Last I looked at this (in a different context, a few years ago,) I read that most heart disease deaths are essentially natural deaths. Someone has to die from something and heart disease is one of those things. (Eating worse could perhaps be making people die earlier by one or two years on average.)
Some data (not exactly the same I found last time, but seems to still be accurate as I recalled it):
>About 82% of people who die of coronary heart disease are 65 or older[0]
See also the CDC's list of deaths by cause by age group:
For 65 years and over, Diseases of heart is ranked 1st (531,583 deaths in 2019). For 45–64 years, it is 1st in 1980 and second in 2019 (111,975). For 25–44 years it is 4th (13,994) and 15–24 years it is 5th (1,223 and 872 total deaths for 1980 and 2019 respectively).[1]
I'm also pretty sure many (most?) drug overdoses manifest as cardiac arrest and are probably included in "Diseases of the heart:"
>Drug overdose is a leading cause of cardiac arrest and is currently the second leading cause of overall injury-related fatality in the United States.[2]
~180k from 2015-2022 [1]. If the fraction of fentanyl is similar for 2023 and 2024 [2], then the number would be over 300k (I don't see direct numbers for 2023 or 2024).
One usually measures years of life-expectancy lost. Your heart attacks victims may well be 80 year old with 5 average years left, you need more than ten of those to account from one 20 year old incautious party girl...
There are things we can do that people are not doing. However plenty of people who do eat well and exercise die of heart diseases and we don't know how to stop that.
Point taken, but archeologists and anthropologists have known for a while now that cardiovascular disease is virtually absent in non-industrial societies.
And we also know there's a ton more that could be done to lessen how common heart disease is
I don't know why that's relevant but I'm willing to bet you're referring to a popular science myth about short lifespans
Yes lifespans were extremely short on average in Medieval Europe which faced constant famine and disease from peasants living in such close conditions with animals.
But medieval europe isn't the whole world. Hunter-gather lifespans varied greatly depending on environment but the modal lifespan is usually around 70 years old. Modern archeological evidence shows us that people living past 100 was far from uncommon even 1,000 years ago:
We care about CVD because of mortality, and if mortality rate is terrible then it's a moot point.
> people living past 100 was far from uncommon
"uncommon" is not a number. The most we can infer from the data is that life was exceedingly harsh and short on average. Even if we believe it was 70 years old, that's still worse.
We absolutely do not have data that confirms life was exceedingly harsh or shorter.
In fact, this is an age old debate in anthropology. A major discussion was sparked by a talk called "The Original Affluent Society" during a now-famous symposium which highlighted then-recent evidence that non-industrial societies generally had much more leisure time and less stress. We also know that they had much more stable food sources than agricultural counterparts and much less diseases
The debate has of course evolved since then and I won't recount the 50 years of research and debate that's happened but modern anthropologists are pretty much in agreement that the "nasty, brutish, and short" narrative is completely baseless.
Tobacco consumption has plummeted in the West and continues to. If anything it shows that sin taxes and messaging work. A ban leads to a black market and would be a gross overstep. Alcohol consumption has also fallen.
For one we could stop subsidizing suspect products (e.g. HFCS) and create other incentives.
it's just political theater mostly to provide the appearance of "doing something" while also providing a new excuse for why high prices are still high and continue to rise
certain political figures and their supporters just need a story to tell, it doesn't have to be particularly accurate or even coherent for their purposes
It seems bad to fix a problem that can be addressed by self control. It's like making a bulky un-aerodynamic car go farther by adding a bigger engine/more fuel. But I understand too when you're 100s of lbs overweight it can seem impossible to change. I work out myself but my motivation is to get laid vs. actually embracing health I still binge eat for fun.
I think Ozempic doesn't have crazy side effects other than the face? Could be wrong
Edit: Regarding the topic at hand, I either don't drink or binge drink so I'm no saint same with driving fast.
Obesity rates have been increasing globally for decades.
There is no example of a country that has reduced obesity through public policy, food policy (even in the EU with strong GMO regulations), or messaging.
From a government level a different approach is necessary. So far GLP-1 inhibitors are the only things that have worked at scale. Let's see if that holds up.
That' doesn't address the main point of the ge96's comment though, which is that we seem to be replacing a problem with a dependence in medication, which could cause further problems. It seems akin to solving the loneliness epidemic [1] or the prevalence of depression, which some call an "epidemic" [2], with anti-depressants.
It’s bad to fix a problem if the solution has side effects. I mean that’s the pragmatic, health-based answer to whether it is good or bad.
If these don’t have adverse effects then it is not bad. What “bad” we are left with is character-moralizing.
We could go further. “It is bad to fix your obesity by removing yourself from bad food.” Because this does not involve self-control either. If you isolate yourself from grocery stores and only have access to certain foods you can lose weight without self-control.
"isolate yourself from grocery stores" that sounds like self control. Anyway not trying to argue this.
if it's working for people great, I'm on the boat that does not like it when obesity is supported eg. in victoria secret but I'll just sound like an ahole to say that
edit: I'm also on the side of being somewhat against physical/genetic modification as it lies to your partner/future child what you actually look like but when it gets to that stage (eg. crispr) then I guess it doesn't matter.
I'm not religious so it's not from that perspective I'm also not white
Last thing I'll add, why not too, I mean humans don't have wings yet we engineered airplanes to surpass birds, is that wrong?
