Health Visitor Child Healthy Weight Pack: Fill & Download for Free

I don’t have any definitive answers to this question, but I can take a guess.Just look at the average visitor to Walt Disney World. Firstly, they will most likely be American, because Walt Disney World is located in Florida. Right there is enough to make them overweight, as the vast majority of American adults are overweight/obese. “Average” or “normal” isn’t a good way to describe anyone in a healthy weight range in the U.S. anymore, as a healthy weight is going to be below “average”.Secondly, we must think of the possible socio-economic position of our theoretical average WDW visitor. Walt Disney World is expensive. So the average park-goer is in at least the middle class. Sure, some lower class people will save for years and years to be able to come there once or twice in their lives, but there are nowhere near as many of those people as there are middle class people who don’t have to sacrifice so much to get there. Likewise, there are definitely upper class people there, but they are much more likely to favor swankier and more exclusive vacation destinations, such as islands, foreign countries, etc. So by and large, your average park goer is middle class. That means they have plenty of money for food, but they also likely have a stressful, white-collar job, where they sit all day in an office with little opportunity for physical exercise, work for a boss they may or may not hate, and often end up grabbing dinner on the way home from work because they are just too plain tired to cook (so glad our theoretical visitor is getting a vacation-he/she really needs it!) They don’t have the time or the energy to commit to eating healthy or working out.The average park-goer also is going to be married with children. This is a family vacation destination after all, and practically designed for children, and single parent-households are much less likely to be able to afford such a vacation, so let’s say our average park-goer is married with children. Once you’re married and no longer trying to attract a mate, you’re much more likely to let your body go. Women all know the struggle it is to get back to a healthy weight after having children, but both mothers and fathers pack on more pounds once they have kids because so much of their time and energy is consumed with their children rather than looking good in a bathing suit.They likely have a house that they are trying to pay a mortgage on to provide for their family, and that takes precedence over eating healthy and exercising, too. Gym memberships and healthy food is expensive, especially when you can pick up a pizza that will feed your whole family for a few bucks. Their mortgage, utility bills, shoes and clothes for their kids, homeowners insurance, car payments, life insurance, contributions to their retirement account, health insurance, cell phone bills, even having toys for their kids at Christmas all come before a gym membership and shopping at Whole Foods.If their job, their children, their debt, or their marriage are stressing them out, they are more likely to stress eat.When you really think about it, being a healthy weight is probably just too far down on our theoretical average park-goer’s priority list. Higher up is their job, their kids, their financial obligations, and their marriage. And yes, taking a Walt Disney World vacation to relieve some of the stress their responsibilities gives them and actually enjoy their time with their family they work so hard to support. They’re not lazy, they have just taken on so many, arguably nobler, responsibilities, that eating right and exercising have gone by the wayside. They’ve worked really hard to be able to give their families this vacation. So next time you see a fat person at Disney scarfing down a churro while their child cries because they didn’t get the fifty dollar toy they wanted, give them a nod of acknowledgement!

Warning this is a loooing answer - but as I was a2a I decided to go for it!My eldest daughter has always been naturally slight - takes after her father - and is also an incredibly picky eater with some sensory issues regarding food (particularly when she was younger nothing ‘gravy or sauce’ like was acceptable and any food on the plate with gravy even if it had not been touched by it would be ‘contaminated’ and therefore rejected too) - she is getting better with it and is far more adventurous now but we learned very early in her life that ‘eat it or go hungry’ was not a viable tactic as she would literally rather starve and indeed lost weight rapidly as a toddler as a result of that well intentioned regime to the point where I was advised to simply feed her what she would eat (luckily she had acceptable foods across all major food groups and loves fruit and veg though mostly raw and while her ‘meat’ is basically only plain chicken or tinned tuna she also loves eggs and cheese so protein is covered too).As a result of her ‘issues’ school dinners were never really an option - we tried but there were too many instances of gravy being put into her plate without her being asked, or the ‘vegetarian’ pizza having run out so she was served the pepperoni (too spicy - basically all her food at that stage had to be unseasoned or it would be rejected as spicy 🤦‍♀️) and other such incidents that meant it was just easier all round to send her in with a balanced packed lunch prepared at home.I always basically ‘oversupplied’ so that she had ‘control’ over what she chose to eat - there were minimum three generous portions of fruit and/or veg, two sandwiches (salad, cheese, tuna or sliced chicken) either a pack of crisps or similar (mini cheddars/twiglets/baked shape snacks), cheese n crackers or rice cakes and a ‘dessert’ which would be something like a penguin or two finger Kit Kat or a few choc chip cookies or suchlike, or if I had baked recently a cupcake/slice of cake.The first issue I had was lunchtime supervisors who despite seeing that started to insist she had to ‘finish her lunch’??!! Like seriously you see all that and a slip of a