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

[johnnybangkok]

2 hours ago, Thomas J said:

If you are saying that somehow "geography" plays a difference in Covid infection rates than you are being disingenuous when pointing to Quarantines being the primary or sole factor in limiting Covid infection rates.  

If Quarantines which were mandated in Czezia Germany and Belgium were the determining factor in 'LOWERING' covid infection rates. 
Why it that Czenia which adjoins Germany has a covid infection rate over 4 times as high.  And Belgium which also borders Germany a rate 2.5 times as high.  

The point being that there is a 'MYRIAD' of factors in why some regions of the world have lower rates of infections.  The facts clearly show that quarantine mandates in various countries do not similarly impact the rates of infection.  

Look at the USA.  Florida has the laxest quarantine rules.  New York and California the toughest.  Their rates of infection are virtually identical. 




 

Oh for gods sake, no one is saying it's geography. As this very article goes to show, we are still finding out all the reasons why some places suffered worse than others and something like levels of obesity would certainly be a contributory factor. So maybe your Czezia has a huge amount of obese people. Maybe it has more older people than most, maybe it has more ginger people and it turns out ginger people are more suspeptable (an exageration to make a point I hope you understand).

However, if you can find some good comparisons (which Norway and Finland is to Sweden) the you can draw a direct corelation and say that because Sweden has 10 times more infections and 17-20 times more death AND it was the only one not to lockdown, we can safely say that locking down DID have a major impact on the figures. The whole point to what most on here are trying to tell you.

[itsari]

3 hours ago, cubism001 said:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/older-adults.html

 

Speak for yourself. (I  weigh the same as I did when I was 16.) But had I known how dangerous it is, I don't think I could've got on all those planes lately...

Good for you , your a  rare specimen .

[Surelynot]

3 hours ago, cubism001 said:

 

 

Speak for yourself. I  weigh the same as I did when I was 16.......

.....25 stone.

[Scott]

Numerous posts and replies removed.  You may NOT post a graph, chart or other statistics and not post a link to the source. 

[placeholder]

19 hours ago, Thomas J said:

It makes perfect sense.  After all the post said the FACTS are right there in front of you.  Or are you saying that the people in Norway, and Finland are biologically different than those in Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands?  Or that the geography is different, in which case DISAPARITY in covid deaths might be due to factors OTHER THAN LOCKDOWNS.  

No, what he's saying, and what epidemiologist would concur with, is that factors that affect health, like income levels, population density, quality of medical care, average age of population, climate, and living arrangement all are germane to levels of contagion. For instance, Sweden has the largest percentage of population living alone so they would tend to be more protected. Sweden, Finland, and Norway also have very similar climates which affect how much time their citizens spend out of doors which is a very significant factor. That fact is that Sweden shares long borders with Norway and Finland, has a very similar climate, a well developed public health system, etc.. despite which their covid infection and mortality rates are many times that of their neighbors.

 

[WaveHunter]

18 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

You obviously need this explained to you even more than has already been attempted. 

Obviosly the only solution to the virus was always going to be the vacine. No major pandemic past and present has every achieved herd immunity without a vacine. This is obvious stuff. But what do you do when there isn't a vacine (which has been the situation for about a year)? Well you could just leave things they way they are and let it run rampant as I hope we all know where that would have ended up. So you try and prevent the spread of the virus by making it harder to pass on, hence masks and lockdown. 

Now your argument seems to be based on a few US states who probably didn't need to lock down as extensively or as long as they did. Well you could argue this in both directions. There were/are plenty of US states that didn't lock down quickly or as extensively as they should have (mostly GOP) and they are now suffering from some of the worst infection rates and subsequent death rates. A full list of them can be found at  https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/

So maybe you can tell me what states you are actually talking about and I'll raise you an Alabama, a Mississippi, a South/North Dakota, a Texas and an Arizona that didn't lock down enough and are now suffering massively for their hubris. For every '`tyranical state governor' insisting on lockdown, you had as many if not more essentially denying the problem. The inconsistencies from state to state (coupled with a POTUS that essentially denied and deflected) is the reason America is in such a state with 550,000 deaths and counting. 

And finally, yes masks and especially lockdowns are definately a way to contain the virus. You can't catch something from someone if you never meet them! This is also self-evident when looking at countries that have done lockdown effectively (Thailand for example) but obviously there are many more mitigating factors to consider (closing borders, demographics, obesity levels etc) and once the genie is out of the bottle, things get expodentially worse VERY quickly and thats more of the issue than anything else. Those countries that acted quickly and effectively have spared themselves the trauma of thousands (if not hundered of thousends) of deaths. Those that dithered or flat out denied the problem are the ones that suffered the most and are still suffering.

