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 -
Lynn's point is that if people aren't going because they are afraid to (because of catching COVID), then that would have happened with or without the lockdown, and potentially more without it (since spread would be higher).
This is the same problem as attributing all business losses to the lockdowns when in fact many industries had huge losses before (conferences being canceled not due to gov't action, airlines, restaurants, etc.). And it also ignores disruption to business once lots of people started getting sick.
If my state didn't have limitations on how many people can be at the stores that are open, I'd be less likely to go, not more, as they would feel quite unsafe. Without the lockdown, I'd still choose curbside or not shop vs. going shopping in many other stores that are currently open only for curbside pickup or delivery. Polls suggest most feel the same way, although the people who feel otherwise protesting or celebrating tend to suggest otherwise. It's also notable that those demanding an end to the restrictions most fervently are also refusing to wear masks and mocking (or calling weak) those who do.
I realize it differs by location. Parts of the UK have bad numbers, maybe where you live they don't.
(Also there are a lot of deaths that are likely COVID but have not actually been tested so identified as COVID elsewhere. The stats I've seen from NY show deaths + COVID compared to a normal year, and deaths not from COVID are pretty consistent, with the spike in total deaths mimicking the COVID numbers.)
Not sure what all this has to do with obesity, though.
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.
This is not the message I hear. They are constantly talking about total numbers, total in the hospital (much lower and down some finally), numbers recovered (which lag because of the time it takes to recover), numbers in ICU (much lower still), etc. And they are trying to get testing numbers up, which decreases the percentage who get it who are seriously ill.
I also 100% disagree that the lockdown caused people to fear the virus -- there were cancellations and closings all over the place before the shutdowns started happening across the country (except perhaps in small areas like the first hotspot in NY and WA).
If anything I think the fear was mainly prompted by reports of deaths (not the shutdowns) out of Italy. That's my memory.
And I don't think most people gathering even in big groups will die, or even get it seriously. I think they make it harder to prevent the most vulnerable people from getting it, so are being selfish or ignoring facts to make this into some stupid fake political issue (which I realize certain sources are encouraging them to do).
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?
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 from somewhere with free return shipping. (Amazon, Zappos, shoe buy,.. ). Or online from local-also places with in store returns that have extended the return deadlines.
Those with off sizes/widths that are difficult to find typically have to do that anyway.
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?
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?
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.
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.
"I don't want to order shoes online" is an exceptionally weak argument against temporary restrictions designed to save lives and preserve limited medical resources.
We don't even know if "herd immunity" is going to protect us from COVID-19. We don't understand reinfection rates. We are just learning about how it impacts different groups in different ways. We don't have consistent access to reliable tests. This is a very appropriate time for people to look at media reports and conclude that we *should* be staying home when we can. The "no different than the flu" thing didn't make sense several weeks ago when people tried to convince us it was true and it doesn't make sense now.
The director of a large hospital in Northern Italy said that looking at past flu statistics---this year is off the charts. Also, the photos of a long line of army vehicles in the middle of the night transporting coffins to cremating plants outside the region, was sobering for most Italians. Yes, it is right to be afraid and vigilant. The cost has been very high because people should have been quickly put in quarantine for 2 weeks after returning from Chinese New Year in China. This in January. That's just it, hindsight makes everyone a genius.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Basically we were all told to stay home and bake bread. No yeast - just use beer. Here's a recipe for yeast-free sourdough starter. So I'm sure all that bread didn't help anyone's weight loss efforts.
Trying to look on the bright side. Those who excersized regularly I'm sure have found a way to continue. As alot of us have spare time now, those who didn't excersize regularly may incorporate it into there lifestyle now, also more time too cook from scratch at home rather than eat out at places where foods are jam packed with hidden calories. So I'm sure for alot of people it has been an opportunity to rethink lifestyle choices. Stay safe, Stay Healthy.
I lost 53 lbs without doing any exercise, pre-covid.
During covid I've been exercising more than I have since my 20s and I'm finally in the right headspace to lose the last 20 lbs (thanks to coronavirus actually)
I've never been to a gym and have been thin and fit most of my life so gyms being closed have no relation to obesity in my opinion.
For me personally it kick started me into becoming healthier. I started to change my habits beginning to mid April when this covid started to really get out there.
With restaurants being closed and me not wanting anyone other then me making my food during the pandemic, I have brought lunch to work 95% of the time, where I would normally not and just hit the drive through somewhere. And I’m cooking virtually all of my meals at home. I’m also doing more activity then I ever have.
Although my job remained open through all this, I’m using this time to be better with activity and nutrition. That way when the places start to open up like they are now, I’ll already have had 2.5 months of discipline under my belt. lol
So far today I’m down 24 pounds since April. I have no intention of letting all the hard work go to waste.
