Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
78% of those hospitalized with covid were obese...
...you’d think that would have worked?
...what?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
july 4th and return to normal.
- Thread starter buckeyegator
- Start date
78% of those hospitalized with covid were obese...
...you’d think that would have worked?
...what?
Poseidon Quest
Well-Known Member
The current CDC remember was the one preaching doom just a few weeks ago. Of which we are going down in cases from. They’re far more political than you may think. Also it’s worth looking into this study published at the NIH.
My point in posting this article is I feel we are now choosing the science that most aligns with our political views instead of the overall collective of science.Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis - PMC
Many countries across the globe utilized medical and non-medical facemasks as non-pharmaceutical intervention for reducing the transmission and infectivity of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
we currently find ourselves at a point where fear of a new virus is driving us to a totalitarian view on how life needs to be balanced. There has to be balance. Life is inherently unsafe. We have to accept that.
Oops, time to correct this misleading information.
"Viral headlines in recent days have wrongly purported that a “Stanford Study” proved that masks are ineffective and dangerous. In reality, the paper in question was one author’s hypothesis and didn’t come from anyone currently affiliated with the university."
Stories Falsely Cite 'Stanford Study' to Misinform on Face Masks - FactCheck.org
Stanford Medicine says it "strongly supports the use of face masks to control the spread of COVID-19." Yet viral stories falsely claim a "Stanford study" showed that face masks are unsafe and ineffective against COVID-19. The paper is a hypothesis, not a study, from someone with no current...
www.factcheck.org
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Rubes don’t need “facts” for evidence...insistent, incorrect opinions in loud tones will doOops, time to correct this misleading information.
"Viral headlines in recent days have wrongly purported that a “Stanford Study” proved that masks are ineffective and dangerous. In reality, the paper in question was one author’s hypothesis and didn’t come from anyone currently affiliated with the university."
Stories Falsely Cite 'Stanford Study' to Misinform on Face Masks - FactCheck.org
Stanford Medicine says it "strongly supports the use of face masks to control the spread of COVID-19." Yet viral stories falsely claim a "Stanford study" showed that face masks are unsafe and ineffective against COVID-19. The paper is a hypothesis, not a study, from someone with no current...
bdearl41
Well-Known Member
So did you read what I said?Oops, time to correct this misleading information.
"Viral headlines in recent days have wrongly purported that a “Stanford Study” proved that masks are ineffective and dangerous. In reality, the paper in question was one author’s hypothesis and didn’t come from anyone currently affiliated with the university."
Stories Falsely Cite 'Stanford Study' to Misinform on Face Masks - FactCheck.org
Stanford Medicine says it "strongly supports the use of face masks to control the spread of COVID-19." Yet viral stories falsely claim a "Stanford study" showed that face masks are unsafe and ineffective against COVID-19. The paper is a hypothesis, not a study, from someone with no current...
Chi84
Premium Member
Why would the poster bother? It seemed like you might have been thinking about saying something that could end up being interpreted as anti-mask.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
well since it’s little to no imposition...what is the point of anti-mask unless it’s to make man babies feel better?
Masks will go away when it’s OVER...and I’ll love that day
But I won’t whine for it
bdearl41
Well-Known Member
Haha good point.
bdearl41
Well-Known Member
My point was never about masks. Just that you can find articles and follow the science for any side of the argument.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
granted...and I wasn’t going after you. I just like to point out “anti-mask” is silly as in it really affects almost nothing.
unless you’re a 21 year old at the bar.
Some would say you got that the wrong way round but talking politics here will get you in trouble so best not.
Is Disneyland Paris or Tokyo Disneyland political too? Didn’t think so.
ParentsOf4
Well-Known Member
Not exactly correct.
78% of those hospitalized were overweight or obese.
75% of the population is overweight or obese.
78% is pretty darn close to 75%.
IMO, the CDC message was butchered. It should have focused attention on obesity, not overweight.