Lockdowns are not the panacea for everything Covid related but with nothing left in the arsenal, they were/are certainly a whole lot better than doing nothing.    

    

Just look at the raw statistics instead of the biased interpretations of those statistics being spewed by many politicians and media talking heads who rely on emotional hysteria rather than science to make their case. 

The states of Florida, Texas, and South Dakota had minimal lockdown mandates and as a result had minimal economic repercussions from lockdowns.  When you look at the RAW statistics, these states fared neither better nor worse than states with draconian lockdown mandates like New York, California, or New Jersey. 

In other words, mass state lockdowns had absolutely NO effect on viral spread at all, and the raw statistics prove this to be a fact.

Furthermore, the Covid problem is not a one-dimensional problem; it's not just about health issues.  It's also about economic issues. 

Both of them are equally important to consider, and the way things are going, there's every reason to believe that the devastating economic fallout of this pandemic will be the biggest problem of all, long after the virus has been contained by vaccines, and not just during our lifetimes but for generations to come.

This economic devastation is not just about lost jobs and diminished national economic productivity.  It's also about the irresponsible 6 TRILLION dollar COVID relief bills, with 91% of the funds not even going to Covid relief!  The government is not providing that money; "We The People" will be paying off that debt in the form of higher taxes for generations to come!

Most of this economic devastation will be DIRECTLY attributable to the irrational mass lockdowns that were put in place through emotional hysteria rather than being based on actual science.

Sure, if you institute a draconian mass lockdown in a country where the state has the ability to enforce it like China, you can minimize viral transmission somewhat, but based on statistics over the last year, not enough to change the R-naught, and as long as the R-naught remains above 1.0, the virus will continue to spread.  The numbers do not lie.

As for efficacy of masks, yes an N-95 mask is fairly effective at preventing transmission but what percentage of the public wears an N-95 mask?  I don't know the precise number, but judging from what I see out on the streets, I'd say that most people wear the cheap drug-store type masks which offer almost no protection from airborne transmission AT ALL! 

Sure, if you wear a N-95 mask 100% of the time you are out in public, you can minimize (not eliminate) airborne transmission.  How many people actually do that?  Judging from what I see out on the streets, the answer is not many people at all!  Certainly not enough to change the R-naught one little bit!

What's more, masks only work while being worn.  How many people wear a mask 100% of the time that they are in public (i.e.:, not down on their chin, hanging over one ear, or removed entirely while at times?  Obviously, the answer is ZERO PERCENT practice 100% compliance. 

Simple common sense therefore dictates that mask wearing is not going to have any effect at changing the population-wide R-naught in any measurable way.

Any rational, intelligent person knows that lockdowns and mask wearing will NOT prevent viral spread in any measurable way for the population as a whole.  I'm talking about the REAL world we all live in, not the Utopian world that many political leaders and talking heads would like you to believe in where wearing masks and mass lockdowns are the answer. 

Edited March 15, 2021 by WaveHunter

[Jeffr2]

22 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Just look at the raw statistics instead of the biased interpretations of those statistics being spewed by many politicians and media talking heads who rely on emotional hysteria rather than science to make their case. 

The states of Florida, Texas, and South Dakota had minimal lockdown mandates and as a result had minimal economic repercussions from lockdowns.  When you look at the RAW statistics, these states fared neither better nor worse than states with draconian lockdown mandates like New York, California, or New Jersey. 

In other words, mass state lockdowns had absolutely NO effect on viral spread at all, and the raw statistics prove this to be a fact.

Furthermore, the Covid problem is not a one-dimensional problem; it's not just about health issues.  It's also about economic issues. 

Both of them are equally important to consider, and the way things are going, there's every reason to believe that the devastating economic fallout of this pandemic will be the biggest problem of all, long after the virus has been contained by vaccines, and not just during our lifetimes but for generations to come.

This economic devastation is not just about lost jobs and diminished national economic productivity.  It's also about the irresponsible 6 TRILLION dollar COVID relief bills, with 91% of the funds not even going to Covid relief!  The government is not providing that money; "We The People" will be paying off that debt in the form of higher taxes for generations to come!

Most of this economic devastation will be DIRECTLY attributable to the irrational mass lockdowns that were put in place through emotional hysteria rather than being based on actual science.

