6 ms·

Overweight people put a huge strain on the healthcare system, maybe 30% of the entire health expenditure in the USA can be attributed to obesity. Which creates

Overweight people put a huge strain on the healthcare system, maybe 30% of the entire health expenditure in the USA can be attributed to obesity. Which creates shortages and drives up costs for others who need it. So yes, overweight people should be banned from civil society (and certainly restaurants) because the risk of them catching covid and causing even more strain on the healthcare system would be very bad even if they are vaccinated. Not until they get low risk and effective gastric bypass surgery at least. It's for the greater good. That is to say, I don't believe such a horrific, dystopian, nasty, bullying attitude as this, but I can see how people who believe the unvaccinated should be given the same treatment for the alleged greater good would also think this about overweight people if they were to be logically consistent in their positions.

greesil 5y ago
Unless there's an obesity spike that takes up all the ICU beds in a region (doughnut sale or something) your argument makes no sense.
- ButtSpark69 5y ago
  His point is that being fat and being unvaccinated both increase the risk society bears that you will a) give someone else covid and/or b) use hospital resources.
  - greesil 5y ago
    I understand TP's point. It's nonsensical because he's comparing twinkies to eclairs. They're superficially similar but are in reality vastly different things.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      Yes, obese people are vastly worse for society than the unvaccinated in terms of financial costs. The solution is even simpler than getting a vaccine because they don't have to go anywhere. They simply have to eat less.
      - greesil 5y ago
        Cost of obesity was $1.4T in 2014, covid costs in excess of $16T. Just googling. I can't comment on methodology, etc. Obesity is ongoing, pandemic will eventually subside, etc. Thoughts?
        throwawaylinux 5y ago
        For argument's sake let's say those numbers are right. Then what is the argument for the covid response that could not also justify a similarly harsh response to obesity? Is it the exact amount of money that's at issue? The exact number of people who might die or suffer or be squeezed out of adequate healthcare due to load on the system caused by obesity? I've never seen it. None of the experts or legislators or corporate news talking heads have ever explained it. If we got the cost of covid below $10T would that be sufficient to lift mandates and restrictions and other measures? Or deaths? Deaths attributable to obesity is what, about 300,000 per year in the US? If covid deaths per year were brought down just a little bit and dipped under the 300k mark would that end the need for those measures?
        greesil 5y ago
        You just don't get it. People aren't trying to optimize cost of healthcare at the system level, they are optimizing for themselves not dying and not getting sick. The perception (which I think it true, but you don't) is that the unvaccinated are putting them at risk. I want mandates to protect myself. I don't want to be in office with someone who is unvaccinated, or refuses to wear a mask. It's all about me, me, me.
        throwawaylinux 5y ago
        No I do get it. People are trying to optimize the cost of healthcare system at the system level, and they absolutely cut it down as much as they can and people go without treatment for it. You have vaccines to protect yourself, and if you're an anti vaxer or are still irrationally terrified of the virus you always have the option to shut yourself in your home.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  It makes perfect sense. That is not required for my argument to make sense, 30% of healthcare costs is staggering, and absolutely could result in higher costs or worse outcomes for others. And a spike from one particular cause does not necessarily lead to a shortage. If a few extra patients start getting covid and then there is a bed shortage, then fewer overweight people in there might also have prevented the shortage. Look, it's for the greater good. No use arguing against it unless you hate grandma and Science™.
  - greesil 5y ago
