Obesity a driving factor in COVID-19 deaths, global report finds

[WaveHunter]

25 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

It seems the ones with strict lockdowns were the ones totally under prepared who then over reacted and were then destined to have a high death rate regardless of locking down (too late)

Taiwan, with no obvious lockdown, did lockdown through strict quarantine (both local and incoming flights from Wuhan), financial "rewards" for quarantining, extensive mask wearing.

It seems speed was the key....not belated draconian actions.....

I would agree that selective lockdowns make sense.  For instance, if there is a local outbreak, locking down that locale to prevent others from entering or exiting that locale make perfect sense.  Banning travel from countries with high levels of Covid also make perfect sense.  There are many selective lockdown strategies that make sense.

However, there is a big difference between these strategies and unwarranted nationwide lockdowns though.

What I strongly disagree with is what's going on in the United States where state Governors were (and some still are) are mandating severe state-wide lockdowns, or severe criticism of states that had a much more relaxed stance on lockdowns.  When you look at the statistical data from all states, those with more relaxed lockdown measures fared no better or worse that those with severe measures.  

What really made a difference in those states was whether or not the state Governors based their decisions on science, or which were motivated by political considerations.

The simple fact is that until the vaccines begin to kick in and lead to herd-immunity, the virus will spread, and lockdowns are not going to prevent that. 

Even after the vaccines are effective at halting the spread, Covid-19 is not going away.  It will be a part of our lives for the future just live the common flu virus is.

Edited March 13, 2021 by WaveHunter

[Surelynot]

3 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

What I strongly disagree with is what's going on in the United States where state Governors were (and some still are) are mandating severe state-wide lockdowns, or severe criticism of states that had a much more relaxed stance on lockdowns.  When you look at the statistical data from all states, those with more relaxed lockdown measures fared no better or worse that those with severe measures

A microcosm of what happened on a world wide scale I guess......in the absence of prompt, effective action......an over-reaction..........a lack of clear leadership which could have put in place....as you say localized lockdowns.....mask wearing...(big argument, but why not)...... a track, trace and quarantine system.......but all you got was dettol.

[WaveHunter]

11 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

A microcosm of what happened on a world wide scale I guess......in the absence of prompt, effective action......an over-reaction..........a lack of clear leadership which could have put in place....as you say localized lockdowns.....mask wearing...(big argument, but why not)...... a track, trace and quarantine system.......but all you got was dettol.

I'm not going to be too specific or name names since that gets a little bit too inflammatory on this forum, but I think a lot of critical decisions had to be made by political leaders all around the world in the last 12 months with very little actual science being available to guide them.  I certainly would not want to find myself in that position.

Only hindsight proves which decisions were smart and which were not.  The issues I have is with political leaders who failed to be guided by the science as it began to be unfolded. 

Some are still in denial (either through ignorance or for political bias) and IMHO that is simply unacceptable.

Edited March 13, 2021 by WaveHunter

[Peter Denis]

4 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

I'm not going to be too specific or name names since that gets a little bit too inflammatory on this forum, but I think a lot of critical decisions had to be made by political leaders all around the world in the last 12 months with very little actual science being available to guide them.  I certainly would not want to find myself in that position.

Only hindsight proves which decisions were smart and which were not.  The issues I have is with political leaders who failed to be guided by the science as it unfolded.  Some are still in denial (either through ignorance or for political bias) and IMHO that is simply unacceptable.

The clearest example of a Governor that made an effort to base his decisions on science is of course Ron deSantis, the governor of Florida.  I don't care and its not important to which party he belongs (he is a Republican), but he invited Nobel prize-winner Michael Levitt as well as Harvard and Stanford professors for advice on how to deal with the covid-crisis in his state where many elderly Americans are residing.  And he took the advice at heart and revoked the mask-mandates, social distancing and lock-downs in his state.  That did took balls, going against the stream of what all others were doing based on their 'instinct and political survival skills'.

Guess what > Florida - climatological similar to Southern California - is doing far better on all covid related measures than SoCal or other states that opted for harsh measures to curb the spread.