Sure, if you institute a draconian mass lockdown in a country where the state has the ability to enforce it like China, you can minimize viral transmission somewhat, but based on statistics over the last year, not enough to change the R-naught, and as long as the R-naught remains above 1.0, the virus will continue to spread.  The numbers do not lie.

As for efficacy of masks, yes an N-95 mask is fairly effective at preventing transmission but what percentage of the public wears an N-95 mask?  I don't know the precise number, but judging form what I see out on the streets, I'd say that most people wear the cheap drug-store type masks which offer almost no protection from airborne transmission AT ALL! 

Sure, if you wear a N-95 mask 100% of the time you are out in public, you can minimize airborne transmission.  How many people actually do that?  Judging from what I see out on the streets, the answer is not many people at all!  Certainly not enough to change the R-naught one little bit!

What's more, masks only work while being worn.  How many people wear a mask 100% of the time that they are in public (i.e.:, not down on their chin, hanging over one ear, or removing it while eating in public?  Obviously, the answer is ZERO PERCENT.  Simple common sense dictates that mask wearing is not going to have any effect at all on changing the R-naught in any measurable way.

Any rational, intelligent person knows that lockdowns and mask wearing will NOT prevent viral spread in any measurable way for the population as a whole.  I'm talking about the REAL world we all live in, not the Utopian world that many political leaders and talking heads would like you to believe in where wearing masks and mass lockdowns are the answer. 

Jeez.  Talk about getting worked up.  Calm down.  Take a break.  We'd appreciate it.

[WaveHunter]

1 minute ago, Jeffr2 said:

Jeez.  Talk about getting worked up.  Calm down.  Take a break.  We'd appreciate it.

LOL.  I'm simply being pragmatic about all of this.  It genuinely upsets me when some people can be so gullible to be guided by emotional hysteria rather than common sense and actual facts.

[Jeffr2]

7 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

LOL.  I'm simply being pragmatic about all of this.  It genuinely upsets me when some people can be so gullible to be guided by emotional hysteria rather than common sense and actual facts.

I think you need to do some introspection.  That statement can be applied to your post.  Lockdowns have worked.  Not sure why you're trying so hard to say they didn't.

[Peter Denis]

5 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Jeez.  Talk about getting worked up.  Calm down.  Take a break.  We'd appreciate it.

@WaveHunter is talking sense, but you are right that he should take a break.

 

[Jeffr2]

Just now, Peter Denis said:

@WaveHunter is talking sense, but you are right that he should take a break.

 

Most of his post was just a rant.  And 100% at odds with the facts.

[WaveHunter]

13 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Most of his post was just a rant.  And 100% at odds with the facts.

You can call my posts "rants" if you wish but I'm only responding to posts that are based on emotional hysteria rather than facts.  The raw statistics I refer to are numbers, and numbers don't lie. 

Anyone with common sense and the ability to intelligently use Google Search can see the real numbers instead of simply accepting biased interpretations of those numbers.

But you are correct; I waste far too much time on this forum where many are not interested in intelligent and stimulating debate as a means to seek the truth, but are only interested in picking fights and making personal attacks.

Edited March 15, 2021 by WaveHunter

[Jeffr2]

34 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

You can call my posts "rants" if you wish but I'm only responding to posts that are based on emotional hysteria rather than facts.  The raw statistics I refer to are numbers, and numbers don't lie. 

Anyone with common sense and the ability to intelligently use Google Search can see the real numbers instead of simply accepting biased interpretations of those numbers.

But you are correct; I waste far too much time on this forum where many are not interested in intelligent and stimulating debate as a means to seek the truth, but are only interested in picking fights and making personal attacks.

One of my favorite classes in college had a chapter on how to lie with stats.  Easy to do, easy to slant them how you want.  So no, numbers DO lie.  Depends on how you spin them.

Sad you poopoo many of the better sources for numbers.  Alternative studies and sites don't cut it.  Stick with the mainstream sites.

[Surelynot]

4 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

One of my favorite classes in college had a chapter on how to lie with stats.  Easy to do, easy to slant them how you want.  So no, numbers DO lie.  Depends on how you spin them.

Sad you poopoo many of the better sources for numbers.  Alternative studies and sites don't cut it.  Stick with the mainstream sites.

We all, me included, naturally seek out the information/data to support our preconceived notions of what is the truth................apart from gun ownership of course....regardless of statistics that is just mental.

