Booster mandates Forum

[tsk222]

My 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 It's an out of date measurement.

40+ is considered "morbidly obese", it's its own category.

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.

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.

[mardash]

This is a next-level derail, love to see it.

[legalpotato]

This is a next-level derail, love to see it.

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.

[mardash]

This is a next-level derail, love to see it.

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.

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.

[Anonymous User]

It’s not actually clear at all that extra weight *causes* health problems directly.

Extra bodyfat is about one of the strongest indicators in existence to poor health outcomes....

[cisscum]

This is a next-level derail, love to see it.

It's hilarious because nixy is always the hall pass dweeb coming into threads snitching on off topic posts

[nixy]

This is a next-level derail, love to see it.

It's hilarious because nixy is always the hall pass dweeb coming into threads snitching on off topic posts

Lol, I detail threads all the time. I snitch about pointless anon, not off-topic posts. Please describe my hall pass dweebery accurately.

[nixy]

This 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/

The 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.

It'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.

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.

(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.)

[Anonymous User]

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.

(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.)

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]

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.

(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.)

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.

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.

But since I want to keep cisscum happy (words I never thought I’d write) I’ll drop this tangent.

[Buglaw]

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.

(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.)

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.

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.

But since I want to keep cisscum happy (words I never thought I’d write) I’ll drop this tangent.

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].

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/

[Dahl]

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.

[tsk222]

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.

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.

[legalpotato]

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.

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.

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.

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?

[tsk222]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[mardash]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Anonymous User]

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.

[Anonymous User]

S&C just said it will mandate booster soon for anybody whose last shot was 6 months ago

[nealric]

I don't think Top Law Schools is a great venue for talking about the merits of the vaccine. This thread will be locked.