How Do We Solve a Problem Like Obesity?

[Aufc]

In what way are these people being "prioritised" by the NHS? Dont the NHS routinely tell folk to lose weight/get fitter before receiving surgery for example?

The NHS also spend money on smoking cessation as an example, should that also be removed? Smokers certainly arent prioritising themselves.

Maybe prioritised was the wrong word. However, it is a huge sum of money being spent on it.

Smoking is an addiction. The money should be spent on curing the addiction to stop money being spent on the effects. If people have no interest in having their addiction treated then it should follow that they dont get the effects treated. Obviously that wont happen though

[Bairnardo]

Maybe prioritised was the wrong word. However, it is a huge sum of money being spent on it.

Smoking is an addiction. The money should be spent on curing the addiction to stop money being spent on the effects. If people have no interest in having their addiction treated then it should follow that they dont get the effects treated. Obviously that wont happen though

It's still a choice to start doing it in the face of all public advice and knowledge.

The point here is, where do you draw the line in terms of who inflicted what on themselves?

It's already been covered, but do we pubt sports injuries to the back of the queue because they didnt need to be doing sports?

The obesity epidemic needs to be addressed. Thats clear as day. However, if it was the simple, easy fix to a simple problem that some folk seem oddly determined to push, then it wouldnt actually be a problem on the scale that it is.

[coprolite]

2 hours ago, Aufc said:

 

I do all of the above. I realise not everyone is like that and i am not trying to come across and all high and mighty. However, for the majority of people, getting 30-45 minutes of exercise a day/most day is completely manageable.

Again I am sounding harsh here but if people dont prioritise themselves and stay healthy then why should the NHS prioritise them at great expense?

 

I completely agree that's probably the case for most people. If you want to ignore the minority who might be struggling for all sorts of reasons, then that's up to you. 

 The NHS treats sick people and isn't as judgemental as an institute as you appear to be. 

[vikingTON]

20 minutes ago, throbber said:

You’re still a c**t.

^^^ sobbing uncontrollably

[Aufc]

I completely agree that's probably the case for most people. If you want to ignore the minority who might be struggling for all sorts of reasons, then that's up to you. 
 The NHS treats sick people and isn't as judgemental as an institute as you appear to be. 

I am not ignoring those people. I have said all along that these people should get the help they require.

It is clear that whatever they are doing currently is not working. Coronavirus has absolutely highlighted this and made it worse. If this doesnt open peoples eyes then i am not quite sure what will. The only thing that i can think of is hitting them in their pocket

[Bairnardo]

1 minute ago, Aufc said:

 

I am not ignoring those people. I have said all along that these people should get the help they require.

It is clear that whatever they are doing currently is not working. Coronavirus has absolutely highlighted this and made it worse. If this doesnt open peoples eyes then i am not quite sure what will. The only thing that i can think of is hitting them in their pocket

 

Have you researched the demographics enough to say that "hitting them in the pocket" is an effective way to deal with the problem though? Have you enough info on both causes and effects of obesity/poor diet and health to know that actually that wont make the problem significantly worse?

That strikes me as more Daily Mail style lashing out, than any sort of sensible suggestion tbh. 

[coprolite]

35 minutes ago, Michael W said:

Obesity is one of the largest cancer risk factors, though. It is related with some of the other factors (poor diet, excessive consumption of certain types of food) but it is nevertheless a key factor. Not to mention the added risk of other illnesses (cardiovascular disease etc.). 

I posted the story earlier in this thread, but a poster pointing this out received a fair bit of backlash in some quarters for "fat shaming". Drinkers and smokers have been "shamed" for years about the health impacts of consumption for years and how this risks their health. I don't see why we need to trod on egg shells about the effects obesity carries as well. The vast majority of UK covid deaths are in people with underlying health conditions, with a significant proportion of this group also being obese. The damage obesity does to your health is all too apparent - it might be inconvenient or hard to hear, but it's a fact. 

We talk a lot about excercise, limiting alcohol consumption and having a balanced diet. This is all good and well, but we seem to shirk the obesity part of it. 

I agree with you that people should be able to have a frank and open discussion about the issues and causes of obesity. 

