Again:

1) It's often 1.7x, not 1.3x. Why? because more than 80% of type 2 diabetics (by far the most common type) are overweight or obese in the USA. So it'x 1.3x obese x 1.3 diabetic. Type 2 diabete is a behavioral condition, if you eat and exercise and in general live properly, it's exceedingly rare.

Obesity causes type 2 diabete

https://newsroom.heart.org/news/obes...-united-states

2) Diabetic obese people almost always develop *other comorbidites as well*, because of that original , entirely behavioral in the vast majority of cases, condition. It's a very well known and studied cascade of health disasters basically, all started by bad (for health) behavior.

And each one of these additional comorbidities is , again, multiplicative of risk for covid. Obese people are at 20x (yes twenty times, 19.44 odds ratio) the risk of having hypertension as well.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...s%20of%20death.

You can quickly understand how the average obese has far far far greater multiplier than 1.3. The study you cited identifies obesity vs non obesity controlling for everything else, to get the increased risk for that specific condition.

But when a condition CAUSALLY determines a lot of other conditions that contribute to risk, that grotesquely minimizes the risk impact of obesity, correct?

//

As for why we got violently ordered to stay at home, in theory it isn't either about obese or otherwise unhealthy-because-of-lifestyle people, or because of old people. It was because of fascist politicians, given that the existence of people at risk from covid in the population doesn't in any way justify any freedom limitation to those not at risk to begin with, in non-fascist models of society.

In paternalist models, which can be non-fascist, you can find some justification for freedom limitations for the at-risk people. But there is never any justification to remove freedom of kids in order to improve the health of someone else if you aren't very very fascist, you never even think of doing something to a kid if it doesn't benefit the kid directly, obviously.

That said, how did the fascists convince the fascist-leaning but not extremist people, of the necessity of lockdowns? by grotesquely exaggerating the purported risks for the population at large. And how did they do that? by claiming young people were dying as well or spending weeks tortured in ICU and so on.

And how where they able to claim that? did they lie completly about relatively young people suffering a lot from covid? no, there was a kernel of truth. And what was that kernel of truth? that under 50 in *horrible health* were actually a tad at risk anyway. So you read "38 year old dies after a month in ICU", and only 1 newspaper among 30 tells you he was 180 kilos, and stuff like that.

How do we know that? because with some delay italian national health institute reported on covid deaths in great detail. There was a morbid interest in the deaths of the under 50 (being so exceptionally rare compared to the rest), they actually checked each and every one of their clinical records for a while. And basically not one among them was in normal health. There were the super-rare ultra-immunodepressed for genetical or otherwise acquired conditions, and the obese with multiple additional comorbidites (often severe mental illness among other things).

SO WRAPPING IT UP

A) obesity and unhealthy lifestyles in general actually matter a lot more than the 1.3x you took , from your own sources, for the reason explained, in determined covid risk

B) Those individuals (and the very rare otherwise immunodepressed) dying or spending weeks intubated mattered disproportionately to concoct the narrative that "covid actually is very risky for everyone" so "we are on the same boat" so we can justify armed militaries in the streets stopping you from going out of home without a legal justification.

This even if it was *blatantly clear to any rational observer already in march 2020* after diamond princess and Bergamo that normal health under 50 people could simply consider covid as absolutely insignificant, to the "maybe i lost 1-2 days of life expectancy by it's arrival at most" level.

the obese and the otherwise unhealthy for behavioural reasons skewed under50 risk perception a tad, and that small amount gave cover to the fascists

From what I am reading, obesity tripled the risk of hospitalization from covid. https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/obe...-covid-19.html

Yes that's approx what you get by not controlling for comorbidities.

1.3x for obesity is only when you remove the effect of diabetes, hypertension and everything else.

For other confounding factors, that's the sensible way to assess risk.

But given obesity CAUSES most of the other comorbidities... you get 1.3x basically by looking only at the healthiest among obese people. Obese people who do not develop ANY additional comorbidity, are STILL at 1.3x increased risk. But almost all of them develop at least one other comorbidity, often more, because of obesity.

"Don't be a dick to smokers"

Here is you, Trolly actively rooting for people to die / dying because they don't think the way you do.













Not that I really care one way or another how much of a dick you are, not once have I ever whined to a mod about it in or ever made a comment on this forum about it. But quite funny using that as a moral high ground against me, meanwhile rooting for people to die.

LMFAO.

Obese people are in a constant state of inflammation, they also have weakened immune systems.

Correct.

Normalizing obesity is unfortunate.


Be careful Luciom, talking about obesity is a sensitive subject since adult Americans are like 40% obese and who knows which poster you are talking to fits the bill.


My obese friend lost 30 lbs in a month just going on a salad and nuts diet. It's like the easiest thing in the world to do if people had any discipline whatsoever.

btw unlike you wrt smoking, i am not suggesting or implying any state violence toward overeaters.

I am just pointing out the obscene , grotesque, incoherent take of the lockdown fascists, even inside their own wicked models where you can sacrifice individual freedoms for the "greater good of the fatherland health", they only pick and choose which freedoms depending on who they like to punish (thus proving the whole exercise is about a will to abuse people as the end, not the mean to an end)

You're wasting time on fractions. Here's the big picture you're missing:



75% deaths were 65+

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c....htm#SexAndAge

I am not missing it (and in countries that actually locked down, it's even more skewed).

Try to read what I wrote, the low amount of not elders dying was enough, and countries would have never locked down if the masses weren't convinced normal health, normal age people were at significant risk too.

