AIBU to think the jabs won't help the economy?

[EuclidianGeometryFan]

To add to the debate on weight loss jabs and the economy, try this thought experiment:
Suppose everyone who is overweight gets the jabs, for as long as they want, and they all get slim and lose their appetites.
The NHS saves a fortune.
But the supermarkets lose a fortune, and the take-away shops and fast-food restaurants, and the pubs and corner-shops selling late-night drinks and chocolate, and the delivery drivers rushing pizzas to our doors.

Any big supermarket has whole aisles dedicated to crisps, fizzy drinks, sweets, cakes, ready-made fat-laden food. It probably takes up about 3/4 of the floor space. Will no-one buy all this?

Surely the loss to the economy in the food industry will be greater than the savings to the NHS?

Or is the thinking that we will still buy as much crap food, then get it home and half way through eating it think 'I don't fancy this now' and bin it?
Will we just be adding massively to the food waste issue?

I get that the government is trying to address a huge issue, but they need to consider all aspects, and accept that the right solutions for society won't necessarily boost the economy.

I think you are massively overthinking a small scale trial.

The food industry is quick to adapt to changing habits!

Have to admit I was a bit "eh?" when I saw the headlines about this this morning. Why the need to A) trumpet it as a huge marketing drive essentially for big pharma and B) do the whole "it'll boost the economy" thing? Because as far as I can cynically see, the main winner in this is the company or companies getting a nice contract out of the NHS.

Given that obesity at health risk level is usually caused by a multiplication of factors - psychological, environmental and economic and has been directly influenced by the food industries, I think it's a bit insulting to those struggling to say "Here you go, have a jab, we want you working and sod the reasons you need the jab in the first place - your wages will be low, your housing insecure but never mind, you'll be slim enough to work".

I think personally that these jabs should be offered on an individual case by case basis with holistic support and more emphasis on the value of a person overall, not just their economic potential.

Yes, I'm old, I'm cynical, but I find it worrying that for every societal issue there's a pill, a jab or an app for that, which makes alot of money out of people and, yes the government, rather than examining how these problems have spiralled out of control. But oh yes, I forgot that's just capitalism doing it's thing...

Disclaimer : I have struggled with disordered eating all my life but have somehow avoided it getting to crisis point, so I have empathy for those struggling with their weight and want them to have the care respect and support that all humans deserve when they are facing challenges. My issue here is the big, overall, corporate picture that is being presented. I don't like it.

How does Wes Streeting expect to even attempt to make this work without creating uproar and offence?

Is he planning to have unemployed, fat, benefit recipients reeled into the JobCentre for a compulsory interview when they'll be humiliatingly told "you are considered, by the DWP, officially fat enough to be assigned to the weight-loss jabs program. This is mandatory. Failure to comply will result in loss of benefits. Failure to lose X number of pounds in X number of weeks will also result in loss of benefits. Sign this agreement."

Not as far-fetched as it sounds......

Also very good points.

Well, given that I don't buy much of that stuff anyway (my problem is quantity, not quality) it's not going to make much difference at all.

In fact, since I'm less hungry, I make sure that what I do eat is really flavoursome/high quality, so I'd say the positive feedback will be great.

He’s not intending to make it work. He never said anything about specifically giving it to unemployed people to get them back into work. The media did that themselves.

The trial isn’t aimed at unemployed people, they aren’t prioritised for it. It’s just a big standard trial into the effects of giving weight loss injections to obese people over the longer term.

He happened to mention the effects of obesity on the health service and economy at the same time. That’s all. The were giving it to unemployed people to get them back to work was spin placed entirely by the media.

so potential financial losses: fast food industry. Say, what, one -two takeaways a week, 7 bars of chocolate, 7 packs of crisps - £40 p/p?

potential financial winners:
-gyms and other active/leisure options (it's a lot easier to exercise, both physically and mentally, when you're at a healthier weight)
-healthier food options (people on weight loss drugs still need to eat something!)
-pharmaceutical industry - most people will still have to pay for their weight loss prescriptions
-nhs - reduced obesity = fewer operations and treatment
-income tax, NI, student loan repayments - if the govts plan works and people who are out of work primarily because of their obesity and linked co-morbidities do start work again

I mean you could go round in circles but I think on balance it's not really a winning argument, OP.

If you are playing devil's advocate, I can see a reason for this post. However, as so many on here have already said, your argument is flawed. Healthier food is more expensive, so profits for the food retailers will go up. Multinationals like Kraft and Unilever move money around so they don't pay their fair share of taxes, and slimmer people will need new clothes so some retail spend will increase, together with the opportunity for people to spend their money on other things. Surely, it's a win-win for anyone wanting to go down this route.

He hasn't.

He spoke about the proposed trial and suggested it may have potential benefits for society including reducing sick days due to obesity and help people who are forced out of work altogether by obesity.

The media and your imagination did the rest.

Ignoring the health arguments for a moment, purely re the economy.

Not that I'm suggesting everybody eats loads of junk food and/or smokes, but 20 years ago more people smoked.

Obesity rates have increased as smoking rates have fallen. Perhaps people have replaced smoking with food, for their comfort of choice.

Smoking is a net income (I don't have the statistics to hand now but the figures have been published). So when you say the economy managed just fine 20 years ago, it's not possible to ignore the massive net income it received from smoking in the past.

