Let me summarize: good health protects from viruses.
"It is well established that plasma testosterone concentration is reduced by age and comorbidities like obesity, diabetes and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) [7], all comorbidities highly prevalent in COVID-19 patients."
but I never see any discussion of people who are without those comorbidities. I know they are asking for more research to be done, but at this point, and unless there's evidence presented to the contrary, I think it's probably safe to assume it's general unhealthiness.
Low testosterone has also been linked in research with increased inflammation response. One of the causes for deadly outcomes of Covid-19 is an over inflammatory response, thus the paper argue there could be a link between low testosterone levels and increase mortality for Covid-19 patients.
The paper also mention a potential risk for people with high testosterone levels because a related gene which biological function of is unknown but which is connected to the function of prostate cancer cells. There seems to be indications that this gene can also modulate covid-19, and if we would inhibit the gene the theory is that it may reduce the effect of the virus. Clinic studies will have to show if it helps, do nothing or makes things worse, because right now its just a theory based on a gene which from my reading we don't know much about.
Does it? Good health may increase the odds of a good outcome for some viral infection, but it's a bit of a platitude in general. The reasons why measles, polio or HIV are so dangerous is not because of the poor health of their victims prior to infection.
See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955331/ for one of many sources for the link between obesity and low testosterone. Obesity just cost our nation several trillion dollars.
People on Hacker News don't like to talk about this, either, because the Computer Programmer community is also affected by obesity.
As a European, I find this (apparently American) sentiment to be abhorrent. Our bodies shouldn't be treated as sculptures for the public to adore.
I live smack in the center of the US, and visited Hawaii in ~2000. I remember being pleasantly surprised how little people cared about that sort of thing, and was far more comfortable on the beach there than anywhere else I've been. I was with a group of locals, not tourists, so I assume it's a cultural thing.
They are factually low-calorie for example. Whether they're healthy is another matter entirely because that depends largely on your overall diet.
No way they are healthy, and if they catch the COVID they're going to suffer; if they don't then I bet they're gonna get cancer by 55. I'm related to them and not hoping for those outcomes, but they ain't gonna change and we've just accepted it.
Yet it affects males more than females. Hmmm. When you say "people" do you mean "male people"? Or when you say "beaches" do you mean "topless beaches"?
Consider: a person at my height/weight burns approximately 2500 calories/day just by resting metabolic rate. According to this calculator[1], a person of my weight running a mile at an 8 minute pace burns 136 calories. In other words, running a 5k every day would only increase my calories burned by 17%. And running 8 minute miles is one of the more efficient ways to burn calories--if you're doing some other exercise, your calories burned are likely much lower.
Compare the effort involved in running a 5k with drinking two less cans of cola (about equivalent in calories) and you'll quickly see how diet has a much larger effect on weight loss than exercise. There's a reason they say abs are made in the kitchen not in the gym.
[1] https://www.runnersworld.com/training/a20801301/calories-bur...
Working 8+ hours in a manual labour job on the other hand, will greatly increase the calories burned. If people who are stuck at home now don't change their usual eating habits, they will see some weight gains.
Folks who exercise for aerobic reasons, you know, 20 minutes of brisk walking around the park, are getting benefits. But not weight-loss benefits. There's a 10:1 difference in possible exercise regimines. It all depends where you're at in that spectrum. Broad generalities are useless.
You're literally talking about exercising for 1-5 hours depending on pace.
Perhaps broad generalities are useless, but in the context of talking about weight loss, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the average person embarking on a weight loss journey is going to jump in and start doing 50 mile bike rides.
It's much more likely that they'll be doing something like a 10 mile bike ride, at a much slower pace, in which case the numbers are back into a range where diet is going to play a much larger role in their success or failure.