[WaveHunter]

34 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

The clearest example of a Governor that made an effort to base his decisions on science is of course Ron deSantis, the governor of Florida.  I don't care and its not important to which party he belongs (he is a Republican), but he invited Nobel prize-winner Michael Levitt as well as Harvard and Stanford professors for advice on how to deal with the covid-crisis in his state where many elderly Americans are residing.  And he took the advice at heart and revoked the mask-mandates, social distancing and lock-downs in his state.  That did took balls, going against the stream of what all others were doing based on their 'instinct and political survival skills'.

Guess what > Florida - climatological similar to Southern California - is doing far better on all covid related measures than SoCal or other states that opted for harsh measures to curb the spread.

I totally agree with you!  I am neither left or right leaning.  Personally I hate politics but since the actions of politicians affect us all, I try to be as informed as possible.  I think what's happening in the states of Florida and also Texas, and also South Dakota, are examples of state Governors who are being led by science and what will truly benefit their constituency, not merely for self-serving political considerations.

It's really striking when you see that these states fared no worse or better than any of the states with draconian lockdown mandates in place such as New York and California.

In other words, whether or not a state had a statewide lockdown mandate made no difference in the spread or containment of COVID-19.

However, The big difference you see is that Florida, Texas, and South Dakota have suffered far less economic repercussions resulting from the virus during the last 12 months than those states with severe lockdown mandates, especially New York and California.

IMHO, it is the economic repercussions of the virus that will have far more devastating effects on the lives of people as time goes on. it's bad right now but will be far worse long after herd immunity stops the spread of Covid-19. 

4 Trillion dollars and now another 1.9 trillion dollars are being spent to deal with Covid-related issues.  It is not the government that is providing these funds.  It is "We The People" and our children, and our grandchildren who must foot the bill.  WE are paying.  Should we not have a say in how that money is being spent?

Shockingly, much the the latest 1.9 Trillion dollar relief package is not even being used for Covid relief!  In fact only 9% is being directed at Covid relief, and the remaining 91% is going to bail out states that were in trouble long before Covid, and also to pet projects of the bill creators! 

That is outrageous!  If you don't believe me, look it up for yourself.  Details of the Relief bill are posted on the internet, and when you see where some of the money is actually going, you will be shocked and outraged!

State Governors have unprecedented and immense power right now to effect change not only for their states but for the nation as a whole.  Hopefully more will follow the lead of the Governors of Florida, Texas, and South Dakota.

Edited March 13, 2021 by WaveHunter

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

Show me some empirical evidence of this.  <snip>

As for lockdowns, there is no such thing as an effective lockdown unless you are in a state-controlled country like China.  <snip>

Take Thailand for example, sure the entire country has been in a lockdown from foreigners for a year now.  Of course, there is minimal spread of the virus here as a result.  <snip>

 

You do realise you're asking for evidence of something you already consider true in your next paragraphs?

[spidermike007]

2 hours ago, Surelynot said:

Duh! Anything that weakens the immune system will increase the risk of any virus. And that includes the horrendous diets of most Americans and many ethnic groups (that is not an "allowed discussion") with the MSM. It is considered Not PC. And I do not care one iota. If mild truths offend, get thicker skin. 

 

Link?

Do we need a link to come to the conclusion that "woke" and "PC culture" prohibit dozens of areas of conversation, and cause them to be off limits, these days? Really? Or, are you just baiting me?

Edited March 13, 2021 by spidermike007

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Show me some empirical evidence of this.  I have looked and I can find no unbiased studies that prove that countries with severe lockdown measures have fared any better than those with less strict measures. 

Mask wearing is largely ineffective because the majority of people are only wearing cheap drugstore masks, not N95 respirators that a surgeon would wear in an operating room.  I'm not saying you shouldn't wear one.  I always wear one in public, but let's be honest...if you are wearing the cheap drug-store type, which most people wear, it is really not doing much at all to protect you or others.  It's only to make others around you feel better.  I think we all really know this on a gut-level.

As for lockdowns, there is no such thing as an effective lockdown unless you are in a state-controlled country like China.  In most democratic countries, lockdowns are highly selective.  Not everybody has to play by the rules.  Powerful politicians dining out at five star restaurants with their lobby partners are free to do so, while ordinary citizens are banned from family gatherings in their own homes.  How many ordinary citizens really abide by such draconian rules...not many!