    "And a spike from one particular cause does not necessarily lead to a shortage" have you read the news, like ever in the past year? Yes fatties are expensive. They increase costs. But it doesn't matter because we are talking about an infectious disease that can have exponential growth. The underlying dynamics are fundamentally different, and if you can't grasp that there's no point in arguing on the internet with you.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      No, because vaccinated people have protection from a safe and effective vaccine, vaccinated people can spread the disease as well, and also if they are still worried they can choose to isolate themselves at home if they wish. Extremely high vaccination rates have repeatedly shown not to eliminate outbreaks. So the argument has shifted to the load on the healthcare system. Unvaccinated people are a risk they claim because they might create hospital shortages and therefore be allegedly responsible for the death of others. Same as overweight people.
      - zuminator 5y ago
        Overweight people per se don't create hospital shortages. You can argue that obesity is a huge expense overall but it's a predictable and manageable one. It doesn't generally cause sudden spikes in medical utilization in the way a pandemic or epidemic can.
Gabriel_Martin 5y ago
If I'm understanding you, you don't personally believe in "banning overweight people from civil society" but you want to propose it to make a point about how much of a "horrific, dystopian, nasty, bullying attitude" you think the belief in vaccine mandates are, and how if one believes the anti-vaccinated should be restricted then it's effectively equivalent? Seems like an reductio ad absurdum fallacy to me, if so, since you're trying to characterize the belief in vaccine mandates as inevitably leading such a ridiculous, absurd conclusion. In this case banning overweight people.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > If I'm understanding you, you don't personally believe in "banning overweight people from civil society" Correct. > but you want to propose it to make a point about how much of a "horrific, dystopian, nasty, bullying attitude" you think the belief in vaccine mandates are, and how if one believes the anti-vaccinated should be restricted then it's effectively equivalent? Much the same arguments made for bullying and coercing people to getting unwanted medical procedures can be used for either, yes. > Seems like an reductio ad absurdum fallacy to me, Why? What is any more absurd about it? 30% of health expenditure is a staggering cost to society. This is not just meh no big deal like the common cold, it's a real cost borne by everyone. And as we see, when they do get covid they get much more complications from it, which makes covid spikes more problematic too. Why can obesity be so easily brushed aside but not people who choose not to be vaccinated from covid?
  - Gabriel_Martin 5y ago
    Because that's just how I understand reductio ad adsurdum to mean, there's a valid chain of reasoning that leads from the initial premise to an unacceptable conclusion. In this case you believe that being "banned from civil society" (your characterization) for being unvaccinated is ok, you must accept the same for being overweight. "Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable"
mostertoaster 5y ago
It would make more sense at least then saying people who have had covid and had no issues overcoming it are an unacceptable amount of risk to allow at offices and in restaurants, but those who haven’t had covid but have gotten the vaccine are an acceptable amount of risk. I personally don’t think we should ban, overweight people, people who have had covid or haven’t had covid, who have been vaccinated or haven’t been vaccinated like we did before covid. But since our risk tolerance has gone down as a society at least be logical about it. Getting on a plane, covid test regardless of the fact you don’t appear sick at all, ok fair enough you’re crammed in a tin can. For restaurants, and offices, I think “have no symptoms of covid” is an acceptable amount of risk. Those saying vaccinated but never got covid are acceptable, but unvaccinated recovered from covid unacceptable, would be more logical to say fat people are banned. That is the frustration with it. It is just one group trying to say to another group, submit to us, we are your masters, or else we will punish you. I wonder what people who have endured that kind of attitude in their history think of that attitude?

