Corona Virus Update

Your guess is as good as mine. I was just curious if anyone knew how outcomes compared. Judging outcomes by money spent or hours of instruction isn’t reliable here so I assume it wouldn’t be on a global scale either.

Sure. I don’t mean to imply conspiracy at all. When I used the term “we” I mean we have what the majority desires. It’s democracy not a conspiracy. We elect politicians and school boards that deliver the product the majority of society wants. Clearly societies seldom want what’s best for society. If they did societies wouldn’t collapse in 200-400 years on average. Sometimes much less.

A country without cohesion and a community goal of success will always fail economically. Not only countries—businesses and families

What truth? The system serves almost everyone in the manner they wish to be served. Of course a small percentage does want better—they are why homeschooling is expanding. But the vast majority are getting what they want. There’s no big conspiracy. People are getting the education they want and the education they desire for their children for the most part.

The part about learning the truth from the internet is interesting. What truth about education do you think kids in school would glean from the Internet?

 

I would say the only measure as to whether education was sufficient (As compared to best) would be the economic position of the country concerned.

Then what's the issue? What things are not being taught that should be. America hasn't been around very long, but the UK has and its education system has not lead to its collapse. How does it differ to the US?
I have 4 teachers in my family all would agree if I said the biggest problem education has is the inability to confess that some people are just thick, un-educatable.
Too much time and effort is put into getting this group up to a mean average because we cannot accept that fact.

Apologies, your post seemed to me to be implying that our children were being taught propaganda, over truth.
Clearly that's not what you are saying, but I'm am unclear what your real point is.

 

I read several pages of a fascinating discussion between @557 and @Tigger2 on obesity and vaccine hesitancy. At one point I stopped because there were still three more pages and I got a bit tired of it.

It's relatively simple:

Problem A - Obesity as a public health phenomenon is a complex multifactorial problem that is indeed detrimental to individuals and to the community, and education about it has had a small impact on contributing to people actually changing their lifestyle and conquering this difficult-to-solve problem. Truthful education on this is marred by lies and manipulation spouted by scammers who profit from scam diets and fads.

Problem B - Vaccine hesitancy as a public health phenomenon is a complex multifactorial problem that is indeed detrimental to individuals and to the community, and education about it has had a small impact on contributing to people actually accepting the vaccines and conquering this difficult-to-solve problem. Truthful education on this is marred by lies and manipulation spouted by scammers who profit from alternative "cures" and anti-vaxxer BS.

I feel like while the two problems are similar in some ways, they differ in some others, such as a higher degree of political interference for problem B, and a faster fix for problem B.

Even though education faces an uphill battle to have a meaningful impact on both problems, I feel that it's still worth pursuing. Even if the people who then change their minds are not so numerous, it's better than nothing.

In the workforce, mandates and penalties actually exist for both problems. It is common for example for obese people to face a health insurance premium add-on and certain work restrictions and they can be silently discriminated against by hiring officials who might prefer, given similar skill levels, to hire a fit person rather than an obese one, especially for job descriptions that require reasonable fitness like firemen and the military. Discrimination against obese people is real. Similarly, there is talk now of charging a higher premium to individuals who choose to go unvaccinated against the SARS-CoV-2, and many employers are making of the vaccines a condition for employment now that at least one vaccine has earned full FDA approval.

Where these similar approaches differ is that measures to curtail obesity in the workforce rarely have an immediate impact, while mandates to vaccinate people in the workforce do have a more immediate impact. For example, in my very hospital, while no mandated existed 25% of the workforce chose to go without the vaccine. A mandate is now in effect and employees who do not qualify for a health-related or religious exemption by September 30 and do not accept the vaccine by that date will be fired. As soon as this mandate was issued, the rate of vaccination refusal among employees unsurprisingly was brought down to 5%. There is no way to decrease by 80% the rate of obesity in 30 days regardless of implemented incentives and punishments... but the rate of unvaccinated people did drop by 80% after the mandate was issued. The remainder 5% are likely to either obtain an exemption or be laid off so the rate will fall even more after September 30th, as the fired employees are replaced by new hires among the vaccinated.

While I do not philosophically approve of mandates and prefer education, I have to acknowledge that the mandates do efficiently increase the rate of vaccination. Actually we're seeing it nationwide, with several mandates popping up including for the numerous federal employees and the military, which is driving up the number of vaccinated people.

It is true, like another poster has mentioned, that the dashed hopes for herd immunity weakens the public health justification for vaccine mandates. As the virus mutate more and more (the newest Mu variant is concerning regarding further antigenic drift), if the vaccines become less and less likely to prevent infection and contagion, the argument for forcing people to accept them in the name of public health gets weakened. Still, the flu shot which generally has been less efficacious than the Covid-19 vaccines and there is absolutely no herd immunity against influenza, is mandated in many work settings without much public outcry, showing again that it's not exactly the concept of mandating a vaccine that bothers people (e.g., public schools and private universities have mandated various vaccines forever, for enrollment, and I haven't seen any significant protest against it), but rather, the politics surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic are a driving force for the outcry.

