Ya, like I've said earlier there are definitely exceptions and edge cases where BMI isn't a great tool, but for the most part if you clock in 30+ (for me, 5'10, that would be over 200 pounds) then you have a weight issue. But BMI is just a shorthand really, if I woke up and was 210 pounds, I wouldn't need to check the BMI calculator to determine if I was too heavy.Buglaw wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 4:33 pmtsk222 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 3:17 pm40+ is considered "morbidly obese", it's its own category.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 2:01 pmMy main issues with BMI are
1. It's very inaccurate for many people, eg tall people and bone dense, doesn't take into account how broad you are etc. This isn't an argument that someone 6'4 should weigh 250, just that the measurement of bmi simply isn't measuring the same thing for everyone, and given that it's used for everyone equally, that's a problem for a measurement.
2. It very rapidly goes to obese. Yes ofc a bmi of 40 is an issue, but 40 and 30 should not both be labeled "obese". Bmi of 30 is not "obese" and calling it that doesn't give us useful information. It's sort of analogous to how doctors treat smoking and vaping, you need to recognize relative risk. "You should lose a few pounds" v "you're gonna die at 60".
3. It assumes extreme skinniness as the baseline. I don't think people in the 50s were actually more healthy than we are today! We exercise much more today, and we eat healthier even if we don't eat perfectly (just look up a 50s cookbook). There's plenty of ppl today in excellent health who are labeled as at least overweight, maybe not obese OK. It's an out of date measurement.
In addition, this guy's other points are dumb.
1. Dude is literally making a big bone argument. I feel like I'm watching an episode of south park (I'm not fat, I'm just big boned). BMI isn't perfect, but it's generally good for most people, its easy to calculate and it's very predictive. It's simplicity and predictive values are one of its virtues. There are almost certainly more accurate measurements possible, but they wouldn't be as easy to calculate and administer on a large scale and would likely be too complex. If your point is that for some people the range should go up to 26 or 27, that's likely true, but besides the point.
2.It's like saying you don't like the messaging that smoking is unhealthy (not vaping those are differences of type) because it doesn't take into account the amount you smoke. It equates smoking 3 cigarettes a day with 2 packs a day and thus we shouldn't call both people smokers as it unfairly impugns the 3 cigarette a day smokers. It's a dumb point. Yes, smoking two packs a day is worse than 3 cigarettes a day, but both are smokers and the fact that it isn't the perfectly precise messaging doesn't mean smoking is bad is a poor message. Smoking 3 cigarettes a day is bad. Smoking two packs a day is worse. But both are smokers and smoking is bad.
Having a BMI of 30 is bad. Having a BMI of 40 is worse. But having a BMI of 30 is being obese and being obese is bad. The message is valid even though it doesn't have 50 different gradients of specificity.
Point 3 is dumb. There is little reason to believe the average person is eating healthier today. Sure, there is certainly more opportunity for healthy eating today, but all the evidence is that people's diets are worse than they use to be. People aren't getting obese off of a diet of fruits, vegetables, whole grains and lean proteins. The science bears this out.
Booster mandates Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:17 pm
Re: Booster mandates
-
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:38 am
Re: Booster mandates
This is a next-level derail, love to see it.
-
- Posts: 219
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 3:00 pm
Re: Booster mandates
I feel partly responsible, since I asked why that person mentioned BMI was bullshit. But was just genuinely perplexed, given that poster brought up BMI when the anon had been referring to obesity.
But think we know the answer anyways, firms will probably just stick to the same policy they have for boosters as they do for the original vaccine, at least for foreseeable future.
-
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:38 am
Re: Booster mandates
It will be interesting to see when the boosters are treated as part of being “fully vaccinated.” Having had some involvement managing how to get compliant with the federal mandate (until it got blocked), taking the mandate option over mandate or test just seems so much easier to manage.legalpotato wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 5:43 pmI feel partly responsible, since I asked why that person mentioned BMI was bullshit. But was just genuinely perplexed, given that poster brought up BMI when the anon had been referring to obesity.
But think we know the answer anyways, firms will probably just stick to the same policy they have for boosters as they do for the original vaccine, at least for foreseeable future.