seven year old girl and think she’s going to eat all that in one go? I ended up writing a strongly worded note for her to keep in her lunchbox to use if they tried to insist she eat more than she wanted to in addition to explaining clearly to both her teacher and one of the deputy heads how damaging such a ‘clear your plate’ tactic is in general to a child’s relationship with food - especially one with a problematic attitude already - I often included ‘new’ bits and pieces for her to possibly try (new fruit /sausage roll/scotch eggs etc) and the aim was NOT to pressure her into it but I often found things would get tried eventually and sometimes she’d even ask for them to be added to the standard rotation :)Then when she was maybe nine (?) the school (along with many others in the U.K. at the time) began a new focus on healthy eating - which sounds great! I’d already done a lot of gentle ‘hidden’ education on my kids about food as fuel and the different things we need and get from different foods and frankly didn’t see a problem with the idea of the school basically teaching the eatwell plate etc ….. Unfortunately one of the deputy heads decided to have a whole school assembly and started labelling certain things as ‘bad food’ versus ‘good food’ (like wtf?! Food as fuel philosophy should never have anything that isn’t poisonous labelled as ‘bad’ - everything edible is fine in correct proportions!) One thing she made a lot of the kids feel ashamed of was having white bread (which she told them was like having cake!) instead of whole grain bread (which texturally my daughter would not eat - I had tried with brown and ‘best of both’ before but neither had met with success).Then the rules were issued - in future lunchboxes were to confirm to their standards - no juices or fizzy drinks - water ONLY (ok not an issue for us as my daughter even now prefers plain water above anything else, in fact I’d even had to often ask at birthday parties if she could please have water in answer to the question ‘orange or blackcurrant squash?) - no crisps (hmm ok I get the reasoning but that limits what I can provide in terms of variety) and absolutely NO chocolate, biscuits or cakes - irk!! Bearing in mind that the kids eating school dinner still have cake and biscuits offered at least two to three times a week!I explained clearly that whilst I in principle agree with ‘treats’ being best not an everyday thing a) my daughter knew that if the treat was gone with fruit and veg untouched then I would stop putting in treat for a few days, likewise at least one of the sandwiches had to be eaten and b) on the advice of our doctor/health visitors due to my daughters natural slim build and highly physically active behaviours (she would be constantly running/jumping/climbing at breaks and after school) and small ‘single session’ eating portions that we had been told to pack as many calories into what she did eat as possible. Due to being constantly around the 20th percentile of weight (so technically classed as underweight) we were not likely to suddenly have an obesity issue.I pretty much made it clear that I had spent years trying to foster a healthy relationship with food which they were now sabotaging - and that they would NOT be giving my daughter any ‘advice’ or feedback on the contents of her lunchbox - that I would continue to provide what I saw fit in the context of her ‘whole’ diet and that if they had any concerns or issues they best raise it with me and not let out even a peep in her earshot!For the rest of that school year I heard many other parents complaining at having items confiscated and notes sent about ‘unsuitable’ items, many kids proudly displayed ‘smiley face’ stickers on their lunchboxes or complained to their parents that the lunchtime supervisor hadn’t given them one after checking their lunch or some such - but they ALL gave my daughter a wide berth and I talked to her about it so she understood that ‘not getting a sticker’ wasn’t a punishment of her (thankfully she wasn’t bothered about it) and she was happy to continue as she had before. I had taken the precaution of putting a note in her lunch for her to use if they ever tried to ‘inspect’ it but as far as I know she never had to use it so I guess my message had been received loud and clear!(just as a side note as I know people will say it - very little food was actually wasted due to my ‘oversupply’ - often what wasn’t eaten at lunch would be consumed as we walked home or just after we got in - some would go in again the next day (in cases of say the crisps or an uneaten apple etc where it was safe to do so) - obviously anything tried and rejected would be discarded but often her younger brother who had school dinners (he eats literally anything and everything) would eat that as a snack on the way home along with anything else she had left that he wanted)

Bottom line up front: Probably, for some.It's a common type of medical ethics question, where the health choices of the individual impacts the health of others. This is a recognized area where different societies place different weights on individual rights vs. the right of society to be safe.This is a difficult question, since you don't say mandatory for whom?There are also different levels of “mandatory” vaccination. These range from having someone sign a statement of informed refusal and acceptance of consequences to having agents of the government hold you down and forcably giving you the injection against your will.The honest answer is: no way to know right now, ask again in 18–36 months from now when we will have the data.However, I won't let the assumptions, ambiguity, and lack of data stop me from a lengthy explaination why the answer is “probably, for some.” in response to your question.