According to the CDC:
- 25% of the population is not overweight and made up 22% of hospitalizations. (22 / 25 = 0.88)
- 32% of the population is overweight and made up 28% of hospitalizations. (28 / 32 = 0.875)
- 43% of the population is obese and made up 50% of hospitalizations. (50 / 43 = 1.163)
Indeed, the CDC stated as much in its summary:
Among 148,494 U.S. adults with COVID-19, a nonlinear relationship was found between body mass index (BMI) and COVID-19 severity, with lowest risks at BMIs near the threshold between healthy weight and overweight in most instances, then increasing with higher BMI.
Per the CDC, the sweet spot was somewhere around the border between healthy and overweight. The CDC notes that risks increase with higher BMIs. But if the sweet spot is around the normal/overweight threshold, this means risks increase at lower BWIs as well, not a message that the CDC wants to send. Interestingly, buried later in the report is this nugget:
Patients with COVID-19 with underweight had a 20% (95% CI = 16%–25%) higher risk for hospitalization than did those with a healthy weight. Patients aged <65 years with underweight were 41% (95% CI = 31%–52%) more likely to be hospitalized than were those with a healthy weight, and patients aged ≥65 years with underweight were 7% (95% CI = 4%–10%) more likely to be hospitalized.
In other words, younger underweight people were 41% more likely to be hospitalized. Certainly this was worthy of a headline or two.
One of the interesting factoids from the CDC website is that the elderly tend to be less obese than most other age groups. (Not to be morbid, but possibly because the obese are less likely to survive into old age.)
Yet the elderly are disproportionately likely to be hospitalized or die from COVID.
We have a combination younger people more likely to be obese, and obese people more likely to be hospitalized.
This suggests there is a strong correlation between obesity and hospitalizations.
But there also is a correlation between being underweight and hospitalizations.
Understandably, the CDC wants people to lose weight. However, the CDC did itself a disservice in this instance by lumping in those who are overweight with those who are obese, while ignoring in their summary the issue with those who are underweight. With 75% of the population already being overweight or obese, the last thing the CDC wants to say is "some of you need to put on a little weight".
"78%" is a bigger number than "50%", so news agencies went with a (IMO) sensationalized headline of "78%".
Last edited:
Walt Disney1955
Well-Known Member
It isn't sensible, that's for sure. That is putting a lot of people out of work and for whatever reason we have abandoned all logic starting in 2020 that this could be a rippling effect - and already is - for people financially in the long and short term. Put it up to normal capacity and you get what you get. Think of how modified the Olympics will be in Tokyo this summer. That's a LOT of money that will be lost and I can't fathom how much they'll hurt by this. In 1976 Montreal in good times had the summer Olympics. The city of Montreal finally paid off their Olympic debt in 2004.
Open things up, we aren't toddlers, we are perfectly capable to assess our own risk and health. Others can stay home. That's freedom and a ton of people over the years died for you to have that right.
Completely agree and you know as well as I do that had coivd not appeared our current leadership would look totally different right now. You know what they say never let a crisis go to waste.
Walt Disney1955
Well-Known Member
I used to use that phrase before all of this and people used to laugh at me, haha!
ParentsOf4
Well-Known Member
Most decisions made by most bodies are political.
You call it "sensible" because you agree with it. (I agree with it too.) It's still a political decision.
Political as in the right thing to do for the general / voting populous? Yes.
Political since it’s a decision made by politicians.
Walt Disney1955
Well-Known Member
It might not be a bad idea to look outside the box and see the true harm lockdowns/restrictions have had on people's lives. We are on a Disney site, if we want Disney to expand and keep up on the things we love and add a 5th park down the road (I know, I know) then we need to support it by going there. It is that simple. It is like a restaurant that can't afford to stay open because of lack of customers. You really think the entire world should shut down and bring all the problems with it over a flu virus.......................for 14 months?
Most educated people know all about that.