When you finally throw in the economic repercussions of lockdowns, this so-called remedy is proving to be FAR more devastating than the virus itself.  Take Thailand for example, sure the entire country has been in a lockdown from foreigners for a year now.  Of course, there is minimal spread of the virus here as a result.  But what about the economic health of the country?  THAT has yet to be fully realized, but in the end it will be far more devastating than the virus could ever have been.  It will be at least a decade before Thailand recovers from the economic devastation, according to many experts.

 

The trouble with the reservation you posted about evidences manesis that any study that contradicts what you believe you can simply call biased. But I trust research coming from scientists who put their names to it over anonymous members of thaivisa.com

 

Here are some studies that show the effectiveness of mask wearing:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

 

Efficacy of masks and face coverings in controlling outward aerosol particle emission from expiratory activities

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7

Trends in County-Level COVID-19 Incidence in Counties With and Without a Mask Mandate — Kansas, June 1–August 23, 2020

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7

[impulse]

On 3/5/2021 at 6:14 PM, placeholder said:

A positive correlation has been noted repeatedly since the early days of the epidemic.

 

Obesity increases risk for COVID-19 complications, data shows
Gabrielle Masson - Thursday, March 26th, 2020 

Obesity appears to be a major risk factor for critical COVID-19 cases, according to an Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre analysis on United Kingdom critical care admissions.

The report includes data from all COVID-19 admissions to critical care units in the U.K. up until midnight March 19. Nearly two-thirds (127) of 196 patients requiring critical care were overweight, and 71 patients had a BMI of 30 or higher.

The report also found that 37 percent of admissions were patients younger than 60, and 139 of the 196 patients were men. 

  https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/obesity-increases-risk-for-covid-19-complications-data-shows.html

 

From the OP:  The United Kingdom has the world's third-highest coronavirus death rate and the fourth-highest obesity rate - 184 COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 and 63.7% of adults overweight, according to WHO data...

Can you see why having 2/3 of the UK Covid admissions being obese means very little, when 2/3 of the population is obese?  It means that, on the topic of obesity, Covid admissions are a pretty representative sample of the population.    Your linked study shows that obesity doesn't affect Covid admissions.  If it did, more than 2/3 of Covid admissions would be from the obese.   

Correlation should not be confused with causation.

I question whether it's to obesity that causes a higher Covid rate in the US/ UK, or is it the same factors causing both obesity and higher Covid?  Thing like poor diet, poor life choices, etc? 

 

Edited March 13, 2021 by impulse

[stevenl]

21 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

From the OP:  The United Kingdom has the world's third-highest coronavirus death rate and the fourth-highest obesity rate - 184 COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 and 63.7% of adults overweight, according to WHO data...

Can you see why having 2/3 of the UK Covid admissions being obese means very little, when 2/3 of the population is obese?  It means that, on the topic of obesity, Covid admissions are a pretty representative sample of the population.    Your linked study shows that obesity doesn't affect Covid admissions.  If it did, more than 2/3 of Covid admissions would be from the obese.   

Correlation should not be confused with causation.

I question whether it's to obesity that causes a higher Covid rate in the US/ UK, or is it the same factors causing both obesity and higher Covid?  Thing like poor diet, poor life choices, etc? 

 

63.7% overweight and 2/3 of admissions obese does indicate more obese people admitted than in the general population, since generally being obese indicates being more than a little overweight.

https://www.kidney.org/atoz/content/obesewyska

Edited March 13, 2021 by stevenl

[WaveHunter]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

The trouble with the reservation you posted about evidences manesis that any study that contradicts what you believe you can simply call biased. But I trust research coming from scientists who put their names to it over anonymous members of thaivisa.com

 

Here are some studies that show the effectiveness of mask wearing:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

 

Efficacy of masks and face coverings in controlling outward aerosol particle emission from expiratory activities

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7

Trends in County-Level COVID-19 Incidence in Counties With and Without a Mask Mandate — Kansas, June 1–August 23, 2020

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7

That's all well and good but I could produce a list of just as many studies from reputable sources that conclude that masks are not an effective means to contain the virus. 