I disagree with your last paragraph because i think there has been plenty in the media etc about the negative effects of obesity. I guess that's a question if perception and maybe also where you get your news from.

A number of participants on this thread aren't interested in understanding any of the complex  underlying issues or in offering anything constructive. 

If we can all agree that obesity is a problem, i don't see what anyone gains from slinging blame around and being dickish about it (not you). It's this arseholery that is preventing the grown up conversation, not some tiny fatties rights movement. 

[vikingTON]

2 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Have you researched the demographics enough to say that "hitting them in the pocket" is an effective way to deal with the problem though? Have you enough info on both causes and effects of obesity/poor diet and health to know that actually that wont make the problem significantly worse?

That strikes me as more Daily Mail style lashing out, than any sort of sensible suggestion tbh. 

Do you normally demand that posters on the General Nonsense section of a Scottish football forum publish their own scientific literature review to accompany every post? 

[Bairnardo]

Do you normally demand that posters on the General Nonsense section of a Scottish football forum publish their own scientific literature review to accompany every post? 

Well if they are offering up a solution such as "hitting ordinary people in the pocket" then I would expect to see some rationale behind it aye

[vikingTON]

6 minutes ago, throbber said:

Only because the world is so cruel and uncaring. Sometimes I wonder what fat people ever did to hurt you. 

I'm not surprised in the slightest that you rely on pop psychology to explain the world around you tbh; it's the idiot's favourite debate crutch. 

Edited March 7, 2021 by vikingTON

[vikingTON]

3 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

4 minutes ago, virginton said:

Do you normally demand that posters on the General Nonsense section of a Scottish football forum publish their own scientific literature review to accompany every post? 

Well if they are offering up a solution such as "hitting ordinary people in the pocket" then I would expect to see some rationale behind it aye

He set out the rationale of doing it. You're asking for a meta-analysis of the demographics of obesity and likely social impacts as well, which I think you'll recognise as utterly ridiculous as soon as you step back from this debate for a moment.

The General Nonsense section of a Scottish football forum is not a Parliamentary committee nor an academic conference. 

Edited March 7, 2021 by vikingTON

[Bairnardo]

2 minutes ago, virginton said:

He set out the rationale of doing it. You're asking for a meta-analysis of the demographics of obesity and likely social impacts as well, which I think you'll recognise as utterly ridiculous as soon as you step back from this debate for a moment.

The General Nonsense section of a Scottish football forum is not a Parliamentary committee nor an academic conference. 

I think the rationale offered was, I cant think of anything better. Fair enough, but despite the use of the fact we are in the GN section of a football forum, we are still having the conversation. You cant just use that to reduce it down as and when it suits. Every conversation  had here is on a football forum and dont go telling me you personally have never demanded to see some more working?

I just want to see some indication of why taking money off people who are fat might be a good way to deal with it, without making the problems faced by those people worse. I really do think it's a fair enough question. Not asking the guy to become a doctor in it, just let's have a bit more meat on the bones*

 

*open goal

 

[vikingTON]

9 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

I think the rationale offered was, I cant think of anything better. Fair enough, but despite the use of the fact we are in the GN section of a football forum, we are still having the conversation. You cant just use that to reduce it down as and when it suits. Every conversation  had here is on a football forum and dont go telling me you personally have never demanded to see some more working?

I just want to see some indication of why taking money off people who are fat might be a good way to deal with it, without making the problems faced by those people worse. I really do think it's a fair enough question. Not asking the guy to become a doctor in it, just let's have a bit more meat on the bones*

 

*open goal

 

Evidence would help demonstrate the point, sure. But if you disagree with the idea and believe that it will do more harm than good, then the onus is on you to show this through reason and/or evidence of your own, not to say 'where's your research for this? Go away and get some first'. 

[Bairnardo]

Evidence would help demonstrate the point, sure. But if you disagree with the idea and believe that it will do more harm than good, then the onus is on you to show this through reason and/or evidence of your own, not to say 'where's your research for this? Go away and get some first'. 