[Jeffr2]

10 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

We all, me included, naturally seek out the information/data to support our preconceived notions of what is the truth................apart from gun ownership of course....regardless of statistics that is just mental.

True.  But many of us fact check our info/data to make sure it's legit.  Not get it from dodgy "alternative" websites.  Then put it up here as the gospel. LOL

[1FinickyOne]

On 3/5/2021 at 7:39 AM, canopus1969 said:

Survival of the fittest, the fatties die off first ?

Sure, then the slightly over-weight and normal sized people will be the fat ones... 

personally, when I see an exorbitantly obese person on the street, I thank them for making me appear more normal sized..

they don't appreciate it too much, but that's life.. 

[Surelynot]

1 minute ago, Jeffr2 said:

True.  But many of us fact check our info/data to make sure it's legit.  Not get it from dodgy "alternative" websites.  Then put it up here as the gospel. LOL

I stick religiously to the Daily Express ...then I know no one can dispute the facts.

[Jeffr2]

1 minute ago, Surelynot said:

I stick religiously to the Daily Express ...then I know no one can dispute the facts.

Tucker Carlson was sued in court for slander.  Here's what his lawyers said.  I think it can be applied to all of the 5 talking bubble heads there. LOL.  Stunning many fall for their lies.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

Quote

 

Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

 

 

[Surelynot]

4 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Tucker Carlson was sued in court for slander.  Here's what his lawyers said.  I think it can be applied to all of the 5 talking bubble heads there. LOL.  Stunning many fall for their lies.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

 

OMG!!!

Well....here comes GB TV and 'people' will love it...as it will telling us the real truth!!!!

[Thomas J]

22 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

However, if you can find some good comparisons (which Norway and Finland is to Sweden)

I thought you said 'GEOGRAPHY' was not a factor.  Then why can't you compare Sweden to Spain?  Is it because the Swedes have blue eyes and the Spanish brown?  If geography is not a factor than why is it that you can ONLY compare Sweden to Finland and Norway.  Also where do you get your "facts" that people in Chechia  are more obese than Germans.  

Of course geography plays a part in the distribution of Covid. Here are the countries with the lowest covid rates.  Notice one common theme.  THEY ARE ALL HOT COUNTRIES, WITH LOTS OF SUNSHINE. 

The facts are that some area such as Florida did not have quarantines while areas such as California and New York did and the covid infection rates are virtually identical.  Sweden had no masks, no quarantines and yet its rate is virtually identical to Spain, Portugal, and Belgium.  Chechia, Belgium and Germany all had quarantines but Chechia rate is over 4 times as high.  So the facts at best show inconsistency in whether quarantines had any material effect.  Weather, and average age however do show a correlation.  The hotter the country and the younger the average age the less covid infections.  Laos is the lowest rate with an average age of 24.4 years.  Do you think it is the quarantines rather than age and temperature that causes the fact THAT EVERY ADJACENT COUNTRY Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, Myramar has low covid rates of infection.  Do you really try and peddle that their governments and population were more diligent than Belgium, France, Italy, Spain,  and Switzerland.  Quarantines 'MAY" have helped but the facts are at best inconsistent. 

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?fbclid=IwAR0RYMPhu-J9i5t74sla8KOrJFIhGMs--0YIuvQzoxLeFrvwwr5FLpn42Qw

Edited March 15, 2021 by Rimmer
Link to worldometer added

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

I thought you said 'GEOGRAPHY' was not a factor.  Then why can't you compare Sweden to Spain?  Is it because the Swedes have blue eyes and the Spanish brown?  If geography is not a factor than why is it that you can ONLY compare Sweden to Finland and Norway.  Also where do you get your "facts" that people in Chechia  are more obese than Germans.  

Of course geography plays a part in the distribution of Covid. Here are the countries with the lowest covid rates.  Notice one common theme.  THEY ARE ALL HOT COUNTRIES, WITH LOTS OF SUNSHINE. 

The facts are that some area such as Florida did not have quarantines while areas such as California and New York did and the covid infection rates are virtually identical.  Sweden had no masks, no quarantines and yet its rate is virtually identical to Spain, Portugal, and Belgium.  Chechia, Belgium and Germany all had quarantines but Chechia rate is over 4 times as high.  So the facts at best show inconsistency in whether quarantines had any material effect.  Weather, and average age however do show a correlation.  The hotter the country and the younger the average age the less covid infections.  Laos is the lowest rate with an average age of 24.4 years.  Do you think it is the quarantines rather than age and temperature that causes the fact THAT EVERY ADJACENT COUNTRY Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, Myramar has low covid rates of infection.  Do you really try and peddle that their governments and population were more diligent than Belgium, France, Italy, Spain,  and Switzerland.  Quarantines 'MAY" have helped but the facts are at best inconsistent. 

