Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

How does Covid-19 affect Obesity epidemic?

Options
12346

Replies

  • freda666
    freda666 Posts: 338 Member
    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.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,185 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.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,185 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?
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 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?
  • freda666
    freda666 Posts: 338 Member
    edited May 2020
    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/


  • kushiel1
    kushiel1 Posts: 96 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.
  • kushiel1
    kushiel1 Posts: 96 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!
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,011 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_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,185 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_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,185 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.
  • kushiel1
    kushiel1 Posts: 96 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.
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 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?
  • kushiel1
    kushiel1 Posts: 96 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.
This discussion has been closed.