 

I agree with the caveat all the dishonesty is not coming from fad dieters and anti vaxxers. There is a great deal that originates with proponents of healthy weight and proponents of vaccines. This also has a detrimental effect on acceptance of vaccines and maintaining a healthy weight. For example, likely the biggest contributor to obesity in the US has been the high carb diet we ate for years because we were told animal fat and protein were bad. There was never empirical evidence to recommend the diet given to us by government etc. for years. It was actually based purely on politics. Similarly, bad/unsubstantiated-by-evidence advice on Covid has eroded trust in public health institutions. I warned of the consequences that would have on vaccine acceptance last August.

As above I see a great deal of political interference in problem A. In diet recommendations and cheap food policy from both a national security and electability standpoint. Even policy like domestic food assistance programs contribute to obesity.

On time from implementation of mandate to results I agree. I only disagree that should be a metric for deciding whether or not to implement a policy of mandate. There are all kinds of ways we could easily encroach on personal bodily and behavioral autonomy and excuse it as a public good. But I don’t believe as a free society we have the right to. I know you oppose mandates and support individual rights so this is not directed at you. It’s just to show ease of manipulation isn’t license to practice that manipulation whatever it may be.

Absolutely.

I fully support the right of private businesses to discriminate against obesity and vaccination status. That was the whole point of my comparison of A to B. We have to be consistent. We can’t give obese people a pass on their endangerment to society and hammer the unvaccinated. It isn’t logical. Nor can we grant people the right to be obese or unvaccinated without giving others the right to discriminate against them. Choices have consequences.

Oh yes, if we remove enough choice from the scenario there will always be results. As I said in my previous posts on obesity, give me the power to limit individual choice and I can make most anyone lose weight. It’s never about if we can make people do things, it’s about if we have the right and if we are applying our reasons/motives equitably. On obesity and vaccination we aren’t equitable in our motives/reasons because while “A” is mostly ignored as a public health menace (people have no idea how obesity endangers others) the other “B” is widely publicized as a valid target of authoritarian control even though in the long run “B” is less of a threat to public health.

That is a good point about less justification for mandates the less efficacious the product being mandated. In reality though it looks to me like the less efficacious the vaccines become the more authoritarian some wish to be on vaccination. Perhaps that will change but I don’t think it will as long as it remains political. And I certainly agree most of the problems we see with Covid are political.

I still maintain there will be more herd immunity to Covid long term than influenza A viruses. It should be more in line with influenza B that populations do develop quite a lot of herd immunity to. I’ll re-post my reasoning here.

Of course with coronavirus we both fear recombination events. That’s a real wild card and always will be.

 

Agreed 100% with the above post. Nothing you add; you nailed it.

 

False. 1/3 of all health care costs - about $1 trillion a year - can be traced back to the consumption of sugar.

But its a cute little unpublished, unsupported theory.

Again based on your personal theory?

You are equating a financial burden to public safety?

 

The carb claim alone is unsupported.

I take it you are casting aside your professional opinion and stating your personal opinions based on politics?

Are you equating a financial burden - obesity - to a public health threat to others?

 

Sugar Linked To $1 Trillion In U.S. Healthcare Spending
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmun...n-in-u-s-healthcare-spending/?sh=12c8b1ad6ad1


https://research-doc.credit-suisse....=atRE31ByPkIjEXa/p3AyptOvIGdxTK833tLZ1E7AwlQ=

 

Good lord. Sugar is a carbohydrate! Do you seriously not know this?!!! Sugars are “simple” carbohydrates and starches/fiber are complex carbohydrates. Of course sugar is one of the main guilty parties. It’s a carbohydrate .

Nope. Look at the food pyramids that made you fat.

No. I’m equating the public safety aspect of obesity to the public safety aspect of Covid vaccination. Oh, you are one of the people who isn’t aware of the public safety risk obesity puts others in. Not surprised. Did god tell you obesity only affects the obese? LOL

 

A physicist would realize as deep a hole as you are in you should stop digging. Really. Trust me. I’m trying to help.

It’s going to be very hard for you to live down your lack of knowledge about sugar being a carbohydrate. Don’t make it harder on yourself.

 

The government and science never recommended eating sugar. That is a total BS response and shows a clear lack of critical thinking. It is a ridiculous response.

Another one of your crackpot theories no doubt.

 

Good point. Would you say the US is successful in education then or not because of the huge national debt?

