That Vox food article is pretty clearly wrong. There's no way the average restaurant soda is 42 ounces. For example, McDonalds doesn't even sell a soda that big, and they are the biggest restaurant. Even with the free refills there's just no way, because (unless things have changed drastically) something like 75% of their sales are take out.
Secondly, they say that people in the US averaged 2,109 calories per day in 1970 compared to 2,568 calories in 2010. Going from 7oz of soda to 42 would almost account for that entire difference. Even if people are only having this 42oz soda every other day, that would mean the extra 8oz of burger and 4oz of fries would only be like a couple hundred calories. Obviously that's wrong.
Thirdly, from what I'm seeing online, the average American drinks about 13oz of soda per day. For the restaurant drinks to be 42oz that would be three day's worth of soda, but I have serious doubts that is true, seeing as though I still see tons of soda at the grocery store.
Finally, they claim that stat is from the CDC, but their link goes to some mattress review site. So, I have a hard time taking it seriously.
I think that it is possible that 42 oz soda containers are common at fast food restaurants. But a 42 oz container probably has less than 20 oz of soda in it. Remember, the vast majority of space in a fast food soda cup is taken by ice. Probably somewhere between 50% and 70% is zero-calorie ice.
Here's my impression on how that TechCrunch article came into being:
Scene: Techcrunch editorial meeting.
Bob, the Senior Editor: OK, this Mr. Beast eye surgery thing is blowing up everywhere. We need to get a piece published on this stat. We're missing out on clicks every second we don't have something live on the site.
Steve Aquino, the writer: I've already got three different templates for why private charitable actions are bad. I'll go with the lack of universal health care angle.
Sr Editor: That's been done to death. Come up with something else. Tell me why Mr. Beast is an asshole for helping the blind.
Steve: Hmm... That's going to be tough. I mean he's like literally helping to restore people's vision. That's a good thing, I think.
Sarah, the new Editorial Assistant: Umm... I took this intersectional ethics class junior year and the course touched a bit on ableism. Maybe that is...
Bob: Brilliant! This is why we only hire from top-tier universities. These kids come out ready to go with the latest buzzwords. The algorithms eat that shit up. Steve, how long will it take you to get me a draft?
Steve: It's already in your inbox.
End Scene.
OK, I don't know if magazines still have editorial meetings like this. Maybe it all happened through email. Or maybe this all just played out in the writer's head. But that article wasn't driven by any desire to help people with disabilities. There are millions of cataract surgeries performed every year. Are those ableist? That article was written because Mr. Beast knows how to make things go viral and journalists see the benefit of commenting on him. This is pure clout chasing.
Yeah I liked Scott A's first post, but then.. no after all experts are right, so shut up, well that didn't work for me. Experts are captured into all sorts of group think, and the longer the expert class has existed the deeper the group think. (String theory and Dark matter are the first things that come to my mind.)
Mr Beast seems great. I've watched none of his videos, and only know him from Lex Fridman.
Regarding womb transplants, that’s super neat but I’ll raise my hand as representing the camp of trans women who aren’t interested in it, personally. I’d rather opt for artificial wombs or surrogacy if I wanted a child.
It’s tremendously interesting, just from the basic medical science perspective and our ability to augment functionality and overcome anatomical limitations of the human body (e.g., equally for those cis women who are lacking a uterus for whatever reason). Given the limitations of transplants and the necessity to be on anti-rejection meds, it does feel like just a stepping stone to the more radical, more transformative capabilities of transplanting new organs grown from one’s own tissue. That’s where I’m excited to see progress.
As an afterthought, the quotes from Quinn in the linked article sure are... interesting? Paraphrasing: trans women are women (commentary: yay!), but also, trans women wanting uteruses is problematic because it implies womanhood is contingent on being able to gestate a child (commentary: boo! wait... what!?). Like, I’m not sure where that logic came in? Nobody said that personal preference and private matters have any implication for a whole category of humans and their worth?
> Heart attack rates were 30% higher than predicted during first two years of the pandemic. Highest relative rise was in the 25-44 year old category [...] I treat this as a pure ‘yes Covid can cause heart attacks, and this is effectively Covid deaths being counted as heart attack deaths, and it means we are modestly undercounting Covid deaths in this way.’
I object to the word "pure" here. Nothing is this monocausal, especially when there are so many confounding variables (to list a few: worse healthcare due to worse hospitals, more missed checkups due to quarantines, lockdowns/less in-person contact, seasonal effects correlate with covid cases, etc. ). The healthcare system being inpacted is what the authors mention in the abstract fwiw. The fact that omicron produces another spike should actually suggest that covid is *less* to blame - with omicron being so much milder and more concentrated in the upper airways, why should it affect the heart the same way as previous strains?