The fact is that this virus will not be contained by mask wearing, social distancing or anything but the vaccines, because they are the only means to truly lower the R-naught enough to create herd-immunity.

I'm not saying you should not wear masks.  I always wear them in public but I am being realistic about why you should wear them. 

You have to realize that the majority of the public wear the cheap drug-store type masks, not N-95 respirators.  The cheap drugstore masks are totally ineffective at preventing airborne spread.  Only an N-95 mask is effective, and even that is not 100% effective as evidenced by the number of medical professionals that have been infected.

They serve only one purpose (and it is an important one) and that is to discourage you from touching your face and nose and thus minimize the possibility of transmission of the virus from surfaces you may touch while out in public.

I mean, you don't really need studies to figure this all out;  just use your own common sense.

Edited March 13, 2021 by WaveHunter

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 3/5/2021 at 6:35 PM, Yme said:

I wasn't aware that obesity was such a problem in the slums of Brazil

According to official Brazilian government statistics, in 2019:

Quote

the proportion of overweight adults [was] 61.7%, and represented almost two-thirds of the Brazilian population.

Brazil Agency News

[Scott]

9 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

With all due respect, what is all over the internet is a lot of biased political based rhetoric by politicians and mainstream media talking heads, very few of which have any actual science-based facts to back up their claims. 

You must do your own research of the facts, and not simply reply on mainstream-media commentators and politicians because the truth of the matter is that recently they all have an exceedingly poor track record of telling the truth.

Let me be clear, I am not touting some sort of conspiracy theory or anything like that.  I'm just saying that these days, you just can not trust mainstream media anymore because journalism is no longer practiced by these outlets.  Instead, we have "commentators" with political biases to the left or the right telling you what you should believe instead of just reporting the news.

That means you have to work extra hard at uncovering the facts for yourself instead of merely allowing yourself to be told what to believe. 

So, yes, Google is indeed your friend...if you use it wisely to search for facts, not biased opinions and rhetoric. 

Here's one and I doubt that the American Society for Microbiology is particularly biased:

https://msphere.asm.org/content/5/5/e00637-20

 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, impulse said:

 

From the OP:  The United Kingdom has the world's third-highest coronavirus death rate and the fourth-highest obesity rate - 184 COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 and 63.7% of adults overweight, according to WHO data...

Can you see why having 2/3 of the UK Covid admissions being obese means very little, when 2/3 of the population is obese?  It means that, on the topic of obesity, Covid admissions are a pretty representative sample of the population.    Your linked study shows that obesity doesn't affect Covid admissions.  If it did, more than 2/3 of Covid admissions would be from the obese.   

Correlation should not be confused with causation.

I question whether it's to obesity that causes a higher Covid rate in the US/ UK, or is it the same factors causing both obesity and higher Covid?  Thing like poor diet, poor life choices, etc? 

 

2/3 of the UK is either overweight or obese. 

https://ourworldindata.org/obesity

About 27% of the population is obese

https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Obesity-Update-2017.pdf

[impulse]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

63.7% overweight and 2/3 of admissions obese does indicate more obese people admitted than in the general population, since generally being obese indicates being more than a little overweight.

https://www.kidney.org/atoz/content/obesewyska

 

Good catch. 

But I still wonder if it's the obesity that's causative, or whether obesity and Covid susceptibility share a common cause, such as a high sugar diet, lack of exercise, depression, or other lifestyle/cultural factor.  Or maybe it's the diabetes that's creating the problem and skinny people with diabetes are susceptible, too.

 

[upu2]

That has been known for quite a while so why is this suddenly news? Cant people read what the facts are. Go online and look for the facts will tell you that obiese people and people with underlaying medical conditions are most at risk.

Maybe if everyone understood this then the use of the word "case" could be clarified i.e. a cse is when someone has the virus. This does not mean they are in hospital or have died from it.

Taking the analogy with other viruses, maybe a lockdown in needed for people with colds or cases as they are lovingly referred to.

