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
Replies
-
snickerscharlie 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.4 -
snickerscharlie 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.3 -
I am in the minority with everyone I know IRL, but I find the lockdown situation to make weight loss significantly easier. Previously, it was almost always social situations that messed me up, and now there are none of those. If it wasn't that, it would be caving to someone bringing treats to work or deciding on the way home from work after a stressful day to pick up takeout. I'm not in any of those situations anymore. Yes, technically I can still go get takeout, but it's not as tempting to actually leave the house and go get something as opposed to already being out and being able to stop somewhere on the way home. I'm also very worried about future economic impacts and as such I'm trying to save as much money as possible- eating juts groceries is the cheapest thing. Now it's a bit more relaxed, but for a long time I also didn't feel like I could just run to the store and get one thing, which takes away temptation to go buy extra snacks/treats. If anything, I worry that I'll have a hard time readjusting to "real life" and having all of those temptations back again.
I don't do any hardcore exercise, so that didn't impact me. I do have a fitbit and it was shocking to see how little I moved working from home. I have taken care of that by marching in front of my TV to still get steps in, and I also take walks around the neighborhood in the evenings to get some fresh air. I'm so used to walking with the TV now that I have a hard time just sitting through a show even if I wanted to- I end up getting up and walking because I feel antsy. I have negative adjustments enabled, so I'm very motivated to not just have a "lazy day" because that results in 100s of calories being taken away from me. With so much up in the air at this time, it also helps me to have some concrete, attainable goals to focus on during this time. So much is out of my control, but I can control my continued weight loss.
The only thing that's getting to me weight-loss wise is that I've definitely reached a point where I feel my weight loss is pretty noticeable (I'm in month 5), and I'm not getting any compliments because I'm not seeing people. I know I've lost at least one clothing size (probably 2), but with nowhere to go and no one to see, there is no reason to buy/pick out new clothes, which is one of the most rewarding parts of weight loss. I tell myself eventually this will be over and by then my changes will be even more dramatic, so just keep plugging along...
6 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »snickerscharlie 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.6 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »snickerscharlie 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?
4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »snickerscharlie 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?0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »snickerscharlie 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/
1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »snickerscharlie 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/
I think the point of contention is: did they not seek treatment due to the lockdown or did they not seek treatment due to the virus?
If they didn't seek treatment because they thought they were required to stay at home and avoid going out, then yes the lockdown caused them harm
But if they didn't seek treatment because they were afraid of catching the virus in the hospital, that would have happened with or without a lockdown, wouldn't it?
Dentists offices here are now allowed to open for routine appts (with all sorts of distancing restrictions). I am long overdo for a cleaning and checkup, but I'm not going to go now, because I consider it unnecessarily risky, not because of stay at home orders. If I develop a serious dental issue in the interim, it wasn't "caused" by restrictions, it was caused by my desire to avoid covid-19.10 -
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.3
-
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.
That's weird, because I'm in the US and I've read all sorts of articles and stories about people recovering, people who are asymptomatic or just get a little sick. I stay home as much as possible because I know and live amongst many people who are older, diabetic, or obese, and it would break my heart if I gave it to any of them and they struggled with it or died. I feel the way I feel because of the existing research in epidemiology and contagious disease, as well as doctors and nurses I know who are working in hot spots, not because the lockdown scared me.
It's awful if some people aren't getting the care they need because of fear of getting the virus. Unfortunately, people have been foregoing medical care in the US for years now due to not being able to afford care. I have no idea how to look at the numbers and tell who died in their home because they were scared of the virus, who died because they are accustomed to not seeking care because they can't afford it, and who simply didn't realize how sick they were.
It's a complicated issue though, and there are no obvious or easy answers, so I try to keep an open mind, and keep listening and learning.
*
On topic, I've gained 5 lbs or so since the pandemic started. I tend to eat my stress even though I know a brisk walk would do the same! Now that I'm getting used to the situation though, it's starting to even out so I think I can get back on track. I still think different people will react differently, so I doubt this will have much affect on the obesity stats one way or the other.9 -
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!1
-
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!2 -
Not sure if it is ON, or OFF topic... but death rates per million seem, to me, an appropriate relative metric.
And based on that neither the UK, nor the US, (nor Canada where most of us seem to be acting as if this were an over-blown issue), none of the three seem to be doing so impressively well since they all three are in the top, not bottom, 12 countries out of 142 in terms of deaths per million.
I also note the relative position of Italy and the UK on the list.
6 -
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.
I'm in the US and I've been exposed to almost daily accounts of people who have had COVID-19 or were presumed to have had it and recovered. The message in the US isn't "stay home or die." It's "stay home when you can to keep others safe."
If people are staying home when they're having a stroke, that's on them. That's their choice, you can't blame that on restaurants being closed.8 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »snickerscharlie 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.2 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »snickerscharlie 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.4 -
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.