 

Many factors at work, geography being one of them.

 

Again, for the upteenth time, please show a source if posting graphs.

[johnnybangkok]

In reply to both Wavehunter and Thomas J (as I think your post will be taken down for yet another table without a link).

I'm not going to get into the mask debate. To me it makes sense that something is better than nothing but I'll defer to the resident mask expert in the chat who is hell bent on proving this wrong. I will instead concentrate on the lockdown.   

ALL major countries that locked down quickly and effectively (and these are the key words) have fared much better than those that didn't; New Zealand, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland (which all negate the 'it's only hot countries with sunshine' nonsense), S. Korea, Taiwan, Cambodia, Vietnam, Singapore and Thailand to name a few.   https://www.statista.com/statistics/1093256/novel-coronavirus-2019ncov-deaths-worldwide-by-country/. have all fared much, much better than those that didn't. 

https://www.endcoronavirus.org/countries

But seriously, if you two can't get what I'm saying then there really is no point in discussing this. Your confirmation bias is (and has always been) anti-lockdown and both of you are trying your level best (often with the same cherry-picked stats or small example of certain US states or small examples of some countries bucking the trend) to keep banging that same drum when actual real-life situations prove you wrong time and time again. As this article is showing, contributory factors to the lethality of this virus are coming out and I'm sure will continue to come out for months and years to come but at this moment in time, every single major government (there's a few crackpot ones going around who are the exception), the vast majory of epidemiologists and the vast majority of health experts agree that lockdown has massively mitigated the spread of the virus and saved countless lives.

I'm going to go with their opinion. 

Oh and finally for the 'comparing countries' debate; although geography can be a factor when comparing countries it is much better to have MANY similar factors such as geography, climate, population density, demographics and diet. This is why Finland and Norway compare more favourably to Sweden rather than Spain. They are very similar in all these areas (not too many Swedes eating paella and worrying about sunburn).

And I obviously wasn't saying 'people in Chechia  are more obese than Germans'. It was prefixed by a 'maybe' and talked about people being ginger for gods sake so I was obviously not being or attempting to be factual. I was using a 'who knows what the factors are example' but obviously my attempt at levity went waaaaay over your head. 

 

Edited March 15, 2021 by johnnybangkok

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Just look at the raw statistics instead of the biased interpretations of those statistics being spewed by many politicians and media talking heads who rely on emotional hysteria rather than science to make their case. 

The states of Florida, Texas, and South Dakota had minimal lockdown mandates and as a result had minimal economic repercussions from lockdowns.  When you look at the RAW statistics, these states fared neither better nor worse than states with draconian lockdown mandates like New York, California, or New Jersey. 

In other words, mass state lockdowns had absolutely NO effect on viral spread at all, and the raw statistics prove this to be a fact.

 

Nonsense. There was an excellent natural experiment offered in the state of Kansas where the governor imposed a mask mandate but allowed individual counties to opt out. The upshot? Covid cases declined in counties where mask wearing was mandatory and increased where it was not.

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

The governor of Kansas issued an executive order requiring wearing masks in public spaces, effective July 3, 2020, which was subject to county authority to opt out. After July 3, COVID-19 incidence decreased in 24 counties with mask mandates but continued to increase in 81 counties without mask mandates.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm

[Thomas J]

7 hours ago, stevenl said:

Again, for the upteenth time, please show a source if posting graphs.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Try looking some information up on this one.  

[placeholder]

9 hours ago, Thomas J said:

  Do you think it is the quarantines rather than age and temperature that causes the fact THAT EVERY ADJACENT COUNTRY Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, Myramar has low covid rates of infection.  Do you really try and peddle that their governments and population were more diligent than Belgium, France, Italy, Spain,  and Switzerland.  Quarantines 'MAY" have helped but the facts are at best inconsistent. 

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?fbclid=IwAR0RYMPhu-J9i5t74sla8KOrJFIhGMs--0YIuvQzoxLeFrvwwr5FLpn42Qw

Do you understand that this comment of yours directly undercuts your asserting that there is no special reason to compare Norway & Finland's performance to that of Sweden? Like the countries you named, Sweden, Norway and Finland are geopraphiclly connected. They share a similar climate, similar standards of living, similarly aged population, and offer excellent public health care systems. And yet Norway and Finland, which imposed strict public health measures such as mask wearing and social distancing have fared many times better than has Sweden.