It's somewhat the point myself and others have been making in this thread though that's it's a problem, but it's an incredibly complex one. It seems to me like a failure to acknowledge that when throwing around ideas like "hit them in the pocket". Its precisely because you need to know the social causes and effects, the demographics of the obese population etc that it's really difficult to offer up any sort of solution. None of us are in possession of all the info needed yet some seem determined to continue saying things like "Humiliate the fatties ahhahaha"

[Aufc]

I think the rationale offered was, I cant think of anything better. Fair enough, but despite the use of the fact we are in the GN section of a football forum, we are still having the conversation. You cant just use that to reduce it down as and when it suits. Every conversation  had here is on a football forum and dont go telling me you personally have never demanded to see some more working?
I just want to see some indication of why taking money off people who are fat might be a good way to deal with it, without making the problems faced by those people worse. I really do think it's a fair enough question. Not asking the guy to become a doctor in it, just let's have a bit more meat on the bones*
 
*open goal
 

Whatever is happening is not working. A lot of people are influenced by money. It stands to reason that as soon as there is a financial impact (positive or negative) people will take notice. How that is done I am not sure.

[vikingTON]

7 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

It's somewhat the point myself and others have been making in this thread though that's it's a problem, but it's an incredibly complex one. It seems to me like a failure to acknowledge that when throwing around ideas like "hit them in the pocket". Its precisely because you need to know the social causes and effects, the demographics of the obese population etc that it's really difficult to offer up any sort of solution. None of us are in possession of all the info needed yet some seem determined to continue saying things like "Humiliate the fatties ahhahaha"
 

I don't recall this clamour to understand the social causes and demographics before a minimum price for alcohol was introduced or when hiking up the cost of tobacco through taxes and duties. What makes obesity fundamentally different when using economic carrots and sticks to tackle the issue? Minimum pricing for example is a straight-up regressive poverty tax. 

I can't speak for others but a straightforward mechanism to mitigate most of the negative consequences would be to use the income tax system to either levy overweight people or provide a 'health credit' from a higher baseline rate to those who are not. If you're losing an extra 2 or 3% on your pay then you are absolutely going to find the time and willpower to change your lifestyle.

What should not be accepted is that obesity is magically immune from the same economic incentives that we use to regulate other behaviour with social costs all the time.

Edited March 7, 2021 by vikingTON

[Cosmic Joe]

3 hours ago, Bairnardo said:

It's somewhat the point myself and others have been making in this thread though that's it's a problem, but it's an incredibly complex one. It seems to me like a failure to acknowledge that when throwing around ideas like "hit them in the pocket". Its precisely because you need to know the social causes and effects, the demographics of the obese population etc that it's really difficult to offer up any sort of solution. None of us are in possession of all the info needed yet some seem determined to continue saying things like "Humiliate the fatties ahhahaha"
 

It's never complex when you are a self - appointed expert on all matters, and have terms in your armoury such as champ and clownshoes to use ad-infinitum over the years. He is a tedious individual, but someone who should probably not be given the attention he so obviously craves. 

I feel sorry for him, and apologise for calling him a p***k earlier. 

[ICTChris]

Saw this documentary linked to in a discussion about this subject on Twitter.  Would increasing the use of bariatic surgery help deal with the health problems due to obesity?

 

[vikingTON]

16 hours ago, Cosmic Joe said:

It's never complex when you are a self - appointed expert on all matters, and have terms in your armoury such as champ and clownshoes to use ad-infinitum over the years. He is a tedious individual, but someone who should probably not be given the attention he so obviously craves. 

I feel sorry for him, and apologise for calling him a p***k earlier. 

It's so cute whenever a no-mark decides to finally share their years of intensive study of box office posting.

[The Moonster]

21 hours ago, Aufc said:

Smoking is an addiction. The money should be spent on curing the addiction to stop money being spent on the effects. If people have no interest in having their addiction treated then it should follow that they dont get the effects treated. Obviously that wont happen though

 

Cool, smokers who have no interest in stopping can stop paying about 80% in taxes per packet if they're having the health services removed from them. 

We can stop treating all of our alcoholics too, they never want help to stop, they only ever want another pint.

Do you think folk who drink an excess of coffee/caffeinated fizzy drinks should also have the effects of that untreated? Or do you now realise how mental this take is?