The issue for me is I’m saddened 20% of high school graduates are functionally illiterate. I feel sorry they can’t have a brighter future. I like to see individuals succeed and be happy as opposed to a society happy with mediocrity or worse.

I agree. Those not suited to the Prussian educational system should be educated in a different manner. Not everyone is cut out for a cubicle or an art degree or upper level management. Why not give them the skills to create wealth for themselves in trades? Show them how to manage money and invest in themselves instead of trying to turn out cookie cutter graduates. That’s my opinion.

Oh there is certainly propaganda. But the propaganda is selected through the democratic process. People want to be propagandized. Propaganda that must be forced is much less effective than propaganda people want to hear.

Some don’t want propaganda. The example of many minorities moving to homeschooling is a prime example. They don’t want their kids believing they are inferior and that their only path to happiness and success is special treatment. But still the vast majority are quite pleased with the curriculum and educational outcomes.

 

No. What is ridiculous is telling me sugar is responsible for obesity when sugar is obviously a carbohydrate and I clearly stated carbohydrates cause obesity. You are digging again. The recommendations to cut animal fat and protein from the diet left people with little choice but to eat too many carbohydrates. Most people like food that tastes good. Like steaks, omelettes, candy bars, and other sweets.

Protein is more satiating than carbs. When you tell people to cut steak and eggs and other high quality protein/fat foods they are hungrier and consume more high empty calorie carbs.

This is all well known in my world. It’s based on evidence.

Go read the posts @CenterField was commenting on between @Tigger2 and myself. It’s all well documented. I welcome your evidence showing anything I’ve posted is not evidence based. Start with sugar. Show me sugars are not carbohydrates. Go….

 

Another dishonest and bs dodge on your part.

You said,

So quit lying and cut the crap. You were talking about the high-carb diet recommended by the "government etc", meaning fruits, grains, rice, pasta, etc. No one EVER recommended eating sugar. And the summary of studies I linked show that sugar is the culprit.

Be man enough to admit when you are wrong.

CenterField, I can't believe you are who you say when you defend this nonsense. No one as educated as you claim to be would do so.

 

I’m not wrong. The government attempts to give me money to produce as many carbohydrates as possible. The starch I produce is marketed to you in part as pasta and “whole grain” product. But look at the ingredients of say a loaf of common bread labeled “sandwich wheat” etc. The third ingredient will likely be sugar. The second ingredient in Prego pasta sauce after the tomato components—sugar. I could go on and on. Foods marketed as whole grain etc. are loaded with cane and beet sugar and corn syrup or corn syrup solids the government subsidizes the production of heavily. They attempt to give me money every year to increase production of carbohydrates that you eat as sugars without even knowing it.

As I said, this is a two pronged problem. First, high quality protein/fat diets were recommended against for years. People consumed starchy and added sugar foods instead. Even foods people believe are healthy like your pasta example. And my examples above are grocery items. A pasta dish from a restaurant will almost certainly have even more hidden simple carbohydrates of some form.

The second prong is political and national security related. Carbohydrates from grains are the foundation of civilization. Without them you would not have time to pontificate on PF. You would be out snaring a rabbit to soothe the rumbling of your empty stomach. The US government leverages carbohydrate based agriculture just as governments in the past have done. Ever hear the phrase “bread and circuses” and wonder why it isn’t “venison and circuses”? The easiest path to cheap food for a happy population of voters is through high carbohydrate production. The easiest path to national food security is high carbohydrate diet that can be stored as commodity grains for long periods. I’m not saying this is good or bad—it just is the way it is. It’s national and geopolitics.

But combine this with recommendations against more nutrient dense and more satiating proteins/fats and you have a problem. Add in sedentary lifestyle and you get just what you see. Seventy percent overweight and obesity.

Be man enough to admit I’m wrong? You are the one who is wrong. And you keep digging and digging. Now you are going to insult the intelligence/expertise of another PF member in a post to me? And lecture me about food production and nutrition when I grow the crap you eat and you don’t even read the ingredients? And call me a liar? I’m not joking. You need to gently put the shovel down and hope someone throws you a rope.

Just so there is no confusion since you seem very uninformed on nutrition. Carbohydrates are not “bad”. Complex carbohydrates are actually quite good and healthy. Humans can do very well on whole grains that really are whole grains and not half added sugar. But the American diet is not based on whole grains. In days gone by whole grains meant whole wheat bread with no sugar and a slice of unprocessed cheese. Now it’s refined white flour with a touch of whole wheat so the label can say “whole wheat” or similar and a bunch of sugar so you think it’s tasty. Or it’s pasta made with refined flour and sugared up tomato sauce on top. Or white rice with the germ and all the vitamins and minerals polished off with some sauce mix packet that’s half corn syrup solids.