*** In spite of early, repeated, and clear warning about the need to prepare, there is a huge knowledge gap about very basic questions in the country with the most cases (i.e. the US) ***In spite of the US spending about 30% more per person than the rest of the developed world we don't have the data today, and it will take a considerable amount of time, money and expertise to extract most if what we need today from our electronic health record systems. Given the technology readily available in nearly every other sector, CDC and scientists from NIH, DoD & VA, and CMS should be analyzing complete data from every case in real-time to answer key questions like who gets infected, who gets sick, who develops complications—both short and long term, what therapies work in specific groups, and who dies.This question also assumes that some sort of safe and effective immunization(s) are available and there remains circulating virus.See my post Kevin Coonan's answer to Why is it taking so long for doctors and scientists to find a vaccine for the coronavirus? Which talks about the whole assumption we will have a vaccine in some short (e.g. 18–36 month) time frame with enough information about it to make reccomendations.There are several aspects of this question we just don't know the answer to, but can make some educated guesses, which all need to be subject to rigorous, unbiased (i.e. not funded/sponsored by drug companies), scientifically valid research studies before anything could be required by statute.There are several groups who are of particular interest to get vaccinated, who could be required, or at least coerced.First, there are many groups of individuals who because of age, health problems, or medical therapy are at increased risk of severe disease (requiring expensive and increasingly scarce healthcare “system” resources such as ICU admission, mechanical ventilation) or death.These people, (assuming they are competent adults) have traditionally been given broad leeway in determining their own care when making informed decisions. Medical ethics refers to this as self-determination, even when the consequences are detrimental to the health of the individual. Western democracies have long supported an individual's right to make bad choices about their health, even if they refuse to accept the consequences.As is becoming increasingly obvious, we lack a true healthcare system, in spite of common funding (Medicare) for much of the critical care (including pre-COVID-19). Medicare spending in the last 30 days of someone's life often exceeds what was previously spent on their care.This is a common argument for certain “nanny state” regulations (e.g. seat belts, helmets) in that the individual choice doesn't just impact the life of the person (and family/friends) making the decision, but has a broader, typically substantial, societal cost that the individual dies not accept responsibility for.Second, there are people (like Typhoid Mary) who, as a group, are crucial to the spread of disease to others—even if they don't get particularly sick--by serving as a reservoir of disease, rapidly amplifying (higher rates of person-to-person spread than the rest of the community) the number infected, have large number of social interactions, are crowded/closely packed, and/or who have behaviors which serve to spread the disease.That's right: children. They have no notion of social distancing, even the child w/ a salon hair style and expensive designer hats comes home with headlice, they abhor any notion of hand hygiene, revel in sharing secretions (and worse), all designed to keep a virus they shed with little or no illness to tip off parents or teachers. They are favored visitors by grandparents and nursing homes alike. Experience has shown that if you want to reduce the number of deaths in nursing home you need to immunize school kids (e.g. for seasonal flu).From a public health perspective, anyone not old enough to buy a beer really should be immunized. Given the potential impact on teachers and other school personnel, as well as being an efficient means to spread the virus throughout a community school based immunization clinics, with very strict criteria for exceptions, should be instituted.Other cases of either ccrowding (e.g. jails and prisons) as well as the poor hygiene and frequent crowding in shelters experienced with the chaotic and fragmented lives of the homeless and urban poor indicate high priorities for public health and either required vaccines of crowded populations (which would include other institutionalized people, e.g. long-term care/nursing homes, shelters, retirement communities, group homes, and mental health hospitals) or aggressive public health outreach.There are people who society expects 24/7/365 performance, and who often are in close proximity to either co-workers or the public. This includes the obvious examples of first responders, law enforcement, and healthcare workers, but also those who firm part of the critical infrastructure of the us. This later group may have a less urgent mandate because missing a week or two of work, in isolation, doesn't seem like it would have a huge impact on others, and who may have little contact w/ other members of the public.Experience w/ the 1918 influenza epidemic showed that physician and nursing shortages were catastrophic. It also showed that grocery store employees, truck drivers, and particularly sanitation workers (esp. visible were weeks of trash piled curbside in hard hit communities) were essential to the overall health of a community.Besides frontline healthcare providers, public safety (police, fire, EMS), the other group which would be clearly required to be immunized would be members of armed forces. We need a healthy military in the face of destabilized regions previously under control (e.g. Iraq, Syria), loss if strategic relationships, and increased hegemony w/ Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and China. In addition, crowding is common in the military, esp. among the junior enlisted who share dining facilities, living quarters, as well as duty stations.In summary: it depends. Truely mandatory vaccination (if/when available) will be required for specific groups because of their public health impact in spreading disease, and/or critical role that group plays in maintaining health, safety, and security where workforce shortages have devastating effects.