I think that this is part of a huge collaboration with Lilly. You can read the Dept of Health statement here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/landmark-collaboration-with-largest-pharmaceutical-company

Apparently, obesity costs the UK health service more than £11 billion each year. I suspect that possible losses by food manufacturers won't come close to that, even if there are any.

Re the health issues and "taking action". Action on what? As if obesity's main cause is people just choosing to eat too much junk food.

(For the economy, yes, I guess it's a boost - especially for people who own shares in drugs companies).

For addressing the NHS costs and/or helping people? Nope.

The two biggest causes of obesity are poverty and poor healthcare.

1. Poverty

First, the stress of poverty - because stress harms health (including increased risk of weight gain due to high cortisol). Secondly, lack of access to healthy food (unhealthy processed food is often cheaper) and/or lack of cooking or storage space - to cook healthily, and batch cook.

1. NHS failings

Massive numbers of people (millions) waiting for treatment. So, gaining weight - due to being left in too much pain to exercise, or due to the symptoms of the untreated or misdiagnosed health condition.

The answer isn't weight loss drugs (as a first option). The answer is prompt diagnoses, ending doctor fobbing off culture, and quicker access to effective treatment for the relevant health conditions.

(To be clear. I'm not necessarily against access to these weight loss drugs when appropriate. But not as an alternative to prompt and effective healthcare, nor as a fake solution to poverty).

Finally, if the government is serious about addressing people's health, and costs to the NHS (and the wider economy), they'll focus on providing more council housing asap. Because housing is one of the biggest causes of ill health, and bad housing costs the economy many billions.

Actually takes minor changes in habits, like a different job where you walk less to get there, to put on weight. It’s getting rid of the weight that is the problem and why people seem to slowly put on more weight. So assuming massive amounts of over consumption is what causes obesity isn’t necessarily true.

Stress really can cause weight gain — and it's not about eating

Constant stress can pump up the number of fat cells we generate, a lab study suggests.

https://www.today.com/today/amp/tdna126249

And of course, one of the biggest causes of chronic stress is poverty.

I am very overweight .
I do not frequent take away food outlets nor do I go out for meals .
So I don't think it's solely overweight people who keep these outlets in business.
I do however consume too many biscuits and too big of portions in general.
This is not fault of supermarket but it is my fault for buying and consuming them.
The issue of weight loss is a simple thing ...calorie deficit but people with a lot of weight to lose do not think in simple black and white terms .
They think in a confused manner and a depressed manner and have different relationship with food than non overweight people .

I therefore, do not agree, that it is solely the responsibility of overweight people to keep junk food industry in business .

The money merry-go-round will doubtless continue. Pretty much like call centres replaced the coal face since the mines shut, but it's healthier in the long run to be office based.
Not just the NHS saving money, people will be able to work longer and have more productive lives. Less sick pay shelled out. If money isn't spent of junk food, it will be spent on other things instead. Companies producing junk food either adapt or go to the wall and get replaced by others who have adapted.
It won't all happen overnight causing a catastrophe.

Also it is quite a jump to assume these injections just makes everyone skinny and then they suddenly have a healthy lifestyle.

Jesus Christ, who gives a fuck about junk food producers. The economy isn’t what’s important. People’ health and long term quality of life is what’s important.

If people aren't spending money on junk food, they'll have more discretionary income to either spend elsewhere or invest.

If they are more productive they'll have greater discretionary income still.

New investment in food will gravitate towards healthier choices that match consumer desires.

I think your take is very simplistic.

It's wildly far fetched, laughably so.

This is similar to the thinking that people who are vulnerable to covid infection due to underlying health issues should just get on with things, put up with unmitigated work places (back to the office pressure, being forced to work with people who are ill etc) and unmitigated leisure activities for the sake of the economy.

I think you're saying overweight people don't have a responsibility to the producers of junk food and I completely agree with you!

Likewise people who are vulnerable to covid don't have a responsibility to city centre landlords and leisure providers because "the economy" (of course putting mitigations in place will support both health and the economy but no one seems to have looked that far ahead yet sadly)

Unfortunately people will still buy the mulitpacks of junk to feed to their kids.

Healthy people can work for longer and pay tax for longer.

Of course it won't.
Won't change the fact nobody (or not enough people) want to be care workers/builders/handymen/plumbers/electricians/fruit pickers or whatever, when they can be an Instagram influencer, or whatever that is not manual labour

Indeed. Hence the need to address two of the biggest - perhaps, the biggest, causes of ill health. Two causes which are often (but not always) interlinked.

Poverty, and chronic stress.

Both are major causes of ill health (including obesity), and both cost the economy billions.

Austerity was and is a false economy. If people want a healthy productive population, then there's a need for: More council housing, a supportive benefits system, improved child maintenance system, access to timely and effective well-funded public services (including the NHS), and job, education and training opportunities.

That said, it's very important to note that everybody pays tax. In paid work or not. And everybody contributes to society, and individual human being value cannot only be measured in financial terms

But returning to financial contribution. People unable to work (illness, retired, or carers etc) do contribute financially, in addition to the taxes that they pay. They keep other people in work, including but not only health and social care jobs, which is a sector that employs huge numbers of people. There would be a lot more unemployed people without the "non productive" people keeping them in work.