That Vox food article is pretty clearly wrong. There's no way the average restaurant soda is 42 ounces. For example, McDonalds doesn't even sell a soda that big, and they are the biggest restaurant. Even with the free refills there's just no way, because (unless things have changed drastically) something like 75% of their sales are take out.
Secondly, they say that people in the US averaged 2,109 calories per day in 1970 compared to 2,568 calories in 2010. Going from 7oz of soda to 42 would almost account for that entire difference. Even if people are only having this 42oz soda every other day, that would mean the extra 8oz of burger and 4oz of fries would only be like a couple hundred calories. Obviously that's wrong.
Thirdly, from what I'm seeing online, the average American drinks about 13oz of soda per day. For the restaurant drinks to be 42oz that would be three day's worth of soda, but I have serious doubts that is true, seeing as though I still see tons of soda at the grocery store.
Finally, they claim that stat is from the CDC, but their link goes to some mattress review site. So, I have a hard time taking it seriously.
I think that it is possible that 42 oz soda containers are common at fast food restaurants. But a 42 oz container probably has less than 20 oz of soda in it. Remember, the vast majority of space in a fast food soda cup is taken by ice. Probably somewhere between 50% and 70% is zero-calorie ice.
Here's my impression on how that TechCrunch article came into being:
Scene: Techcrunch editorial meeting.
Bob, the Senior Editor: OK, this Mr. Beast eye surgery thing is blowing up everywhere. We need to get a piece published on this stat. We're missing out on clicks every second we don't have something live on the site.
Steve Aquino, the writer: I've already got three different templates for why private charitable actions are bad. I'll go with the lack of universal health care angle.
Sr Editor: That's been done to death. Come up with something else. Tell me why Mr. Beast is an asshole for helping the blind.
Steve: Hmm... That's going to be tough. I mean he's like literally helping to restore people's vision. That's a good thing, I think.
Sarah, the new Editorial Assistant: Umm... I took this intersectional ethics class junior year and the course touched a bit on ableism. Maybe that is...
Bob: Brilliant! This is why we only hire from top-tier universities. These kids come out ready to go with the latest buzzwords. The algorithms eat that shit up. Steve, how long will it take you to get me a draft?
Steve: It's already in your inbox.
End Scene.
OK, I don't know if magazines still have editorial meetings like this. Maybe it all happened through email. Or maybe this all just played out in the writer's head. But that article wasn't driven by any desire to help people with disabilities. There are millions of cataract surgeries performed every year. Are those ableist? That article was written because Mr. Beast knows how to make things go viral and journalists see the benefit of commenting on him. This is pure clout chasing.
Yeah I liked Scott A's first post, but then.. no after all experts are right, so shut up, well that didn't work for me. Experts are captured into all sorts of group think, and the longer the expert class has existed the deeper the group think. (String theory and Dark matter are the first things that come to my mind.)
Mr Beast seems great. I've watched none of his videos, and only know him from Lex Fridman.
Regarding womb transplants, that’s super neat but I’ll raise my hand as representing the camp of trans women who aren’t interested in it, personally. I’d rather opt for artificial wombs or surrogacy if I wanted a child.
It’s tremendously interesting, just from the basic medical science perspective and our ability to augment functionality and overcome anatomical limitations of the human body (e.g., equally for those cis women who are lacking a uterus for whatever reason). Given the limitations of transplants and the necessity to be on anti-rejection meds, it does feel like just a stepping stone to the more radical, more transformative capabilities of transplanting new organs grown from one’s own tissue. That’s where I’m excited to see progress.
As an afterthought, the quotes from Quinn in the linked article sure are... interesting? Paraphrasing: trans women are women (commentary: yay!), but also, trans women wanting uteruses is problematic because it implies womanhood is contingent on being able to gestate a child (commentary: boo! wait... what!?). Like, I’m not sure where that logic came in? Nobody said that personal preference and private matters have any implication for a whole category of humans and their worth?
> Heart attack rates were 30% higher than predicted during first two years of the pandemic. Highest relative rise was in the 25-44 year old category [...] I treat this as a pure ‘yes Covid can cause heart attacks, and this is effectively Covid deaths being counted as heart attack deaths, and it means we are modestly undercounting Covid deaths in this way.’
I object to the word "pure" here. Nothing is this monocausal, especially when there are so many confounding variables (to list a few: worse healthcare due to worse hospitals, more missed checkups due to quarantines, lockdowns/less in-person contact, seasonal effects correlate with covid cases, etc. ). The healthcare system being inpacted is what the authors mention in the abstract fwiw. The fact that omicron produces another spike should actually suggest that covid is *less* to blame - with omicron being so much milder and more concentrated in the upper airways, why should it affect the heart the same way as previous strains?
Out of curiosity, what evidence best leads you to the conclusion that covid causes heart attacks vs something else?