Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawaylinux | Hacker News Reader

Interesting you jumped in here to defend the previous poster's fat people bullying. Seems to fit certain patterns of behavior.

> Come on, what is this, pre-calc? Guess we haven't covered growth curves yet, I'd suggest repeating some high school level math.

Okay let's see all your working that justifies your position.

You can't just spout "but growth curve" and act like you won the argument. What's the growth curve for vaccinated people? What's the growth curve for vaccinated overweight people who catch covid and their increased complications put demand spikes on hospital systems, and explain why that won't cause shortages. I'll wait.

View on HN

> You can't just spout "but growth curve" and act like you won the argument.

I sure can! I literally just did. It's a poor tactic to refute something that's already happened...

Also, as for growth curves, and transmissible disease has one, because it's, ya know, transmissible. The transmissions curve for obesity is... Not a curve. It's just a line.

Ah so you are unable to provide your data or working. That's what I thought.

I do not have the time to teach you math, I'm sorry. Khan Academy has a really great module [1] on population growth curves that can help fill in the gaps.

[1] https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/ecology-ap/po...

> I sure can! I literally just did. It's a poor tactic to refute something that's already happened...

Exponential growth doesn't grow forever, when talking about populations the curve is more of an "S" shape due to upper limits. After a point it turns into exponential backoff as herd immunity is approached.

And you're right that overweight/obese doesn't follow either curve, but what you're missing is that it's already really high, and pretty stable at that point.

It's kinda like arguing C * O(n) is worse than C * O(1), but completely ignoring that in practice n < 10 in either case, but C = 1 for the first and C = 100 in the second.

> Exponential growth doesn't grow forever, when talking about populations the curve is more of an "S" shape due to upper limits.

I'm aware, but wanted to keep this discussion as simple as possible, since there seems to already be a misunderstanding of "transmissible" vs "non-transmissible", and how that effects derivatives.

> After a point it turns into exponential backoff as herd immunity is approached.

I'm not sure this is applicable, considering how many viruses come in yearly waves, such as the common cold. We've already seen one of these with COVID-19...

> And you're right that overweight/obese doesn't follow either curve, but what you're missing is that it's already really high, and pretty stable at that point.

The signal period for obesity is very large compared to virus infection. I imagine most people who become obese do so over at least 3 years, and that's due to consistently unhealthy habits or underlying conditions, whereas a few minutes talking to someone with COVID can cause transmission.

The hard data you want probably doesn't exist because there are a large number of confounding factors related to human behavior, lifting mask mandates, as other posters have pointed out. You make a good point though, I will now tell the obese to get vaccinated.

Get vaccinated and get safe and effective gastric bypass surgery before they can work, travel, or eat out?

Because vaccinated obese people still cause a significant load on the healthcare system.

If you bothered to read what I wrote, fat people aren't trying to kill me, but the unvaccinated are. I will support vaccine mandates for this reason. I hope one day you will understand differential equations. I am done trying to engage with you in good faith.

> If you bothered to read what I wrote, fat people aren't trying to kill me, but the unvaccinated are.

Wrong. I see why you're trying to make this unfounded assertion, because you have nothing else. But that doesn't make it true just because you're saying it.

> I will support vaccine mandates for this reason. I hope one day you will understand differential equations.

Still feeling a bit fragile about your inability to form a coherent argument, eh? Don't let it bother you too much.

> I am done trying to engage with you in good faith.

Yes I had noticed that from your first post.

You've broken the site guidelines badly in this thread also. Yes, the other commenter started with the name-calling, but the guidelines specifically ask you not to feed flamewars in such cases, and you ended up doing nearly as much damage. We ban accounts that do this kind of thing. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

You've broken the site guidelines badly in this thread, with flamewar, personal attack, and name-calling. We ban accounts that do those things. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com