-
- Posts: 428486
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 8:39 pm
-
- Posts: 4451
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am
Re: Booster mandates
Lol, I detail threads all the time. I snitch about pointless anon, not off-topic posts. Please describe my hall pass dweebery accurately.
Last edited by nixy on Mon Nov 29, 2021 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 4451
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am
Re: Booster mandates
Bacon has a PhD in physiology and graduate degrees in psychology and exercise metabolism, but feel free to dismiss it without actually addressing any of the arguments, no skin off my nose. I offer the resources for anyone who’s interested.Buglaw wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 4:15 pmIt's too bad that Harvard, the CDC and the WHO just aren't up on the great science that the healthy at every size folks are. It must just be too "complex" for them and thus they give their poor recommendations. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. It will be great that I'll be able to learn more from someone who "taught at City College of San Francisco, in the Health Education, Psychology, Women’s Studies, and Biology Departments. A professor and researcher, for almost two decades Dr. Bacon has taught courses in social justice, health, weight and nutrition". This guy seems much more reliable than Harvard, CDC or WHO.nixy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 1:45 pmThe history of the BMI is widely known and there’s a great deal of evidence to contest the fact that the correlation of high BMI with medical problems means that the weight itself causes those problems. The Maintenance Phase podcast, Health at Every Size by Linda Bacon, and Anti-Diet by Christy Harrison are some good introductions to the science on the issue. At the very least, the issue is way more complex than the links you offer suggest. Read up on it.Buglaw wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:55 pmThis is false. And I didn’t mean to be anonymous. The idea that someone having a BMI of 40 tells you nothing or that the stigma of being obese is worse for your health than being obese is rodoculous. You can’t assume someone with a BMI of 30 is more likely to have health problems than someone with a BMI of 22? That’s a dumb position and not supported by the science.
Here's an article on BMI from Harvard Health and a bunch of other sources on the health impacts of obesity. Your position defies common sense and the science.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/how ... 1603309339
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/effects/index.html
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-pr ... h-effects/
https://easo.org/media-portal/statistics/
(For the other person who wondered why I brought up BMI when the other poster had said obesity: obesity as a category is defined by BMI.)
-
- Posts: 428486
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Booster mandates
Weird flex to authority when you have Bacon on one side and Harvard, the CDC and the WHO, among so many other institutions and individuals, on the other.nixy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 6:54 pmBacon has a PhD in physiology and graduate degrees in psychology and exercise metabolism, but feel free to dismiss it without actually addressing any of the arguments, no skin off my nose. I offer the resources for anyone who’s interested.
(For the other person who wondered why I brought up BMI when the other poster had said obesity: obesity as a category is defined by BMI.)
-
- Posts: 4451
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am
Re: Booster mandates
It’s not just Bacon on one side - Bacon’s book provides copious citations to all kinds of scientific research. I just disliked the dismissal of Bacon’s legit qualifications.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 6:58 pmWeird flex to authority when you have Bacon on one side and Harvard, the CDC and the WHO, among so many other institutions and individuals, on the other.nixy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 6:54 pmBacon has a PhD in physiology and graduate degrees in psychology and exercise metabolism, but feel free to dismiss it without actually addressing any of the arguments, no skin off my nose. I offer the resources for anyone who’s interested.
(For the other person who wondered why I brought up BMI when the other poster had said obesity: obesity as a category is defined by BMI.)
But since I want to keep cisscum happy (words I never thought I’d write) I’ll drop this tangent.
-
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2019 9:24 pm
Re: Booster mandates
yeah, dude. It's copius research that's been around for ever, that has not been endorsed by significant research institutions or global health organizations because [insert plausible explanation on how their is all this research for a long time and no prestigous or legitimate organization has adopted the view].nixy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 7:17 pmIt’s not just Bacon on one side - Bacon’s book provides copious citations to all kinds of scientific research. I just disliked the dismissal of Bacon’s legit qualifications.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 6:58 pmWeird flex to authority when you have Bacon on one side and Harvard, the CDC and the WHO, among so many other institutions and individuals, on the other.nixy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 6:54 pmBacon has a PhD in physiology and graduate degrees in psychology and exercise metabolism, but feel free to dismiss it without actually addressing any of the arguments, no skin off my nose. I offer the resources for anyone who’s interested.