So if you think that if there were no lockdown, and cases and deaths kept increasing exponentially, people would have been afraid?
I'm not staying home because of government mandates. I'm staying home because I don't want to become disease vector and have someone's death on my conscience.6 -
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.2 -
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.
What you are saying "should" have happened is exactly what the English government tried to do. It was and still is a total fiasco. Do you have any idea how many people can be infected in 2 weeks while you "try" something out? Italy here and can't agree with you at all. Basic selfishness is the problem in many cases--I want my old life back. News flash, we all do, but it's not gonna happen.12 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »snickerscharlie 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?0 -
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.14 -
janejellyroll 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.
"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.
Yeh--and watching the newspapers here in Italy for 3 months, I've noticed that the argument "it's just like the flu" works for a person until they or a loved on gets the virus and winds up on a respirator. Then the song changes. Sad isn't it?8 -
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.
@kushiel1 I hope you will take the time to go through this. It’s long, but it gives the best and clearest argument I can find for why your ideas about the Coronavirus are mistaken. In particular, it addresses why a total lockdown was the appropriate first step, and how we get from here to herd immunity without simply letting everyone die OR destroying the economy.
https://ncase.me/covid-19/
7 -
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.14 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »snickerscharlie 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/
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.5 -
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).10 -
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.8 -
snickerscharlie 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.2 -
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.5 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »I don't think that cases would have increased exponentially if instead of a lockdown they imposed social distance restrictions - limiting how many can be in a business, encouraging people to practice social distance, encouraged the high risk group to shelter in place, encouraging masks in public - I think those measures would have helped slow the curve (which was the whole point in the first place, then it grew into something else). And if after a few weeks that was not the case they could have went to more restrictions like asking people to shelter in place. I don't think the leap was necessary at first and I think many more people would have complied if that is the route we took - at least here in the US. It's the unending restrictions that are causing some to rebel against the restrictions. Yes there is a lot we don't know about the virus, but our best hope short of a vaccine is herd immunity which we can't get if we are all isolated from each other - not to mention we lose our herd immunity to other diseases if we are all isolated from each other.
Many of the news articles I read are designed to keep people afraid of the virus and to keep them in their homes. Not saying that people aren't suffering and dying to this disease - but a huge number of those infected show no symptoms at all, and the majority of those who do show symptoms show minor symptoms. Yes it can kill some but that's no different than the flu and we don't shut down for that (in no way am I saying it's ok people are dying, it's not. And I certainly try to wear a mask in public and don't think that is unreasonable at all to ask of the general public, but I also want things to open back up as my son needs new shoes and as his last pair were tight don't want to just order online like I normally would because I'm not paying $100+ for shoes that won't fit and I'd have to return so we need to go into a store). Plus domestic abuse, depression, suicide attempts (and successes) are on the rise due to this lockdown - this can't go on indefinitely.
That's not how herd immunity works. Herd immunity is only possible with a vaccine. The point of herd immunity is to help protect vulnerable people from getting sick, not to get all the illness and death over with so we can declare herd immunity because there are no at risk people left.
There are approx 328 million people in the US. The number of immune people required to get herd immunity is still a guess for Covid-19, but most contagious diseases require anywhere from 55% to over 90% of the population to be immune. If you use the absolute best case scenario of only 55%, that would mean 180,400,000 Americans would need to get/develop immunity. If the fatality rate is 1% (which again is just a starting estimate) that would mean 1.8 million Americans would die of this before we get anywhere near the best case scenario for herd immunity. Considering the requirement for herd immunity will probably be a bit higher than 55%, it will probably require 2 mil or more deaths to get there without a vaccine or treatment.
And 2 million people dying, not to mention hundreds of thousands of people getting sick, spending weeks in ICU, declaring bankruptcy due to unpaid medical bills, or continuing to shelter at home because they are high risk, is going to torpedo the economy and a ton of families lives all the same.
I'm sure you'll be able to get out to the store and get your son shoes soon. But if people had been more scared in the first place, we'd be doing much better. Countries that locked the country down early and immediately are in much better shape right now than we are.
So. Much. This.
Also, @kushiel1 - why not simply go online and order the same shoes that are getting tight on your son but just one size larger?
Boom. Done.
Because I can't tell if he needs one size up or 2. I thought he was done at size 12 but apparently not. With how they fit I can't tell if he needs a 12.5 or a 13. He's also autistic and has very definite opinions on how he wants shoes (or clothes) to fit/feel. He will only wear certain things and wears them until they pretty much fall apart and refuses to have multiple pairs of shoes even...and generally it's not an issue as we can just pop out if needed.He also likes a specific type and style but every so often they change the shoe and we have to start all over again to find one he likes and will wear without a fight.
Order both sizes and return the ones that don't fit?5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.5K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 449 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.5K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions