Assuming you're going to fix a extremely complex system like the human body by just taking a pill is what some people call the bias of Illusion of Control.
Modern medicine does have magic pills for many illnesses; for example, antibiotics are magical for many bacterial infections, many vaccines are almost magical too.
OTOH, many pills will have undesired side-effects, and the body is in a complex dynamic equilibrium, so it may happen that blocking GLP-1 may have side effects.
Eventually, we'll all die, but I'm optimistic that GLP-1 will lead to a better equilibrium. Preliminary evidence says it will. I'm not as confident as the author though :)
How many average person years does an intervention need to save before it meets your approval?
Like I asked, where's our cutoff? If obesity on average kills you a couple of decades earlier than otherwise, does treatment for that meet your approval?
They're either the same or they're different.
> Like I asked, where's our cutoff?
Exigency of loss of life.
> kills you a couple of decades earlier
Staying obese into old age carries risks. There are multiple ways to manage that risk. None of it is as exigent as other conditions.
> does treatment for that meet your approval?
Universally? No.
> Exigency of loss of life.
Cool. How about cancer treatment? Some of those you can live with for some months/years. We allowed to treat anyway when the outcomes are better?
> Staying obese into old age carries risks. There are multiple ways to manage that risk. None of it is as exigent as other conditions.
And why should this not be one of the ways to manage that risk? The biggest difference seems to be that it actually works, on average, unlike some other common treatments like telling people to eat less and exercise more.