(For the other person who wondered why I brought up BMI when the other poster had said obesity: obesity as a category is defined by BMI.)
But since I want to keep cisscum happy (words I never thought I’d write) I’ll drop this tangent.
Just check out the testimonials on his webpage from a bunch of people who don't really appear to have any significant positions at any significant organization and many who have no relevant credentials. This looks totally legit.
https://lindobacon.com/testimonials/
-
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:16 am
Re: Booster mandates
I do think boosters will be mandated for a while but not forever. Also don’t think this golden era for associates will last that much longer, but I guess people can always try to find jobs in Texas or Florida instead.
-
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:17 pm
Re: Booster mandates
There won't be the same stigma about being unboostered as there is about being unvaccinated, so I would expect if there's a booster mandate to come back to the office, many people who just don't want to come back and prefer WFH will decline to provide proof of booster (whether or not they have been boostered) in order to avoid RTO.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 219
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 3:00 pm
Re: Booster mandates
Why wouldn't there (or shouldn't there) be the same stigma? Who knows what to believe in our post-truth society, but some reports say that the vax loses its efficacy significantly after 6 months. If this is true, how is being un-boostered any different from being unvaxxed? And consider whether current vaxxes even work against this new variant.tsk222 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:34 pmThere won't be the same stigma about being unboostered as there is about being unvaccinated, so I would expect if there's a booster mandate to come back to the office, many people who just don't want to come back and prefer WFH will decline to provide proof of booster (whether or not they have been boostered) in order to avoid RTO.
I get not wanting to be vaxxed in the first place, given the unique regulatory process. But if you already got vaxxed, why not take the boosters? And how is it any different having someone unvaxxed in the office as having someone vaxxed 1 yr ago but without boosters who (a) either is basically as unprotected as someone who is vaxxed due to wearing off or (b) is unprotected against later variants?
-
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:17 pm
Re: Booster mandates
There's going to be much lower uptake for boosters than the original - I'm not interested in arguing or justifying whether that should or shouldn't be the case, but I think people are kidding themselves if they think that won't be the case.legalpotato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 4:16 pmWhy wouldn't there (or shouldn't there) be the same stigma? Who knows what to believe in our post-truth society, but some reports say that the vax loses its efficacy significantly after 6 months. If this is true, how is being un-boostered any different from being unvaxxed? And consider whether current vaxxes even work against this new variant.tsk222 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:34 pmThere won't be the same stigma about being unboostered as there is about being unvaccinated, so I would expect if there's a booster mandate to come back to the office, many people who just don't want to come back and prefer WFH will decline to provide proof of booster (whether or not they have been boostered) in order to avoid RTO.
I get not wanting to be vaxxed in the first place, given the unique regulatory process. But if you already got vaxxed, why not take the boosters? And how is it any different having someone unvaxxed in the office as having someone vaxxed 1 yr ago but without boosters who (a) either is basically as unprotected as someone who is vaxxed due to wearing off or (b) is unprotected against later variants?
-
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:38 am
Re: Booster mandates
I mean, it can’t be greater uptake than the original because that’s how numbers work. If the mandate requires it I don’t get the logic of how it would be “much less”—people seemed pretty jazzed to get it when I scored a booster appointment. I think you overestimate how much a role “stigma” plays in getting people to take a vaccine. If anything that makes people more resistant.tsk222 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:35 amThere's going to be much lower uptake for boosters than the original - I'm not interested in arguing or justifying whether that should or shouldn't be the case, but I think people are kidding themselves if they think that won't be the case.legalpotato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 4:16 pmWhy wouldn't there (or shouldn't there) be the same stigma? Who knows what to believe in our post-truth society, but some reports say that the vax loses its efficacy significantly after 6 months. If this is true, how is being un-boostered any different from being unvaxxed? And consider whether current vaxxes even work against this new variant.tsk222 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:34 pmThere won't be the same stigma about being unboostered as there is about being unvaccinated, so I would expect if there's a booster mandate to come back to the office, many people who just don't want to come back and prefer WFH will decline to provide proof of booster (whether or not they have been boostered) in order to avoid RTO.
I get not wanting to be vaxxed in the first place, given the unique regulatory process. But if you already got vaxxed, why not take the boosters? And how is it any different having someone unvaxxed in the office as having someone vaxxed 1 yr ago but without boosters who (a) either is basically as unprotected as someone who is vaxxed due to wearing off or (b) is unprotected against later variants?
-
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:17 pm
Re: Booster mandates
I just don't think more than half or so of the people who got vaccinated - especially working-age adults, a group for whom the first two doses of the vaccine at this point is still providing basically perfect protection against severe illness and death - are going to sign up for boosters absent being coerced somehow (i.e. a mandate with teeth). Maybe I'm wrong, we'll see.mardash wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 3:11 pmI mean, it can’t be greater uptake than the original because that’s how numbers work. If the mandate requires it I don’t get the logic of how it would be “much less”—people seemed pretty jazzed to get it when I scored a booster appointment. I think you overestimate how much a role “stigma” plays in getting people to take a vaccine. If anything that makes people more resistant.tsk222 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:35 amThere's going to be much lower uptake for boosters than the original - I'm not interested in arguing or justifying whether that should or shouldn't be the case, but I think people are kidding themselves if they think that won't be the case.legalpotato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 4:16 pmWhy wouldn't there (or shouldn't there) be the same stigma? Who knows what to believe in our post-truth society, but some reports say that the vax loses its efficacy significantly after 6 months. If this is true, how is being un-boostered any different from being unvaxxed? And consider whether current vaxxes even work against this new variant.tsk222 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 12:34 pmThere won't be the same stigma about being unboostered as there is about being unvaccinated, so I would expect if there's a booster mandate to come back to the office, many people who just don't want to come back and prefer WFH will decline to provide proof of booster (whether or not they have been boostered) in order to avoid RTO.
I get not wanting to be vaxxed in the first place, given the unique regulatory process. But if you already got vaxxed, why not take the boosters? And how is it any different having someone unvaxxed in the office as having someone vaxxed 1 yr ago but without boosters who (a) either is basically as unprotected as someone who is vaxxed due to wearing off or (b) is unprotected against later variants?
For the 'stigma' point, I just mean in the world of professional lawyer, NYC dweller types, it's extremely unusual and totally socially unacceptable to be unvaccinated. I don't think that will be the case - certainly not to the same extent - for boosters.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 428486
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Booster mandates
Most support for the initial mandates was based in large part on the belief that being vaccinated made a person markedly less likely to infect others with covid. That was widely assumed to be true at that time, but it's now a lot less clear. True or not, fewer people believe it, and it was the only good argument for mandates. Most lawyers can recognize that "Firms should require X because not doing X increases your risk of death by some fraction of a percentage point" is a road best not started down.
The prospect of semiannual boosters also raises a different set of safety concerns. By the time most mandates were implemented, there was a year's worth of data on the safety of the initial two-dose regimen, and it was clear that the initial two doses weren't likely to kill you. But if two doses are safe, that doesn't mean 100+ doses over one's lifetime are safe. No one was worried about that the first time around, because no one thought boosters would be needed so quickly.
Throw in all the people who had side effects the first time who don't want a repeat of that experience (and whose firms won't give them consequence-free time off for it), and I think booster mandates will be met with a good deal more pushback than initial vaccination mandates.
The prospect of semiannual boosters also raises a different set of safety concerns. By the time most mandates were implemented, there was a year's worth of data on the safety of the initial two-dose regimen, and it was clear that the initial two doses weren't likely to kill you. But if two doses are safe, that doesn't mean 100+ doses over one's lifetime are safe. No one was worried about that the first time around, because no one thought boosters would be needed so quickly.
Throw in all the people who had side effects the first time who don't want a repeat of that experience (and whose firms won't give them consequence-free time off for it), and I think booster mandates will be met with a good deal more pushback than initial vaccination mandates.
-
- Posts: 428486
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Booster mandates
S&C just said it will mandate booster soon for anybody whose last shot was 6 months ago
- nealric
- Posts: 4279
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am
Re: Booster mandates
I don't think Top Law Schools is a great venue for talking about the merits of the vaccine. This thread will be locked.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login