greesil 5y ago

Unless there's an obesity spike that takes up all the ICU beds in a region (doughnut sale or something) your argument makes no sense.

ButtSpark69 5y ago
His point is that being fat and being unvaccinated both increase the risk society bears that you will a) give someone else covid and/or b) use hospital resources.
- greesil 5y ago
  I understand TP's point. It's nonsensical because he's comparing twinkies to eclairs. They're superficially similar but are in reality vastly different things.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Yes, obese people are vastly worse for society than the unvaccinated in terms of financial costs. The solution is even simpler than getting a vaccine because they don't have to go anywhere. They simply have to eat less.
    - greesil 5y ago
      Cost of obesity was $1.4T in 2014, covid costs in excess of $16T. Just googling. I can't comment on methodology, etc. Obesity is ongoing, pandemic will eventually subside, etc. Thoughts?
      - throwawaylinux 5y ago
        For argument's sake let's say those numbers are right. Then what is the argument for the covid response that could not also justify a similarly harsh response to obesity? Is it the exact amount of money that's at issue? The exact number of people who might die or suffer or be squeezed out of adequate healthcare due to load on the system caused by obesity? I've never seen it. None of the experts or legislators or corporate news talking heads have ever explained it. If we got the cost of covid below $10T would that be sufficient to lift mandates and restrictions and other measures? Or deaths? Deaths attributable to obesity is what, about 300,000 per year in the US? If covid deaths per year were brought down just a little bit and dipped under the 300k mark would that end the need for those measures?
        greesil 5y ago
        You just don't get it. People aren't trying to optimize cost of healthcare at the system level, they are optimizing for themselves not dying and not getting sick. The perception (which I think it true, but you don't) is that the unvaccinated are putting them at risk. I want mandates to protect myself. I don't want to be in office with someone who is unvaccinated, or refuses to wear a mask. It's all about me, me, me.
        throwawaylinux 5y ago
        No I do get it. People are trying to optimize the cost of healthcare system at the system level, and they absolutely cut it down as much as they can and people go without treatment for it. You have vaccines to protect yourself, and if you're an anti vaxer or are still irrationally terrified of the virus you always have the option to shut yourself in your home.
throwawaylinux 5y ago
It makes perfect sense. That is not required for my argument to make sense, 30% of healthcare costs is staggering, and absolutely could result in higher costs or worse outcomes for others. And a spike from one particular cause does not necessarily lead to a shortage. If a few extra patients start getting covid and then there is a bed shortage, then fewer overweight people in there might also have prevented the shortage. Look, it's for the greater good. No use arguing against it unless you hate grandma and Science™.
- greesil 5y ago
  "And a spike from one particular cause does not necessarily lead to a shortage" have you read the news, like ever in the past year? Yes fatties are expensive. They increase costs. But it doesn't matter because we are talking about an infectious disease that can have exponential growth. The underlying dynamics are fundamentally different, and if you can't grasp that there's no point in arguing on the internet with you.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    No, because vaccinated people have protection from a safe and effective vaccine, vaccinated people can spread the disease as well, and also if they are still worried they can choose to isolate themselves at home if they wish. Extremely high vaccination rates have repeatedly shown not to eliminate outbreaks. So the argument has shifted to the load on the healthcare system. Unvaccinated people are a risk they claim because they might create hospital shortages and therefore be allegedly responsible for the death of others. Same as overweight people.
    - zuminator 5y ago
      Overweight people per se don't create hospital shortages. You can argue that obesity is a huge expense overall but it's a predictable and manageable one. It doesn't generally cause sudden spikes in medical utilization in the way a pandemic or epidemic can.

Gabriel_Martin 5y ago

If I'm understanding you, you don't personally believe in "banning overweight people from civil society" but you want to propose it to make a point about how much of a "horrific, dystopian, nasty, bullying attitude" you think the belief in vaccine mandates are, and how if one believes the anti-vaccinated should be restricted then it's effectively equivalent? Seems like an reductio ad absurdum fallacy to me, if so, since you're trying to characterize the belief in vaccine mandates as inevitably leading such a ridiculous, absurd conclusion. In this case banning overweight people.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
> If I'm understanding you, you don't personally believe in "banning overweight people from civil society" Correct. > but you want to propose it to make a point about how much of a "horrific, dystopian, nasty, bullying attitude" you think the belief in vaccine mandates are, and how if one believes the anti-vaccinated should be restricted then it's effectively equivalent? Much the same arguments made for bullying and coercing people to getting unwanted medical procedures can be used for either, yes. > Seems like an reductio ad absurdum fallacy to me, Why? What is any more absurd about it? 30% of health expenditure is a staggering cost to society. This is not just meh no big deal like the common cold, it's a real cost borne by everyone. And as we see, when they do get covid they get much more complications from it, which makes covid spikes more problematic too. Why can obesity be so easily brushed aside but not people who choose not to be vaccinated from covid?
- Gabriel_Martin 5y ago
  Because that's just how I understand reductio ad adsurdum to mean, there's a valid chain of reasoning that leads from the initial premise to an unacceptable conclusion. In this case you believe that being "banned from civil society" (your characterization) for being unvaccinated is ok, you must accept the same for being overweight. "Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable"

mostertoaster 5y ago

It would make more sense at least then saying people who have had covid and had no issues overcoming it are an unacceptable amount of risk to allow at offices and in restaurants, but those who haven’t had covid but have gotten the vaccine are an acceptable amount of risk. I personally don’t think we should ban, overweight people, people who have had covid or haven’t had covid, who have been vaccinated or haven’t been vaccinated like we did before covid. But since our risk tolerance has gone down as a society at least be logical about it. Getting on a plane, covid test regardless of the fact you don’t appear sick at all, ok fair enough you’re crammed in a tin can. For restaurants, and offices, I think “have no symptoms of covid” is an acceptable amount of risk. Those saying vaccinated but never got covid are acceptable, but unvaccinated recovered from covid unacceptable, would be more logical to say fat people are banned. That is the frustration with it. It is just one group trying to say to another group, submit to us, we are your masters, or else we will punish you. I wonder what people who have endured that kind of attitude in their history think of that attitude?