[Jeffr2]

17 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

Evidence of the contrary is there also in abundance (and I am not referring to 'conspiracy' sites).  But a little harder to find than what is posted on some of the mainstream-media.

Post a link.  Would love to see it.  Seriously.

[Jeffr2]

8 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

That's all well and good but I could produce a list of just as many studies from reputable sources that conclude that masks are not an effective means to contain the virus. 

The fact is that this virus will not be contained by mask wearing, social distancing or anything but the vaccines, because they are the only means to truly lower the R-naught enough to create herd-immunity.

I'm not saying you should not wear masks.  I always wear them in public but I am being realistic about why you should wear them. 

You have to realize that the majority of the public wear the cheap drug-store type masks, not N-95 respirators.  The cheap drugstore masks are totally ineffective at preventing airborne spread.  Only an N-95 mask is effective, and even that is not 100% effective as evidenced by the number of medical professionals that have been infected.

They serve only one purpose (and it is an important one) and that is to discourage you from touching your face and nose and thus minimize the possibility of transmission of the virus from surfaces you may touch while out in public.

I mean, you don't really need studies to figure this all out;  just use your own common sense.

Please, post those links.  I'd love to see them.  Seriously. 

 

[placeholder]

9 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

That's all well and good but I could produce a list of just as many studies from reputable sources that conclude that masks are not an effective means to contain the virus. 

The fact is that this virus will not be contained by mask wearing, social distancing or anything but the vaccines, because they are the only means to truly lower the R-naught enough to create herd-immunity.

I'm not saying you should not wear masks.  I always wear them in public but I am being realistic about why you should wear them. 

You have to realize that the majority of the public wear the cheap drug-store type masks, not N-95 respirators.  The cheap drugstore masks are totally ineffective at preventing airborne spread.  Only an N-95 mask is effective, and even that is not 100% effective as evidenced by the number of medical professionals that have been infected.

They serve only one purpose (and it is an important one) and that is to discourage you from touching your face and nose and thus minimize the possibility of transmission of the virus from surfaces you may touch while out in public.

I mean, you don't really need studies to figure this all out;  just use your own common sense.

You could produce a list? But for some reason you chose not to? It is to laugh.

[Peter Denis]

55 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Post a link.  Would love to see it.  Seriously.

Posting the links would have them removed here.  So I will PM them to you.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Posting the links would have them removed here.  So I will PM them to you.

In other words, "research" not published in any reputable scientific journal.

[Peter Denis]

18 minutes ago, placeholder said:

In other words, "research" not published in any reputable scientific journal.

Well, if you consider the Lancet and the BMJ (British Medical Journal) non reputable sources, you do have a point...

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Well, if you consider the Lancet and the BMJ (British Medical Journal) non reputable sources, you do have a point...

And yet you claim that linking to the Lancet or the BMJ would be disallowed by the moderators? Ridiculous.

I just googled using the terms "the lancet no evidence that face masks work" and "bmj no evidence that face masks work". Came up with nothing.

Edited March 14, 2021 by placeholder

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And yet you claim that linking to the Lancet or the BMJ would be disallowed by the moderators? Ridiculous.

I just googled using the terms "the lancet no evidence that face masks work" and "bmj no evidence that face masks work". Came up with nothing.

I should add that what did pop up were links to reports in both journals that face masks were effective.

[Jeffr2]

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

Well, if you consider the Lancet and the BMJ (British Medical Journal) non reputable sources, you do have a point...

You consider the Lancet and BMJ to be non reputable?  Seriously?  Come on....

[Peter Denis]

4 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

You consider the Lancet and BMJ to be non reputable?  Seriously?  Come on....

You completely misread my post...

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

You completely misread my post...

You completely failed to explain how your post was misread.

[Jeffr2]

8 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

You completely misread my post...

OK.  Explain what you meant then...

[Peter Denis]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You completely failed to explain how your post was misread.

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

Well, if you consider the Lancet and the BMJ (British Medical Journal) non reputable sources, you do have a point...

Based on my experience, links to the Lancet or the BMJ will not be removed - I have posted such links dozens of times. Not once have any of them been removed.