it is clear already that people have not been seeking early medical help for heart attacks and strokes so as to avoid going to hospital. Also, some routine treatment has been put on the backburner, including cancer treatment, as well as so called elective surgery for conditions that might indirectly be shortening people's lives.

    Also we have to think about mental health and the simple, yet devastating consequences for some if they lose their livelihoods, domestic violence and the loss of government income that funds schools, the NHS and social security.

    I agree with on potentially life-saving treatments that are being deferred as part of a lockdown, but you can't rationally count people who choose not to seek available treatment out of fear of the coronavirus as an effect of the lockdown. Do you think people would be less afraid if COVID cases and deaths spiked even higher because there was never a lockdown or because a lockdown was lifted too soon?
  • 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?
  • freda78freda78 Member Posts: 82 Member Member Posts: 82 Member
    freda78 wrote: »
    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.

    That would be a fine analogy if it was that clear a swing - tens of thousands of lives saved vs the death of one or two. And wearing a seat belt inconveniences no one of course, except for the very few who are exempt, so the benefits are free.

    Meanwhile, it remains to be seen how many will die because of the lockdown and at the moment, in the UK, it is clear already that people have not been seeking early medical help for heart attacks and strokes so as to avoid going to hospital. Also, some routine treatment has been put on the backburner, including cancer treatment, as well as so called elective surgery for conditions that might indirectly be shortening people's lives.

    Also we have to think about mental health and the simple, yet devastating consequences for some if they lose their livelihoods, domestic violence and the loss of government income that funds schools, the NHS and social security.

    I agree with on potentially life-saving treatments that are being deferred as part of a lockdown, but you can't rationally count people who choose not to seek available treatment out of fear of the coronavirus as an effect of the lockdown. Do you think people would be less afraid if COVID cases and deaths spiked even higher because there was never a lockdown or because a lockdown was lifted too soon?

    Actually you can, have to, count people who have not sought treatment due to the lockdown as the figures in the UK are huge and it is not just in the UK where deaths not identified as being Covid-19 related are markedly up.

    Also here, visits to A&E are down.

    This article explores what is going on, both the UK and worldwide -

    https://fullfact.org/health/covid-deaths/


    edited May 17
  • kushiel1kushiel1 Member Posts: 28 Member Member Posts: 28 Member
    But the lockdown had to have contributed because many people are now terrified of getting the virus and dying. The lockdown is what caused that line of thinking. Especially since all we hear in the US is the number of cases but not how many recovered, how many didn't require hospitalization, how many were asymptomatic- instead all we hear is stay home or you might die! It's hard to ignore that and risk dying of Covid if you think whatever is wrong isn't worse than the risk.
  • kushiel1kushiel1 Member Posts: 28 Member Member Posts: 28 Member
    On topic as well - I had been doing well. Getting lots of walking in, watching calories but then the stress set in and the last couple weeks have not been good. Plus the weather hasn't been great with lots of rain and with all the gyms closed I've found it easier to eat my feelings. Hoping to get back on track this week though...though it's supposed to rain alot. Ugh!
  • kimny72kimny72 Member Posts: 15,103 Member Member Posts: 15,103 Member
    kushiel1 wrote: »
    On topic as well - I had been doing well. Getting lots of walking in, watching calories but then the stress set in and the last couple weeks have not been good. Plus the weather hasn't been great with lots of rain and with all the gyms closed I've found it easier to eat my feelings. Hoping to get back on track this week though...though it's supposed to rain alot. Ugh!

    So true. The nice weather was a great draw to get out and take all the walks. The rain is an excuse to be depressed and eat a brownie!
  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Member Posts: 7,849 Member Member Posts: 7,849 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.
  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Member Posts: 7,849 Member Member Posts: 7,849 Member
    freda78 wrote: »
    freda78 wrote: »
    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.

    That would be a fine analogy if it was that clear a swing - tens of thousands of lives saved vs the death of one or two. And wearing a seat belt inconveniences no one of course, except for the very few who are exempt, so the benefits are free.

    Meanwhile, it remains to be seen how many will die because of the lockdown and at the moment, in the UK, it is clear already that people have not been seeking early medical help for heart attacks and strokes so as to avoid going to hospital. Also, some routine treatment has been put on the backburner, including cancer treatment, as well as so called elective surgery for conditions that might indirectly be shortening people's lives.

    Also we have to think about mental health and the simple, yet devastating consequences for some if they lose their livelihoods, domestic violence and the loss of government income that funds schools, the NHS and social security.

    I agree with on potentially life-saving treatments that are being deferred as part of a lockdown, but you can't rationally count people who choose not to seek available treatment out of fear of the coronavirus as an effect of the lockdown. Do you think people would be less afraid if COVID cases and deaths spiked even higher because there was never a lockdown or because a lockdown was lifted too soon?

    Actually you can, have to, count people who have not sought treatment due to the lockdown as the figures in the UK are huge and it is not just in the UK where deaths not identified as being Covid-19 related are markedly up.

    Also here, visits to A&E are down.

    This article explores what is going on, both the UK and worldwide -

    https://fullfact.org/health/covid-deaths/


    But they didn't shut down A&E (ER in the US), right? So it's fear of COVID-19 that is depressing A&E visits, not the lockdown.
  • kushiel1kushiel1 Member Posts: 28 Member Member Posts: 28 Member
    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.
  • 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?
Sign In or Register to comment.