I am a nihilist to some extent so yeah really nothing matters except what is truly real pain/suffering and death.
> edit: I'm also on the side of being somewhat against physical/genetic modification as it lies to your partner/future child what you actually look like but when it gets to that stage (eg. crispr) then I guess it doesn't matter.
Being predisposed to obesity and yet overcoming it by working 300% harder than average (compared to someone who exercises at all) on your diet and fitness is another way to lie.
But this is self-control so then it is irrationally different I guess.
> I am a nihilist to some extent so yeah really nothing matters except what is truly real pain/suffering and death.
> It seems bad to fix a problem that can be addressed by self control.
This argument applies similarly to the fentanyl crisis, since people could simply have the self control to not take fentanyl recreationally. Do you have a similar belief that the government shouldn't be trying to stop the mass import of fentanyl and other harmful drugs?
Actually, yes. I think the government should be addressing the cost-of-living crisis, loneliness crisis, the high cost of health, the overprescription of opioids, and the cultural issues that all contribute to people opting for fentanyl in the first place.
If the government manages to stop fentanyl imports, people will simply either manufacture fentanyl locally or opt for other drugs. I agree that it's not a matter of self-control— a fentanyl addict can't simply will its way out of it— but there is a reason they chose to consume fentanyl in the first place, and despite knowing its effects, willingly chose to "escape reality".
Sure if the drugs aren't there to begin with can't take em. But also depends where you are/who you associate with which again if you're in the bad areas probably exposed more to drugs/less hope of getting out having a better life. I guess I'm fortunate I've only ever been exposed to/try the weaker stuff.
I really think people don’t understand where fent zombies come from. They don’t emerge spontaneously from cracks in the sidewalk. The streets are just the last stop on a long road. Network effect among the unseen webs of addiction is a vastly bigger issue — if there were 74k overdose fatalities in a year, imagine how many people didn’t OD, or OD’d but didn’t die. And out of that, imagine how many people are more casual users who aren’t that heavy into it just yet. These are big numbers and big chunks of our social networks. They just haven’t gotten to the last stop yet.
> It seems bad to fix a problem that can be addressed by self control.
I don't think it's only about self control. but it would probably be easier if the industry wasn't pushing junk food and sugary food on Americans. Look, other countries don't have this problem. Does it mean that self control vanishes within US borders?
someone else in this comment chain linked to stats how obesity is going up everywhere (other countries) but anyway, another thing to consider how cigarette packs nowadays have disgusting images of cancer-ridden organs or whatever on them and people still buy them
I also think regarding fentanyl it's a legit drug in hospitals so there will be a source
>nowadays have disgusting images of cancer-ridden organs or whatever on them and people still buy them
I think smoking cigarettes went way down in the US and other parts of the world. Sure, people still use them but the overall downward trend is good and that is because something was done about it.
Why are you assuming it can always be fixed by self control? Some people have complete bad standards for eating compared to a regular person, both in quantity and quality. The drugs help deal only with the quantity.
Yeah different approaches to a problem, drugs, physical changes (surgery to stomach size), maybe something like CBT. When I get bored I binge eat so I get it.
Generally we are more concerned when people die at 40 than at 80. The latter is considered "normal". There are a few ways that the epidemiologists try to quantify this notion — DALYs or QALYs.
Fentanyl takes people young. And it's new. Those characteristics make it a serious concern.
If victims of Fentanyl die much younger than victims of heart disease, the total # of lost years of life can be of the same order.
I remember reading that elimination of heart disease would increase life expectancy by some 5,5 years. Not nothing, but it indicates that most people die of heart disease at a relatively old age, when something else would kill them quite soon.
OTOH if a Fentanyl victim loses 40 or 50 years of potential life, that is a major loss for society as a whole. Kids may not be born etc.
It was never about a perceived moral crusade against fentanyl and addiction at large. It's only ever been about throwing our weight around to disrupt alliances and institutions with the goal of destroying American soft power.
If killdrones were murdering 74,000 random Americans a year during their morning commute, you’d better believe people would be prioritizing it over heart failure.
Ahh yes, that was definitely the core reason and not just something sensational to put out as the cause. We definitely care about drug deaths in this country wink.
Feels like the main reasons you institute tariffs, historically, is to 1- control the production/flow of goods and 2- to raise money for other endeavors. As tariffs are a much more difficult form of taxation for a payer to track (they're not getting a bill the way they do on income/real estate taxes, it's being hidden in the cost of the good) they're also a great way to obfuscate "raising taxes" if you're running on a platform of, say "I'm going to institute the largest tax break in American history".
> As tariffs are a much more difficult form of taxation for a payer to track (they're not getting a bill the way they do on income/real estate taxes, it's being hidden in the cost of the good)
Oh no, it's very easy. When I sell my product, I will be including the exact amount the buyer is paying above what is normal due to tariffs. The tariffs are very well expressed on the purchase price of the parts that go into the product, so it's very easy for me to add up the tariffs and tell the buyer how much more trump is demanding they pay for the product.
People voted for fewer drug deaths, and it looks as though the looming tariffs have stirred a drug-death-preventing response, which has paused the tariffs[0]. It seems as though people are getting what they voted for so far?
If you think that's a surprise, consider the fact the US responded to 3000 deaths on September 11th with a 20 year, multi-trillion-dollar pair of wars that killed far more than 3000 people.
It turns out there are a lot of concerns beyond than the number of bodies.