Unfortunately we are finding out the opposite is true, obesity has a significant impact on the Covid-19 pandemic:
"We, as physician-researchers, are watching the data points very closely. A preliminary report published by Nature, a respected research journal, found that among 4,103 patients with COVID-19 in New York City, having a BMI greater than 40 — sometimes categorized as “extreme” or “severe” obesity — was the second-strongest independent predictor of hospitalization, after old age. The researchers also found that among 383 patients with COVID-19 in Shenzhen, China, those with obesity were more likely to require mechanical ventilation than those with diabetes or cardiovascular disease"
Replies
Lynn's point is that if people aren't going because they are afraid to (because of catching COVID), then that would have happened with or without the lockdown, and potentially more without it (since spread would be higher).
This is the same problem as attributing all business losses to the lockdowns when in fact many industries had huge losses before (conferences being canceled not due to gov't action, airlines, restaurants, etc.). And it also ignores disruption to business once lots of people started getting sick.
If my state didn't have limitations on how many people can be at the stores that are open, I'd be less likely to go, not more, as they would feel quite unsafe. Without the lockdown, I'd still choose curbside or not shop vs. going shopping in many other stores that are currently open only for curbside pickup or delivery. Polls suggest most feel the same way, although the people who feel otherwise protesting or celebrating tend to suggest otherwise. It's also notable that those demanding an end to the restrictions most fervently are also refusing to wear masks and mocking (or calling weak) those who do.
I realize it differs by location. Parts of the UK have bad numbers, maybe where you live they don't.
(Also there are a lot of deaths that are likely COVID but have not actually been tested so identified as COVID elsewhere. The stats I've seen from NY show deaths + COVID compared to a normal year, and deaths not from COVID are pretty consistent, with the spike in total deaths mimicking the COVID numbers.)
Not sure what all this has to do with obesity, though.
This is not the message I hear. They are constantly talking about total numbers, total in the hospital (much lower and down some finally), numbers recovered (which lag because of the time it takes to recover), numbers in ICU (much lower still), etc. And they are trying to get testing numbers up, which decreases the percentage who get it who are seriously ill.
I also 100% disagree that the lockdown caused people to fear the virus -- there were cancellations and closings all over the place before the shutdowns started happening across the country (except perhaps in small areas like the first hotspot in NY and WA).
If anything I think the fear was mainly prompted by reports of deaths (not the shutdowns) out of Italy. That's my memory.
And I don't think most people gathering even in big groups will die, or even get it seriously. I think they make it harder to prevent the most vulnerable people from getting it, so are being selfish or ignoring facts to make this into some stupid fake political issue (which I realize certain sources are encouraging them to do).
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.
Those with off sizes/widths that are difficult to find typically have to do that anyway.
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.
The director of a large hospital in Northern Italy said that looking at past flu statistics---this year is off the charts. Also, the photos of a long line of army vehicles in the middle of the night transporting coffins to cremating plants outside the region, was sobering for most Italians. Yes, it is right to be afraid and vigilant. The cost has been very high because people should have been quickly put in quarantine for 2 weeks after returning from Chinese New Year in China. This in January. That's just it, hindsight makes everyone a genius.
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.
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.
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.
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.
During covid I've been exercising more than I have since my 20s and I'm finally in the right headspace to lose the last 20 lbs (thanks to coronavirus actually)
I've never been to a gym and have been thin and fit most of my life so gyms being closed have no relation to obesity in my opinion.
With restaurants being closed and me not wanting anyone other then me making my food during the pandemic, I have brought lunch to work 95% of the time, where I would normally not and just hit the drive through somewhere. And I’m cooking virtually all of my meals at home. I’m also doing more activity then I ever have.
Although my job remained open through all this, I’m using this time to be better with activity and nutrition. That way when the places start to open up like they are now, I’ll already have had 2.5 months of discipline under my belt. lol
So far today I’m down 24 pounds since April. I have no intention of letting all the hard work go to waste.
"We, as physician-researchers, are watching the data points very closely. A preliminary report published by Nature, a respected research journal, found that among 4,103 patients with COVID-19 in New York City, having a BMI greater than 40 — sometimes categorized as “extreme” or “severe” obesity — was the second-strongest independent predictor of hospitalization, after old age. The researchers also found that among 383 patients with COVID-19 in Shenzhen, China, those with obesity were more likely to require mechanical ventilation than those with diabetes or cardiovascular disease"
https://connect.uclahealth.org/2020/05/26/how-obesity-affects-covid-19/
Some other articles, directionally the same.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid19-obesity-risk-factor
https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/06/01/david-kass-obesity-covid-19/