And they convinced of that because of the normal age obese (and otherwise unhealthy for behavioral reasons) people skewed under 50 mortality (which was negligible for normal health under 50 in Europe)

I read what you wrote and I disagree with you. Only 75k Americans below the age of 50 died in the entire pandemic even though the incidence of obesity in those age groups is 40% for 20-39 and 44% for 40-59. The incidence is actually lower for 60+ at 41.5%.

You're simply missing the forest for the trees.

1) I am talking actual lockdowns, the USA locked down less than most others
2) in Europe the proportion of under50 who died as a % of total was even more skewed (lower)
3) Europeans have far lower obesity rates among the under 50 in particular
4) I am talking 2020 only, pre vaccines

Topic is you disagree with my take that the rare under50 who died in italy, who was almost always particularly weak for behavioral reasons, was the reason the state managed to convince people violent fascist lockdowns were appropriate for COVID.

It's fine you can disagree, you can claim that even with 99% of the deaths among the over65 (which is what would have been the case if everyone under65 had no behavioral health issues) Italy would have locked down everyone for 72 days anyway with militaries in the streets.

But I don't understand your other comments, it's like you are not reading what I am saying.

I am not missing any forest. I am saying the small amount of 3, packs a day, and/or obese, and/or "no fresh vegetables, coke everyday" and/or "drug abusers" under50 who died of COVID, are the reasons they managed to locked down everyone.

And you're basing this on what?

On the media coverage in Italy in late march and early April 2020.

Easter was early April (8th of April iirc) and there were talks to open up significantly after that (because the economic hecatombe of lockdowns was becoming clear), as other countries did (Norway, Denmark etc), governative media started pushing the "the youngs are dying too!!!!" fake narrative 24/7 for like 10 days.

And most media followed because there were monstrous sums being given to the media by the government at the time under the excuse of the necessity to buy spaces to inform the population about covid, so if you didn't follow the gvmnt line you would lose all those freebies.

If that's what you believe then why do you keep quoting obesity statistics and mortality from COVID-19 for those < 50, if the Italian government mortality for that age group was fabricated anyway?

? it wasn't fabricated. They went with anecdotes, they just "forgot" to tell people it was basically always people with disastrous health pre-covid.

Ofc you can't havre an average that includes people with disastrous health when assessing your own risk can you?

I'm confused. In the post just prior you wrote:

governative media started pushing the "the youngs are dying too!!!!" fake narrative 24/7 for like 10 days.

You called it fake narrative in that post and in this post you say the deaths weren't fabricated.

Oh, you don't get it? population averages for a diseases that exclusively threatens subpopulations are at best absolutely worthless, usually misleading on purpose for nefarious aims.

What the italian gvmnt did (and many others tried to do as well) was akin to mandating prostate cancer screening to women because of the incidence of prostate cancer in society.

You fabricate the impression the young are at risk BECAUSE an extremely small population among the youngs, *a-priori identifiable*, is somewhat at risk, and you use that to convince perfectly normal young people (and their parents and greatparents) they are at risk SO the historically unprecedented violation of their right isn't an utilitarian, sadistic violence illegal under our constitution, rather a paternalistic choice, which is (unfortunately) legal.

In italy it's illegal (unconstitutional) to mandate something health-related to you unless it directly benefits you

Lol 8th of April 2024, all normal people thought that in 2021 AT MOST

She even whines about long covid in her diatribe. Lady, hit the gym.

Vegan bacon for her son!?!? LMFAO. I'm so glad my mom came from tough upbringing and I wasn't raised by such a limp wristed human.

She is finally realizing the error of her ways and is rejoining society. Good.

I understand the accusations you're making. You just haven't presented a convincing argument that it's true, esp the intent you're ascribing to it.

Were the 353,000 who died in 2021 from COVID-19 in just the USA not normal?

They literally think they were just fat and so who cares. (Or old and should've been locked up with their care-takers)

you write that as if it was a big number.

that's 0.1% of the population even if it's all covid-attributable (which is debatable), it isn't a big number.

a big number is the total population decreasing a lot, among working age people.

if old or ultra frail people risk more that shouldn't in the slightest modify anything in the life of everyone else to begin with.

the reaction to COVID would have been vaguely justifiable if millions of under65 had died.

and even then, why stop living given people die anyway even when ratting at home? just live fully normally anyway, with a higher chance of death. but I could understand the reaction if say 3 million under 65, many (hundreds of thousands) in absolutely normal health, had died in 2020-21.

but lol the actual **** if there isn't a hugely visible drop in population graphs, it's insane to consider it something huge. elders dying a bit earlier is close to be absolutely insignificant, and in many cases it's a blessing (like all demented/Alzheimer people died sooner, including my grandfather).

if this was the reaction to a close to insignificant disease what do we do if something that kills 5% of the population comes? and mind, it happened worse than that like 50 times in Europe in a couple of centuries and we still came out of that dominating the world.

what do you do if an ACTUAL pandemic, something where everyone has someone he knows, a normal person who has decades of life expectancy, die suddenly?

like even if the totality of the over 80 on the world had died that would still be infinitely less bad than any of the 50 plagues we had in Europe.

a pandemic is significant if it cripples society at its core killing a ton of children and working age people (and even then we can cope).

if it changes demographics dynamics for generations.

like say 35 million American dying in excess in 3 years, many/most under 65.

something that in 2069 at a glance you see as a disaster in population graphs.

Nah u can’t set the bar at 80 .
U kill trump opponent while letting trump off the hook !
At least aim 75 .
Your are too partisanship