 

You are going to great lengths to justify your false claims.

The Government never recommended eating sugar. No matter how many paragraphs of BS you post, it doesn't change that fact.And the summary of reports blame processed sugar, not carbohydrates in general. Do you understand the difference? I am starting to doubt it.

And I know all about carbs and sugars. I have been keto for ten years. I also have severe metabolic syndrome and was born that way, which is why I went keto in the first place. I also have a family full of diabetics. So I started learning about this around age 5.

I am also a real scientist.

 

Everything I have posted is correct. The government has recommended high carbohydrate diets for years. Sugar is a carbohydrate, which you were obviously unaware of. I claimed the government pushes a high carbohydrate diet and have told you why and the mechanism of how the consumer ends up eating too many carbs and subsequent empty calories. Your protestations are meaningless chatter.

There are three macronutrients—carbohydrates, fats, and protein. When you recommended cutting fats and proteins from the diet you are recommending a high carb diet by default. You yourself brought up pasta etc. that I have shown is usually full of hidden sugars. When fat is removed from foods it naturally occurs in, sugar must be added for palatability.

I’m sorry about your metabolic challenges. But that does not excuse your blunder on excluding sugar from the macronutrient class of carbohydrates. Nor does it excuse your lack of knowledge on sugar content of common foods advertised as whole grain etc. Or your lack of knowledge on why governments depend on carbohydrates.

Sure thing buddy. We will fall for that one as soon as you demonstrate sugars are not carbohydrates. LOL

I’ll reiterate. “Real scientists” do not call things they don’t understand BS. Scientists do not intentionally exhibit bias in every area of life—especially when discussing science. Scientists do not chronically fail to provide evidence of their claims. Scientists do not reject empirical evidence that conflicts with their unsubstantiated opinions. Scientists do not rely on fallacy as their default arguments when discussing empirical evidence. Scientists do not appeal to their own authority or the authority of others while they make demonstrably false claims and statements.Real scientist don’t call people liars without evidence. Real scientist don’t claim other people have made statements they have not made.

If it’s important to you to be believed when you claim to be a scientist, start exhibiting some behaviors we would expect from one, and cease these behaviors that are all evidence to the contrary of your claim.

 

So you just keep compounding the lie.

No honor. No integrity.

 

This is what you call a bottomless pit of BS.

 

Almost all carbs are broken down into glucose by the body @557 are you really saying ALL carbs are bad for including fruit and vegetables?

My understanding is that governments promote what are generally known as good carbs.
Carbs usually considered good are complex carbs, such as whole grains, fruits, vegetables, beans and legumes. These are not only processed more slowly, but they also contain a bounty of other nutrients.
Generally processed foods are considered the primary cause of obesity because of the amount of added sugar.

 

I specifically stated carbs are not inherently bad. Yes, processing is the main culprit. Here is a pull quote from a post a few posts above.

Naturally occurring carbs have a large fiber (complex carbohydrate) component. As you say, such things as fruits, veggies, whole grains. All great foods. Fruit juices with no fiber, processed flour, white rice, sugar—all processed and more likely to be over-consumed because the fiber component is missing. Also, added sugars to compensate for lost flavor profiles of “low fat” foods lead to over consumption of calories.

I agree with everything you say here except all carbs being broken down by humans. We do not digest fiber to the point of absorption. Both soluble and insoluble fiber are important to digestive function but do not contribute to your caloric intake as they are not absorbed. Different story with ruminants and hindgut fermenters, but humans don’t break down fiber to glucose. That’s why removing it by processing leads to more overconsumption. The bulk and feeling of fullness provided by the fiber decreases total caloric intake.

The government problem comes with the recommendations against the two other macronutrients. It leaves you with just carbs that trend towards processed carbs for palatability. Real whole wheat bread isn’t enjoyed by many—especially if they are told not to put butter or a high quality meat/fat topping on it. So sugars and processing of the wheat are used to get you to eat it.

 

What lie? I believe it’s against forum rules to call other members liars without evidence.

You still think sugars are not carbohydrates? Offer some evidence. You are offering only ad hominem fallacy here.

 

This is textbook appeal to the stone fallacy. Do better.

 

Since this is a Covid thread and you understand/appreciate nutrition I’ll throw this in the mix. We have found short chain fatty acids resulting from fermentation of fiber in the colon have a profound positive effect on immune system regulation and function. So a high fiber diet will on average result in an immune system more capable of dealing with pathogens like SARS-CoV-2.

 

Ahh, excellent, sorry I missed this.

That's why I said "Almost all"

I believe it can be explained in more basic terms. We are attracted to foods rich in energy, be they fat or sugar. Both are bad for us in excess and both are now available in copious amounts.