As for the graph you've posted, the problem is that many of these are very poor nations with very limited public health reporting capability.  In addition, nations like Tanzania have a lunatic as leader who denies that there is any covid in his country at all because his is a godly country. And as for warmth, last time I checked the equator crossed Brazil and it's mostly in the tropics.  But one thing Brazil does have which many other other tropical countries don't is an excellent public health reporting system.

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, Thomas J said:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Try looking some information up on this one.  

Thanks. I did and came up with some very interesting results. For example, I saw that while that New York has more deaths than Florida. the reason for that is that most of them occurred during the early part of the pandemic when much less was known about covid and treatments were still being figured out. If you look at fatalities from June 1 onwards New york has about 18,600. For that same stretch of time Florida has  about 29,700. Florida is about 10% greater in population than New York, but adjusted for that it's still ahead by a wide margin. An even wider margin really when you take into account the fact that thanks to improvement in treatmen by June 1, survival rates had  improved dramatically, Florida's response compared to New York's is much worse.

Here are some graphs I created taken from data on that worldinfo

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/new-york/

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/florida/

Texas had 44,000 deaths over the same period. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/texas/

Adjusted for population it did even worse than Florida. Although that may be because Gov Desantis of Florida has done his best to undercount fatalities.  https://www.sun-sentinel.com/coronavirus/fl-ne-florida-coronavirus-deaths-delays-explanation-20201024-jb2qc2plcvedzi6hg2e4rq2bke-story.html

Arizona, another state that decided to abandon precautions early on performed even worse than did Florida and Texas when the figures are adjusted for population.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/arizona/

 

 

 

Edited March 15, 2021 by placeholder

[upu2]

Unless you are a person who believes bing obese is a good thing the rest of the world know it is bad. Doctors will never tell you being obese is a good thing. If anyone here considers that doctors believe obesity is a good thing please provide the reference

[placeholder]

13 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Look, this discussion is getting WAY off topic considering the title of the thread is "Obesity a driving factor in COVID-19 deaths, global report finds"

As regards this off-topic debate of ours, the simple fact is that neither you nor I really know the true answer to this; nobody does at this point since it's all conjecture.

I base my opinions on data from well vetted sources, NOT media talking heads and politicians who put their own spin on them to fit their political narrative.  I don't search for studies that fit my own view.  I look at all points of view and I look to see if those studies are well conducted, and whether or not they are sponsored by those who stand to gain something by their outcome.

One study that impressed me was a recent Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security study that seemed to indicate that whether states implemented harsh lockdown measures or stayed open may have had little impact on the toll of the virus.  Go to their website and read it!

You obviously are not looking at both sides of the coin here I'm afraid or you would have readily admitted that nobody can really say definitively what the correct answer is. 

You act like there is no downside to mass lockdowns when in fact, the economic repercussions of these state-wide lockdowns will probably end up being far more devastating that anything the virus will have done.

All I am really saying is that there is a place for lockdowns for sure if there is a propensity for a localized outbreak.  To shut down entire states based only emotional hysteria and incur the devastating economic effects that result is just ludicrous.

 

I cite a very sold piece of research and your reply?

"As regards this off-topic debate of ours, the simple fact is that neither you nor I really know the true answer to this; nobody does at this point since it's all conjecture.

And this:

"I base my opinions on data from well vetted sources, NOT media talking heads and politicians who put their own spin on them to fit their political narrative. "

Deflecting much?

[ShindenGo]

Donald Trumps policies of gutting Michelle Obama’s healthy lunch initiatives no doubt made the obesity epidemic in the US far worse that it should have. His policies have severely impacted the LGBTQ+ communities as well. I’m glad he’s out of office. But the fact remains. The blood of over 500,000 dead American citizens are on his hands. 

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, ShindenGo said:

Donald Trumps policies of gutting Michelle Obama’s healthy lunch initiatives no doubt made the obesity epidemic in the US far worse that it should have. His policies have severely impacted the LGBTQ+ communities as well. I’m glad he’s out of office. But the fact remains. The blood of over 500,000 dead American citizens are on his hands. 

Well, blaming him for all 500000+ is unfair. On the other hand, Seattle was hit very hard early on by the virus. It instituted strict measures to control it. It is estimated that if similar strict measures had been adopted nationwide there would have been about 300,000 less deaths.